California Proposition 93 (Term Limits)

PLEASE CROSS POST IMMEDIATELY

As luck would have it, California will have an opportunity on Tuesday
February 5 to help rid the state legislature of some of the worst
proponents of anti-dog and anti-cat legislation. It is not just
constituents in their legislative districts who can vote these
extremists out. Every registered California voter has the
opportunity to vote them out.

Now is a critical time for those who oppose the radical Animal Rights
agenda to make it clear to politicians that we are a powerful
constituency, and that legislators who pander to the extremist AR
agenda will lose their jobs. We can send letters and faxes to make
our case, but what matters most is how we vote.

A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Lloyd Levine terms
out at the end of 2008. Levine is the sponsor of the infamous AB
1634 mandatory spay/neuter bill.

A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Fabian Núñez
terms out at the end of 2008. Núñez is the Speaker of the
Assembly. Had Núñez not twisted arms before the "do over" vote in
the Assembly, AB 1634 would have died for good last Spring.

A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Loni Hancock terms
out at the end of 2008. Hancock sponsored a failed bill to ban the
several thousand year old tradition of field coursing with hounds.

A poll a few days ago showed Proposition 93 in a statistical tie.
Californians are waking up to the fact that Proposition 93 is bad.
Polls a few months ago had shown overwhelming support for it. But
the more Californians learn about Prop 93, the less support it has.

We only have two days remaining to spread the word.

If every Californian dedicated to preserving our rights as dog and
cat owners votes NO on Proposition 93 on February 5, and spreads the
word to others to do the same, that could be the decisive factor.

There are plenty of other good reasons to vote NO on Proposition 93:
- it is dishonestly worded to make it sound like it toughens
California's term limits, when in reality it weakens them - the
leadership that is promoting Proposition 93 promised it would be
paired with reform of California's corrupt and broken redistricting
process, but they broke that promise - it has a sweetheart clause that
allows even longer terms for Núñez and many others - newspapers on
the left and the right oppose Proposition 93
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080125/news_lz1ed25bottom.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/ED66UF359.DTL

Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net

Read More...

Return to the Blog...

Reintroduced New Jersey Bill Bad News For Breeders

Given below are extracts from the AKC Alert -

Quote

Assemblyman Neil Cohen and Assemblywoman Joan Voss have introduced
Assembly Bill 1591, a bill which threatens the rights of responsible
breeders in New Jersey. This bill is a reintroduction of 2006's AB
3401. Fanciers, concerned dog owners, and responsible breeders should
immediately contact their representatives in the New Jersey State
Legislature, and the members of the Assembly Agriculture and Natural
Resources Committee who will first hear this bill, and express their
vehement opposition to this bill.

The bill defines a "breeder" as any person who sells or offers to sell
more than five puppies per year. In addition to this incredibly low
threshold, the bill requires breeders to comply with a host of
restrictive regulations and institutes steep fines for violations.

AB 1591 also prohibits any breeder from selling more than 25 dogs in one year.

AB 1591 goes far beyond encouraging responsible breeding. Under AB
1591, all breeders would be required to comply with draconian
regulations including maintaining specified temperatures, keeping
animals only on nonporous surfaces, and circulating air at precise
levels. The measure further mandates the acceptable dimensions for
crates and runs, and sets minimum socialization standards. Finally,
all breeders are required to register annually with the Department of
Health. This list will be published and made available to the public.

All breeders are required to furnish specified information to pet
purchasers and provide a full refund for any reason for a pet returned
within 14 days. Any dog which is sold with a pedigree can be returned
for a full refund within 26 months if any congenital or genetic
defects are discovered.

Violations can be punished with monetary fines or suspension of thelicense to sell pets. A first violation can result in a prohibition
on selling cats or dogs for five years and subsequent offenses can add
an additional five years for each violation. Civil penalties may also
be administered. For a first offense, a breeder shall be fined $5,000
and for a second offense the breeder may be fined $10,000 for each
subsequent offense. A member of the public who supplies information
that results in fines or suspension will be eligible for an award of
10 percent of the civil penalty or $250, whichever is greater.

unquote

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Write to the following using the formats drafted by Jim Honda of the
USA at the request of Pedro Jiminez - Regional Director who are
orchestrating the efforts by the USA to defeat this legislation.

These formats are given below in the next posting.

Assemblywoman Joan M. Voss
District 38
520 Main Street
Fort Lee, NJ 07024

Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, Esquire
District 20 (Union)
985 Stuyvesant Avenue
Union, NJ 07083

Assemblyman Douglas H. Fisher, Chair
14 East Commerce St.
3rd Floor
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
(856) 455-1011

Assemblyman Nelson Albano, Vice-Chair
21 North Main St.
Cape May Court House, NH 08210
(609) 465-0700

Assemblyman John F. Amodeo

Assemblyman Herb Conaway, Jr.
Delran Professional Center
Suite 125
8008 Route 130 North
Delran, NJ 08075
(856) 461-3997

Assemblywoman Marcia A. Karrow
1 Maple Avenue
Flemington, NJ 08822
(908) 782-5127

Contact your own state Assemblyperson and Senator. Express your
opposition to AB 1591, and urge them to do the same. To find out who
represents you in the New Jersey State Assembly and State Senate, go
to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/
districts/municipalities.asp.

end

Read More...

Return to the Blog...

Letters to protest - New Jersey Bill

Example of Letter to be sent to each legislative member.
Drafted by Jim Honda Esquire

Please copy and change as appropriate

TO BE SENT TO ASSEMBLYMAN COHEN FROM NJ RESIDENTS

January 30, 2008

Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, Esquire
District 20 (Union)
985 Stuyvesant Avenue
Union, NJ 07083

By: USPS, Email and Fax To Both Your Office and Law Firm

Re: Bill A1591 –WITHDRAW IT, PLEASE!!

Dear Assemblyman Cohen:

I am a New Jersey resident who has compiled this correspondence to
record my opposition to the above-referenced proposed legislation and
to offer the reasoning therefore with the hope that you will withdraw
same.

Rather than offering a vacuous and unascertainable statement that many
of your constituents in this state share the same sentiment as me, I
have asked concerned citizens from both the state of NJ and beyond its
borders to contact you and your peers in the assembly regarding this
so that you can personally measure the vehement opposition to this
bill. In addition, since I feel so passionately that your
well-intended legislation is misguided and improper, I have asked a
number of national working and service dog organizations for support
and publicity of this issue and soon, this cause will be espoused and
featured on well-perused websites.

After several careful readings of your bill, I surmise that your
legislative intent is to:

- ensure the health and well-being of dogs, puppies, cats and kittens
- to increase the chances of consumers who buy dogs, puppies, cats and
kittens in NJ of buying a "quality" pet, one that is free of
communicable diseases and congenital defects.

Again, your legislative intent is commendable, but your actions are
misguided because:

New Jersey law ALREADY provides consumers protection in the form of
the Pet Purchase Protection Act of 1999 (aka The Puppy Lemon
Law—Assembly # 960, 208th Legislature, Adopted 3/11/1999)

The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (see Subchapter 12 of
N.J.A.C. 13:45A-1 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq., Consumer Fraud
Act.) also has jurisdiction to afford aggrieved pet purchasers with a
remedy

The Department of Health and Senior Services already provides a list
of licensed kennels and pet shops.

I understand that your bill attempts to provide further protections by
providing additional requirements and narrower definitions both
numerically and in terms of the vernacular, but with all due respect,
your bill will not achieve any of the purposes you seek to attain. The
problem cannot be solved with more legislation, Assemblyman Cohen. The
problem can only be solved by educating the public so that consumers
who purchase puppies are cognizant of what to look for and what
questions to ask. Once consumers are educated about what constitutes a
good dog, puppy, cat or kitten, they will naturally purchase from
legitimate and principled breeders who care about quality. Once
consumers are educated, they will be less likely to purchase on a whim
from a pet store located on a well-traversed highway or through a
newspaper or bulletin board advertisement designed specifically to
entice the uneducated consumer. Once consumers are educated even pet
stores on well-traversed highways will have no choice but to work with
ethical breeders when selling puppies. At this time, as we know, even
with the legislation in effect, puppy mill- bred pups are offered for
sale throughout our fine state.

Education can be a key ally in your cause but it is obvious that you
do not consider it important. Fines imposed under your legislation
would go to an Animal Population Control Fund and the Department of
Health but none would go directly towards setting up any type of Board
or Program that would encourage responsible pet owning practices.

Your legislation is actually (and literally) dangerous because:

- limiting a person to selling 25 dogs focuses on an arbitrary and
capricious number rather than on quality.

- placing a 25 dog limitation will deprive some of a source of
livelihood and others of a source of income. This will inure to the
benefit of out of state competitors who are not subject to such a
limitation.

- Your legislation would be adhered to by law-abiding citizens and
entities but circumvented by conniving unscrupulous individuals and
organizations in the form of shell companies, fictitious persons, etc.
The person who does not have the common decency to properly care and
feed for a puppy or puppies has the same propensity to circumvent the
law.

- Placing an eight week limit on puppies offered for sale is just
insane. Do you realize how many puppies that have turned into stellar
working dogs would not have seen week 10 if your draconian bill was
passed and enforced? Surely, you cannot have intended this! Would the
child that takes too long to understand algebra be sentenced to an
orphanage or gas chamber? No!

Assemblyman Cohen: The answer lies in educating the public. Your
efforts, time and money would be better spent on education:

- Inform consumers about the various theories of good breeding practices

- Inform consumers on the value of researching breeds and their
propensities in terms of physical size and temperament

- Inform consumers how beneficial it is to see the parents (sire and dam)

- Inform consumers how beneficial it is to talk with veterinarians,
dog owners, clubs, etc. PRIOR to purchase

- Inform consumers that there are a multitude of organizations that
promote performance (SAR, Agility, Herding, etc.) and conformation
(OFA, conformation shows, etc).

- Promote dog owners to obtain titles such as CGC (Canine Good
Citizen), BH (schutzhund) Therapy Dog and the like.

Once educational efforts permeate the public, the rotten apples will
naturally disappear. It is already obvious that legislation, alone,
has little to no impact since the unscrupulous are undeterred by it
since they find ways to circumvent it.

By this correspondence, I offer not only my opposition but my offer to
help should you wish to pursue alternative methods to obtaining what
we both want: the enjoyment of pets by the general public without the
grief, stress and loss of wages due to unnecessary vet bills, etc.

Thank you for your kind attention herein.

Sincerely,

______________________________________
(Name)

______________________________________
Contact Info)

Read More...

Return to the Blog...

Mandatory L.A Spay/Neuter Ordinance Passes

Dear Lyle,

Today a mandatory/spay neuter ordinance mandating sterilization at 4
months of age was passed by the Los Angeles City Council. The
supporters of this bill including PETA, Assemblymember Lloyd Levine
and Campaign Director Judie Mancuso are now moving to pass AB 1634, a
statewide mandatory/spay neuter bill for California.

PetPAC is announcing today a renewed campaign effort to defeat AB 1634
once and for all. As opponents of mandatory sterilization laws, we
must act immediately to stop these efforts to strip away the rights of
pet owners.

Our opponents have recently raised millions of dollars to take away
pet owners rights…today I am asking PetPAC members to once again
contribute so we can continue the fight to defeat AB 1634.

One of the arguments used to pass the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance
in Los Angeles was to prohibit ANY new dogs or cats from being born
until the shelters were emptied. Our opponents include radical
extremists who wish for the elimination of all family pets. Please
don't delay, we need your financial contribution today. Thank
you.Sincerely,

Bill Hemby
Chairman

P.S. Please contribute today and forward this message to your friends
and family.

Read More...

Return to the Blog...

Virginia - HB 1570, Companion animals; sterilization; penalty

THIS LETTER WAS ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY TO THE ENTIRE 22 MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, CHESAPEAKE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES WITH THE LETTERS SENT AS EMAIL ATTACHMENTS. HOPED THERE MIGHT BE SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE HALLWAYS. IT WAS ALSO FAXED TO THE MEMBERS WHO WERE ON THE AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE, SINCE THAT WAS THE COMMITTEE IT WAS REFERRED TO VERY LATE IN THE GAME.

AGAIN, SARA AND LYLE HAVE REPRESENTED THE USA APPROPRIATELY IN THE FIGHT AGAINST BSL.




January 26, 2008




The Honorable Harvey B. Morgan, Chairman
House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources
General Assembly Building
P.O. Box 406
Richmond, VA 23218

Subject: HB 1570, Companion animals; sterilization; penalty

Dear Delegate Morgan:

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America (USA) opposes HB 1570, which would mandate spay/neuter of nearly all dogs and cats in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This bill is based on a fundamentally flawed concept that has never worked anywhere.

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America was founded in 1975, and is a member club of the American Working Dog Federation. We have over 4,500 members nationally, with five clubs in Virginia. Our membership is comprised of sport dog enthusiasts, trainers, breeders, and families. We are dedicated to breeding, raising, and training working- and show-quality German Shepherd Dogs; and we offer working titles such as Schutzhund (tracking/obedience/protection), RH (search dog suitability), and HGH (herding). These titles demonstrate the working ability of the dogs. These dogs are used as police, military, explosive detection, narcotics detection, fire accelerant detection, border patrol, search and rescue, guide, and service dogs assisting the physically challenged members of our society. They are also used for the sport of Schutzhund and as treasured family companions.

The intent of HB 1570 is to reduce the number of dogs and cats in shelters. We contend, however, that it will not achieve that purpose, will be unenforceable, and will penalize responsible dog owners and breeders. Mandatory spay/neuter laws have proven ineffective in reducing shelter intakes or euthanasia rates in other parts of the country. There is no example of a mandatory spay/neuter law that has reduced shelter intake or euthanasia rates, though proponents try to spin the numbers and claim otherwise. HB 1570 will not save money; it will add bureaucracy and cost local jurisdictions and taxpayers more money.



San Mateo County, CA had the nation's first mandatory spay/neuter law. It was admitted to be a "disappointment" by its biggest backer, the Peninsula Humane Society. The PHS learned from experience that mandatory spay/neuter laws are ineffective, so they do not support a law that would impose it statewide in California. Los Angeles saw their animal control costs increase by 269% after they passed mandatory spay/neuter. Unfortunately, they still kill tens of thousands of dogs and cats each year.

The actual results of the Santa Cruz County, CA mandatory spay/neuter program are far different than those touted by the proponents of mandatory spay/neuter. The official statistics sent by Santa Cruz County to the California Department of Health Services do not match the claimed 60%+ decrease in shelter impounds between 1995 and 2003. There was only a modest 8% decrease in impounds for dogs, while impounds statewide dropped 17%. Santa Cruz shelter expenses nearly doubled since mandatory spay/neuter law took effect, increasing 93% while the state average for shelter expenses decreased 10%.

United Schutzhund Clubs of America – 2 – January 26, 2008


Over the same period, without mandatory spay/neuter laws, El Dorado, Mendocino, Monterey, Nevada, Placer, and Ventura counties all showed substantially greater reductions in the number of dogs euthanized
than did Santa Cruz, led by Nevada County with an 89% reduction. Passage of HB 1570 would eliminate the voluntary programs that have been so successful in many local jurisdictions.

The vast majority of responsible breeders of working dogs are not breeding for monetary gain. On the contrary, they dedicate their lives to this very demanding work, often at great financial sacrifice. HB 1570 appears on the surface to have reasonable exemptions for these responsible breeders, but it does not. A “hobby breeder” may only breed one litter, while responsible hobby breeding involves more than a single litter. A “fancier breeder” must prove they show in certain sanctioned dog competitions on a regular basis, with no definition of what is “regular.” A “breed improver” has to prove they do not derive income from breeding, but it is not realistic or advisable for any breeder to give away puppies for free. Even if the bill is amended to state the breeder must not derive net income, it will still be unrealistic because a dog owner would be required to submit the audited financial records of the breeder’s breeding program. This is not realistic or workable.

Police canines are vital tools for law enforcement, and many police departments are expanding their units.
The demand for explosive detection dogs skyrocketed after 9/11 and cannot currently be met. One police K9 handler stated that if she was given 1,000 suitable dogs, she could place them all immediately. These dogs are critically needed to fight terrorism in this country and elsewhere. Working dog breeders produce the dogs used for the various types of search and rescue activities, and a decrease in the availability of these dogs will bring with it an attendant reduction in the number of successful searches. Passage of legislation such as HB 1570 would decimate the availability of these types of dogs that contribute so much to us.

It is impossible to measure the contributions of a search and rescue dog that finds a lost child, a police service dog that keeps its handler from being injured or killed, a narcotics detection dog that intercepts a shipment of drugs, a military dog that guards our bases, the explosives detection dog working against terrorism, or a service dog that helps a physically-challenged person lead an independent life. These remarkable canines make an enormous contribution to their owners, handlers, and society. We hope you will not be part of the process that eliminates these canines from your state.

Rather than impose a strategy such as mandatory spay/neuter that has failed everywhere it has been attempted, the Commonwealth of Virginia should leverage the success that Charlottesville, VA has had in its animal shelters. This is the No Kill Equation as advanced by the No Kill Advocacy Center. Charlottesville, VA is saving 92% of the dogs and cats admitted to its open admissions shelter, making it a leader in a nation that routinely kills 50% of dogs and cats admitted. This success can only be accomplished when animal lovers within a community work cooperatively to save lives. This cooperative spirit has never occurred, and cannot occur, when government attempts to impose draconian spay/neuter mandates on dog and cat owners. These laws divide the community of animal lovers, and make No Kill success impossible.

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America strongly objects to HB 1570, as it will not achieve its intended purpose and will transgress the rights of law-abiding citizens. As has been clearly demonstrated with other mandatory spay/neuter laws, HB 1570 is impractical and would be ineffective in reducing the number of dogs and cats in shelters.

We respectfully ask that HB 1570 be either withdrawn or defeated. It cannot be fixed by amendments.

Very truly yours,

Lyle Roetemeyer

Read More...

Return to the Blog...

Los Angeles - Mandatory Spay/Neuter Motion (CF #07-1212) – Oppose

The following letter was, in the interest of time, emailed to the 15 LA Council Members by our Secretary, Sara Wallick. Kudos to her and Lyle. One of the Council members did respond advising that he will read it before the sessions.Hope the others do to.



January 29, 2008


Los Angeles City Council
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Subject: Mandatory Spay/Neuter Motion (CF #07-1212) – Oppose

Dear Councilmember:

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America (USA) opposes CF #07-1212, which would mandate spay/ neuter of nearly all dogs and cats in the City of Los Angeles. This bill is based on a fundamentally flawed concept that has never worked anywhere.

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America was founded in 1975 and has over 4,500 members nationally, with 33 clubs in California. Our membership is comprised of sport dog enthusiasts, trainers, breeders, and families. We are dedicated to breeding, raising, and training working- and show-quality German Shepherd Dogs; and we offer working titles such as Schutzhund (tracking/obedience/protection), RH (search dog suitability), and HGH (herding). All of these titles demonstrate the working ability of the dogs, and are those used by the German Shepherd Dog breed club in Germany. These dogs are used as police, military, explosive detection, narcotics detection, fire accelerant detection, border patrol, search and rescue, guide, and service dogs assisting the physically challenged members of our society. They are also used for the sport of Schutzhund and as treasured family companions.

The intent of CF #07-1212 is to reduce the number of dogs and cats in shelters. Unfortunately, it will not achieve that purpose, will be unenforceable, and will penalize responsible dog owners and breeders. Mandatory spay/neuter laws have proven ineffective in reducing shelter intakes or euthanasia rates in other parts of the country. There is no example of a mandatory spay/neuter law that has reduced shelter intake or euthanasia rates, though proponents try to spin the numbers and claim otherwise. CF #07-1212 will not save money; it will add bureaucracy, cost taxpayers more money, and merely shift the suppliers to underground operations and/or other sources.

San Mateo County, CA had the nation's first mandatory spay/neuter law. It was admitted to be a "disappointment" by its biggest backer, the Peninsula Humane Society. The PHS learned from experience that mandatory spay/neuter laws are ineffective, so they do not support a law that would impose it statewide in California.



The actual results of the Santa Cruz County, CA mandatory spay/neuter program are far different than those touted by the proponents of mandatory spay/neuter. The official statistics sent by Santa Cruz County to the California Department of Health Services do not match the claimed 60%+ decrease in shelter impounds between 1995 and 2003. There was only a modest 8% decrease in impounds for dogs, while impounds statewide dropped 17%. Santa Cruz shelter expenses nearly doubled since mandatory spay/neuter law took effect, increasing 93% while the state average for shelter expenses decreased 10%.

United Schutzhund Clubs of America – 2 – January 29, 2008


Over the same period, without mandatory spay/neuter laws, El Dorado, Mendocino, Monterey, Nevada, Placer, and Ventura counties all showed substantially greater reductions in the number of dogs euthanized
than did Santa Cruz, led by Nevada County with an 89% reduction. Passage of CF #07-1212 would eliminate the voluntary programs that have been so successful in many local jurisdictions.

Police canines are vital tools for law enforcement, and many police departments are expanding their units.
The demand for explosive detection dogs skyrocketed after 9/11 and cannot currently be met. One police K9 handler stated that if she was given 1,000 suitable dogs, she could place them all immediately. These dogs are critically needed to fight terrorism in this country and elsewhere. Working dog breeders produce the dogs used for the various types of search and rescue activities, and a decrease in the availability of these dogs will bring with it an attendant reduction in the number of successful searches. Passage of legislation such as CF #07-1212 would decimate the availability of these types of dogs that contribute so much to us.

It is impossible to measure the contributions of a search and rescue dog that finds a lost child, a police service dog that keeps its handler from being injured or killed, a narcotics detection dog that intercepts a shipment of drugs, a military dog that guards the bases in California, the explosives detection dog working against terrorism, or a service dog that helps a physically-challenged person lead an independent life. These remarkable canines make an enormous contribution to their owners, handlers, and society.

The exemptions offered in CF #07-1212 are vague and will not protect these types of dogs or many of the other types of dogs that contribute so much to us. AB 1634 was strongly opposed by well over 25,000 law enforcement officers, the assistance dog organizations, stock dog organizations, veterinarians, working dog organizations, and breed organizations.

Rather than impose a strategy such as mandatory spay/neuter that has failed everywhere it has been attempted, the City of Los Angeles should leverage the successes achieved elsewhere. Charlottesville, Virginia has used the No Kill Equation as advanced by the No Kill Advocacy Center and is saving 92% of the dogs and cats admitted to its open admissions shelter, making it a leader in a nation that routinely kills 50% of dogs and cats admitted. Please visit the Save our Dogs website, which has a wealth of information on the health consequences of early spay/neuter, the opposition to AB 1634 by the California Veterinary Medical Association, the failures of this type of legislation in other locations, and a partial list of the dog organizations which also oppose this type of legislation.

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America strongly objects to CF #07-1212, as it will not achieve its intended purpose and will transgress the rights of law-abiding citizens. As has been clearly demonstrated with other mandatory spay/neuter laws, CF #07-1212 is impractical and would be ineffective in reducing the number of dogs and cats in shelters.

We respectfully ask that CF #07-1212 be either withdrawn or defeated. It cannot be fixed by amendments.

Very truly yours,

Lyle Roetemeyer
President

Read More...

Return to the Blog...