AB 1634 - California Healthy Pets Act

Update as of April 20, 2007

The AKC has some recent updates and we encourage you to visit these -

1. this discusses how some of the local governments are proposing to adopt the provisions of AB 1634 locally even if it does not pass at a State level. Please click here.

2. the amendments to AB1634 and action recommended are given here.

We continue to urge our members to visit this site where we will provide guidance as available to help you fight the Bill and its residual action at a local level.

Read More...

Return to the Blog...

AB 1634 - California Healthy Pets Act

AB 1634 - California Healthy Pets Act

Update - April 13, 2007

Status

Based on information available to us, the California Assembly Business and Professions Committee (BNP) discussed Assembly Bill 1634 (Bill) on April 10. Those present were provided circa 6 minutes to state their name/address, organization (if any) and voice their approval or dissent with the Bill. No presentations per se were made.

Based such voting and also counting the letters received by the previous cut off date of March 31, 2007, there were 1318 (1100 Individuals and 218 Organizations) supporting and 1209 (1000 Individuals and 209 Organizations) dissenting. The USA is listed as one of the latter.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine is also making another revision to Bill which he is required to produce to the BNP by April 16. It is expected to be made public by April 17 (also the tax deadline). The BNP will meet again in a week, on April 24,to make a final determination on the Bill. No presentations are anticipated to be possible on this date.


Progression

If the Bill passes the BNP this is the expected progression -

- Appropriations Committee (who will examine the Dollars and Cents)
- Assembly Floor for a vote
- Senate Floor for a vote
- Governor for signature.

There will be opportunities at each of these stages to voice our dissent but ideally we should like to see it killed at the BNP level. We, however, need plan for any eventuality.

What should we do now?

1. If you have sent a letter before -

USA Clubs who have written to the BNP are encouraged to re-submit their letters by fax to reach the BNP before April 17 (although Tracy Rhine, the BNP Secretary has apparently advised that this is not necessary - it may still be useful in case the first letter has gone astray).

2. If you have not sent any letters as yet -

Clubs and individuals who have not written so far MUST submit their opposition to the Bill and a simple letter format is given below. Our take on this is that the contents of the communication are not being considered. It is merely going into two piles - one for and one against. Also given below are Committtee names and fax numbers.

PLEASE send the fax as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday, April 17. To preclude a pile up or a "fax Jam" - you should send it by Monday the latest.Please cut and paste the letter as appropriate.

As of date there are no further updates on this in the AKC or SOD sites but you are encouraged to visit them. The USA’s role is to provide some guidance to the membership but we are cognizant that given our size and representation; we need be followers and not necessarily take any lead on this. We will leave that role to the AKC, SOD etc and will work in coordination with them to the same end.
..............................

Format of Club Letter


(Club Name)
(Street Address)
(City/State/Zip Code)

April 13, 2007

The Honorable Mike Eng, Chair
Assembly Business and Professions Committee
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0049

Subject: AB 1634 (Levine/Amended) California Healthy Pets Act – OPPOSE

Dear Assemblyman Eng:

As a member of the United Schutzhund Clubs of America (USA), our club opposes AB 1634 for the reasons stated by our President in his letter sent to the Business and Professions Committee on March 30, 2007. Our club requests inclusion in the listed opposition to the bill.

Very truly yours,


(Your name)
(Your office title)

cc: Assembly Business and Professions Committee Members





Format of Member (Individual) Letter




April 13, 2007

The Honorable Mike Eng, Chair
Assembly Business and Professions Committee
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0049

Subject: AB 1634 (Levine/Amended) California Healthy Pets Act – OPPOSE

Dear Assemblyman Eng:

As a member of the United Schutzhund Clubs of America (USA), I oppose AB 1634 for the reasons stated by our President in his letter sent to the Business and Professions Committee on March 30, 2007. I request inclusion in the listed opposition to the bill.

Very truly yours,


(Your name)
(Your street address)
(Your city/state/zip code)

cc: Assembly Business and Professions Committee Members


......................................

ASSEMBLY BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE

Name and Fax Numbers

Ms. Tracy Rhine, Committee Consultant – 916-319-3306
Mr. Ted Blanchard, Assembly Republication Policy Consultant – 916-319-3902
Assemblyman Mike Eng, Chair – 916-319-2149
Assemblyman Bill Emmerson, Vice Chair –916-319-2163
Assemblywoman Karen Bass –916-319-2147
Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter –916-319-2162
Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi –916-319-2118
Assemblyman Edward Hernandez –916-319-2157
Assemblywoman Shirley Horton –916-319-2178
Assemblyman Bill Maze –916-319-2134 - Note Below
Assemblyman Curren Price –916-319-2151
Assemblyman Alberto Torrico –916-319-2120

Note

We understand that Bill Maze is opposing the Bill and has apparently requested that he not be sent any faxes.

Read More...

Return to the Blog...

Financial and Social Implications of Breed Specific Legislation

Compelling and interesting documentation well put together about BSL - primary focus on Canada, but filled with stories and statistics on 33 pages in pdf.

"Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is the systematic targeting of arbitrarily determined dog breeds. Often BSL is the knee-jerk reaction to media reports and incidents, which resulted in an injury or fatality cause by a specific dog breed. BSL does not attempt to correct the problem of bad owners, but rather it punishes all individuals who choose to own a breed, which has become targeted by ill informed legislators.

Throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries a variety of dog breeds have been targeted as vicious breeds and subject to legislation and targeted media reports. Several of the targeted breeds included the Doberman Pinscher, the German Shepherd, Saint Bernard and Rottweiler.
Any dog, which is known to be a threat to public health and safety should be properly restrained, confined, and, when warranted, destroyed. As dog bites are indicative of an individual dog’s nature or upbringing, to pre-determine that a particular breed is more susceptible to biting is a hard to substantiate claim.

As a result of a breed ban in France, individuals sought out a replacement for their watchdogs. Rather than choose another dog breed, they smuggled Barbary Apes into the country to act as watchdogs as the apes are extremely strong, have sharp teeth, and are very short tempered.

Breed-specific legislation has several weaknesses including vague identification standards as well as under and over inclusiveness. Breed specific legislation targets all dogs which may have the physical characteristics of the targeted breed. The use of a set of standards to eliminate a dog, which meets 50% of any standard, could result in non-banned dogs being subject to muzzles, isolation, destruction or abandonment by their owners. In several jurisdictions, it is the owner’s responsibility to identify the breed of their dog during licensing and routine veterinary examinations, which further complicates the identification process. The question then arises: which standards does a jurisdiction use – a physical attributes test, a behavioral test, the use of expert breeders to determine breed, or non-experts. Breed bans should not be used as a quick fix. The solution lies with effective animal control and enforcement, responsible owners, education programs, reputable breeders, and reliable data."

Read more

Read More...

Return to the Blog...