CA- "Forcible entry" GRANTED

“FORCIBLE ENTRY” GRANTED….. Orange County, CA dog Owner
July 10, 2009
SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff? Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California. Approximately 5,000 views of this post so far, indicate this is a valid concern for all owners. This is the type of stuff that should not be happening, yet it is.

It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license. Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged. No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that. Read it for yourself.

IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:

“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives. Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”

What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling? It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony. So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog?

Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.

This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles. Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building! And that’s after his dogs were seized!

It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises. The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.

SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware. H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.
TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, TO PUSH H$U$ anti-pet legislation. By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing, these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!

And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!

CA- New data shows LA shelter admissions and euthanasia 11x higher than state average

New Data Shows Slaughterhouse
After Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Law

LA Shelter Admissions and Euthanasia 11 Times Higher Than
State Average, Predict Disaster If SB 250 Becomes State Law

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 10. 2009) – Yesterday, the California Department of Public Health released 2008 annual data for every county’s animal shelter system.

In comparison to 2007 data, last year saw an expected increase in shelter admissions, owner surrenders, abandoned dogs and euthanasia rates that can be attributed mostly to the severe recession that has devastated the entire state’s economy.

But one county’s animal control and sheltering program stood out as being 11 times worse off than the rest of the state: Los Angeles County, which passed a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance last year. The data conclusively proves the murderous impact of pet sterilization mandates that far exceeds anything that can be attributed to the statewide recession.

This data has special importance now, as the California Assembly is considering Senate Bill 250, which would mandate the sterilization of almost every dog in the state, either directly or indirectly. If California follows the path of destruction caused by the Los Angeles ordinance, passage of SB 250 will become an unfunded mandate to the counties to handle 11 times as many dogs and cats at animal shelters, and to kill 11 times more of them, the data shows clearly.

If the state mirrors the Los Angeles statistics, counties would have to pay for handling 4.4 million dogs and cats a year (up from 402,430 in 2008), and killing 1.7 million dogs (up from 153,793 in 2008).

It is IMPERATIVE for California dog owners and animal lovers to make this information available to members of the California General Assembly, and especially to members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which has set a July 15 hearing on SB 250. Contact information will be provided below.

Here is a summary of yesterday’s release of the statewide shelter data:

· In 2008, 404,430 animals were admitted to shelters statewide, an increase of 42,422 from 2007. That is an 11.8-percent increase.

· In 2008, 96,630 animals were admitted to the Los Angeles County sheltering system, which is a 55,178 increase from 2007. This is a 133-percent increase in the year after a spay/neuter mandate was passed into law. If compared to the state, it is apparent that Los Angeles County alone exceeded the entire statewide increase in shelter admissions, and is 11 times higher than the state average.

· Euthanasia data is equally dramatic. In 2008, the entire state saw a 16.4-percent increase in euthanasia, to 153,793 (an increase of 21,677).

· However, almost all of the entire statewide increase in shelter euthanasia came from Los Angeles County alone, in the year following a mandatory pet sterilization ordinance. The Los Angeles County shelter system euthanasia rate rose by an incredible 178-percent in the year following the ordinance. In 2007, 12,118 dogs had to be killed in the county. In 2008, this soared to 33,601 dogs.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance wants our readers to check out the official shelter data, and to verify that all of our assertions are true and accurate. We are not exaggerating. This is how the official data adds up.

Here is a link to view the data: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discon....Activities.aspx
The data shows many other things that accurately predict the bloody outcome of a mandatory pet sterilization law, such as SB 250.

In Los Angeles, following the spay/neuter ordinance, this has included a 107-percent increase in animal control captures of abandoned dogs, a 163-percent increase in owner surrenders by people who cannot afford to keep their pets and comply with the law, and a 153-percent increase in abandoned dogs brought to the shelters by good Samaritans, the official state data shows.

The images of what would happen statewide if SB 250 passes are truly frightening to comprehend, based on what actually has happened in Los Angeles, and what also has happened in every community in America that has passed a similar law.

The results will be dramatic increases in municipal costs for animal control and sheltering, with the most terrible price paid by the millions of dogs that will be killed needlessly because of this kind of law.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action, before the Assembly Committee on Appropriations holds a hearing on SB 250 on July 15. It is urgent that a large number of Californians – not just dog owners, but everyone who cares - express clear opposition to SB 250, which is very close to being passed into law.

Remember that the Appropriations Committee deals mostly with financial aspects of legislation, such as the outlay of government funds.

Please phone and also email each member of the committee as soon as possible. Members of legislative committee represent all Californians, not just their own constituents. Here is contact information for all of the committee members:

Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Kevin de Leon - Chair Dem-45 (916) 319-2045 Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Ammiano Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Charles M. Calderon Dem-58 (916) 319-2058 Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Joe Coto Dem-23 (916) 319-2023 Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Michael D. Duvall Rep-72 (916) 319-2072 Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov
Felipe Fuentes Dem-39 (916) 319-2039 Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov
Isadore Hall III Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov
Diane L. Harkey Rep-73 916) 319-2073 Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov
Jeff Miller Rep-71 (916) 319-2071 Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov
John A. Pérez Dem-46 (916) 319-2046 Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov
Nancy Skinner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
Audra Strickland Rep-37 (916) 319-2037 Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Torlakson Dem-11 (916) 319-2011 Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

The California Legislature is slated to adjourn on July 18 for summer recess, and SB 250 could face a vote of the full Assembly on July 17.

To read our analysis of the legislation, please visit http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.....neral&thread=48
To read the actual text of the legislation, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill....d_sen_v95.html.
Thank you for helping California pet owners and the dogs and cats that they love.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .

CA- 65-Year-Old Women Faces Jail Time for Feeding Cats

65-Year-Old Woman Faces Jail Time For Feeding Cats Amanda Peabody
Published 07/02/2009 - 6:29 p.m. CST

Katherine Varjian, 65, had been feeding feral cats, or felines that are not under her ownership, in her Beverly Hills neighborhood for the past 12 years. The Beverly Hills Municipal Court will now decide whether or not her actions are within the confines of the law.

Varjian was feeding between 20 and 30 cats daily in the alley behind the 100-200 blocks of Palm, Maple and Oakhurst Drives. She was issued citations twice for this behavior – first in January of this year, then again in February. The violation is considered a misdemeanor by the City and will be heard by Beverly Hills criminal court. The charge carries with it a possible six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.

The problem lies in a deleted code (5-2-104, subdivision B and C).

In an effort to streamline practices when handling animal control, the City retained the City of Los Angeles’ Animal Services Department for certain animal care and control services, consequently adopting their ordinances.

“As part of the adoption of the Los Angeles animal control regulations, provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code that were designed to prevent the feeding of animals, including stray and feral cats, in such a manner that attracts coyotes and other predatory animals or otherwise endangers the health, safety and welfare of the general public, were inadvertently deleted,” said Cheryl Burnett, City spokesperson.

The code explicitly prohibits the feeding of feral cats and dogs on any public property, any property that is open to the public or any private property is not completely enclosed by a secured wall.

It is under this omitted code that Varjian has been charged.

Although Varjian has taken what is argued as excellent care of these cats – routinely spaying, neutering and adopting out kittens through various local organizations – her actions have also created a nuisance in the neighborhood, said local residents.

“(Varjian’s feeding of the feral cats) is a big problem that is not being looked at realistically,” said resident Darian Bojeaux. “The food brings coyotes to the neighborhood. Neighbors have had to clean up excess food. It brings roaches and I am afraid for my own pets.”

Bojeaux and several other neighbors organized a petition against Varjian, asking her to stop feeding the alleged feral cats; 30-40 signatures were secured.

“Varjian has spayed and neutered at her own expense countless feral cats and has probably done more in the City to control the homeless cat population,” said Ben Lehrer, president of Kitten Rescue (www.kittenrescue.org), an organization that rescues stray, abandoned or sheltered cats and kittens that are slated for euthanasia from the surrounding area.

According to Lehrer, Varjian has adopted out over 120 cats and kittens, a vast majority from her neighborhood, he says.

The court will now decide whether or not to proceed with charges against Varjian in a hearing slated for Aug. 7 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel for Varjian has requested dismissal of the case (two counts were dismissed at Wednesday’s preliminary hearing) based on the grounds that Varjian has been charged against a non-existent code.

The City Council will be addressing an urgency ordinance either correcting the omission or clarifying its non-presence at the July 7 meeting.

CA- New pet proposal needs to be sterilized

LOCAL VIEWS: New pet proposal needs to be sterilized

By MICHAEL M. ROSEN - For the North County Times | Sunday, July 5, 2009 12:11 AM PDT

"If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence," Will Rogers once said, "try ordering somebody else's dog around."

California legislators must have precisely such a glorified view of their own power, as the state Senate in June narrowly approved Senate Bill 250, a proposal that would mandate the sterilization of most cats and dogs.

The measure would require owners to sterilize all dogs and cats within six months of birth or otherwise obtain an "unaltered dog or cat license," if the governing city or county provides such a license. Thus, if your municipality hasn't set up a licensing system for "unaltered" animals, you may have no choice but to neuter Fido.

And even if the owner obtains an unaltered pet license, any violation of a state, city or county ordinance "relating to the care and control of animals" ---- including permitting the pet to "roam at large" ---- could result in revocation of the license. So if Fido escapes from your house, even once, kiss the canine jewels good-bye, even if they're licensed.

Worst of all, that same violation could preclude you from ever getting a license again.

Needless to say, the bill is bad news for pet owners. It's costly, it's unfair and it doesn't work. The good news? There's still time to stop it.

After squeaking past the Senate on a 21-16 party-line vote, following a failed first reading, the measure on Tuesday passed through the Assembly's Business and Professions Committee.

Next up: the Appropriations Committee, where tougher sledding is expected, considering the state's horrific budget problems.

Last week, the California Department of Finance concluded the bill "would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund," in part because "given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines."

Proponents of the bill contend that the state budget won't take a hit because implementation will be foisted onto cities and counties. Even if that's true, though, how is it any better to shift the costs to struggling local governments?

As Valley Center's Susan Sholar, the legislative chairman of the Silver Bay Kennel Club, asked me (rhetorically), "why do our state officials seem more worried about mandatory castration of our pets instead of balancing a budget, keeping our teachers in the classroom and our fire and police department up to full manpower?"

Basic fairness to pet owners is another major concern. The moderate National Animal Interest Alliance decried the bill's "one-strike-and-you're-out" policy, which includes minor offenses.

And opposition to SB 250 spans the ideological spectrum, notwithstanding the party-line vote approving the bill. One self-styled "progressive" criticized the measure in the San Francisco Chronicle for "forc[ing] low-income families to obtain a veterinary procedure they cannot afford while imposing penalties and fees, all under the threat of having to surrender the pet to animal control authorities-during a recession, no less."

Foes of the bill also include the ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association, while proponents of force sterilization, not surprisingly, include radical animal rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.

One other wrinkle: traditional Judaism, among other faiths, prohibits animal sterilization as contrary to nature. God endows his creatures with the ability to "be fruitful and multiply," and we usurp his role when we destroy that endowment. While SB 250 contains loopholes, it still imposes a heavy burden on the practice of religious beliefs. In its lawsuit seeking to overturn on constitutional grounds the city of Los Angeles's forced sterilization program, Concerned Dog Owners of California cited this concern.

Critics of the bill also question the effectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Indeed, one study of Santa Cruz County's compulsory sterilization program found the county's euthanasia rates were substantially higher than in adjacent counties with no such laws and 44 percent higher than in San Diego County.

Similarly, an NAIA report established that the city of Los Angeles's dog euthanasia rate declined by 67 percent during the five years prior to its enactment of a mandatory spay-neuter law and leaped by 30 percent afterward. These are deeply disturbing statistics.

Ultimately, "if people want to have the dogs we love in the future," one North County woman with a therapy dog told me, "we need to fight for our rights and against law-abiding dog owners being turned into criminals."

Or, as Will Rogers might have said, let's persuade Sacramento to stop ordering our pets around.

MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.

CA- Legislators consider a limit on pet ownership

California Legislators Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats

California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.

Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.

AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.

PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.

In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.

Click here to view the bill.

http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT

California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.

Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.

AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.

PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.

In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.

CA- City Curbs Dog Rescuers

City curbs dog rescuers

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12387736?source=email
By Dana Bartholomew dana.bartholomew@dailynews.com 818-713-3730 I
Staff Writer
Updated: 05/16/2009 11:56:45 PM PDT
The pooches can cost up to $750. Only they're not breeder dogs but
pound hounds rescued for $40 or less from city animal shelters.

Los Angeles officials have accused private rescuers of cherry-picking
their finest Fidos at cut-rate fees, then selling them for profit.

But allegations surrounding a new city ordinance to ban the practice
have provoked howls from

animal rescue groups who say their veterinary and boarding costs far
exceed returns from marked-up adoptions.

"It's outrageous. I'm so ... mad there's smoke coming out of my ears,"
said Pnina Gersten of Sherman Oaks, who finds shelter animals for many
nonprofit animal rescue agencies. "They do not sell dogs. Everyone is
in the red. You cannot make money off of this. It's impossible."

"It's insane, ridiculous," added Melya Kaplan of Voice for the Animals
in Venice, which charges $150 per dog after spending an average of
$500 per canine. "I don't know of any rescuer making any money and
going to the Bahamas."

The outcry followed a May 8 vote by the City Council to restrict
nonprofit rescue groups from selling shelter animals obtained at
discount rates for more than their cost of upkeep.

The ordinance also allows annual audits of city-approved rescue
agencies.

The city was prepared to give such rescue groups first choice of
mostly dogs and cats - with fees waived for selected agencies. But out
of concerns about gifts of public property, officials opted to
maintain rules that allow residents to choose animals on the first day
they are available, after which those rescue groups - called New Hope
Partners - can rescue the pets in their two-week life at six city
shelters.

Higher adoption prices

The public now pays the city up to $91 to adopt a dog and $68 for a
cat. While more than 80 approved rescue groups now pay only the $40
spay-neuter fee, according to a new fee schedule, many then post
substantially higher adoption prices.

One rescue partner, Beagles and Buddies, demanded donations from $150
to $750 per dog, "depending on the age and the breed," according to
its Web site. The El Monte agency did not return calls last week.

More typical private rescue adoption fees from mutts to purebreds
range from $200 to $500 per dog.

"There was a concern that there might be some bad players who might
take the animals and sell them," Councilman Richard Alarc n said last
week. "I believe that if a nonprofit organization is getting a
donation for the dog that exceeds the cost of its administration ...
it might appear to be a giveaway of public funds.

"We wanted the animals to be distributed fairly."

The decision to limit pet profiteering followed a letter from a former
rescuer that pressed the city to amend its plan to grant rescuers
first dibs on the most desirable animals - then re-sell them at higher
cost.

Phyllis Daugherty had also supplied city officials with a list of
approved rescue groups and their posted adoption fees.

"I had no idea that this would make this uproar," said Daugherty,
director of Animal Issues Movement and a former city employee. "I just
assumed that everyone knew they were selling them to recover the cost.

CA- Assembly Bill 241 to be heard TOMORROW

CA AB 241 to Limit Ownership of Intact Animals

California Assembly Bill 241, which will prohibit businesses and individuals who buys or sells cats and dogs from owning more than a combined total of 50 intact dogs or cats, will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 14th. There is no age threshold included in the bill so we believe that the limit of 50 appears to include puppies and kittens.

The bill will allow a peace officer, humane society officer or animal control officer to investigate a complaint of this section or of his/her own volition inspect the records of an individual or business or to physically inspect any place where dogs or cats are bred or maintained. It provides that an officer may inspect the premises during daytime operating hours and if the premises includes a home, the officer is required to obtain consent of the owner, tenant or resident before entering the home.

The measure will NOT apply to a publicly operated animal control facility or animal shelter, a veterinary facility, a retail pet store, or a research facility.

Point to Make:
1. Newly proposed laws should NEVER exempt animal shelters- what is good breeding, housing, sanitation conditions for a breeder is also good for a shelter. If these practices are being proposed "for the dog"- then it it should apply to shelters too
2. Numerical limits do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper care.

What You Can Do:

Attend the Assembly Public Safety Committee Hearing to Oppose AB 241

April 14th, 9:00am
State Capitol, Room 126
Sacramento, CA 95814
Please contact your State Assemblymember and ask him or her to oppose AB 241. To find out who represents you in the State Assembly, please click here.
Contact the author and members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and express your opposition to AB 241.
Assemblymember Pedro Nava (Author)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0035
Tel: (916) 319-2035
Fax: (916) 319-2135

Assembly Public Safety Committee
Legislative Office Building
1020 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax (916) 319-3745

Assemblymember Jose Solorio (Chair)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Tel: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169

Assemblymember Curt Hagman (Vice-Chair)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0060
Tel: (916) 319-2060
Fax: (916) 319-2160

Assemblymember Warren Furutani
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
Tel: (916) 319-2055
Fax: (916) 319-2155

Assemblymember Danny Gilmore
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0030
Tel: (916) 319-2030
Fax: (916) 319-2130

Assemblymember Jerry Hill
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119

Assemblymember Fiona Ma
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
Tel: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112

Assemblymember Nancy Skinner
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114

CA- Manteca- Dog Owners on neutering: It bites

Dog Owners on neutering: It bites
They say it is wrong response to series of dog maulings

By Jason Campbell
Reporter
jcampbell@mantecabulletin.com
209-249-3544

POSTED March 31, 2009 2:20 a.m.
It was a discussion about dogs in heat.

And it definitely got heated.

More than two dozen dog owners stridently defended their position against a possible ordinance that would make the fixing of all dogs mandatory under city law if the City Council were to approve the same piece of legislation that is already in place the similarly sized City of Santa Cruz.

The council is expected to discuss the possible ordinance – which tentatively includes exceptions for recognized show dogs, livestock dogs, police dogs, or assistance dogs in addition to city-licensed breeders – when they meet again on Tuesday, April 7, at 7 p.m. at the Civic Center, 1001 W. Center St.

While the reasons behind the opposition varied from person to person, the overwhelming consensus presented to Police Chief Dave Bricker was clear – leave man’s best friend alone.

“I think that registering your dog is the responsible thing to do, and it’s something that every owner should take care of,” resident Mike Learned said. “But making it mandatory to spay or neuter your animal makes it seem like we’re living in a dictatorship.

“It just doesn’t seem responsible for the government to be mandating something like that.”

And of all of the owners and supporters who turned out for the meeting, Learned – who has two labs of his own at home – might have been the only one in the crowd that has seen the outcome of the brutal maulings that are heavily publicized and often include certain breeds that are left unattended.

During his tenure working as a nurse in Modesto, Learned saw several instances where owners left their animal alone only to come back to find it brutally attacking either another family member or a stranger who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The end result, he says, almost always includes people talking about how if they dog had been spayed or neutered it never would have happened.

“I have two labs at home, and the female that’s fixed is the one that always makes a break for it and takes off down the street if she gets even the slightest chance, and the male that isn’t fixed could care less – he just tags along because she went,” Learned said jokingly. “Just because a dog is fixed doesn’t always mean you’re going to know how it will react.

“I have a real understanding of what happens to the victims in these maulings. There are a lot of dogs around here that are bred to fight, and when an owner irresponsibly leaves that dog with a very large bite around somebody that it’s not familiar with bad things can happen. But this seems like it’s just a mommy ordinance – where someone does something bad and everyone has to pay for it.”

At the start of the meeting Bricker told those in attendance that the entire issue was born out of a series of dog maulings last year and eventually prompted the council to look into passing an ordinance making the sterilization of certain breeds mandatory.

That initial proposal was eventually adapted to include all dogs to both control the overall population and address the concerns that people may have about large dogs or others that commonly end up the subject of horror stories that people end up reading about.

It’s an idea, Bricker said, that will definitely be shaped by what the dog owners and responsible citizens want to see – noting that it’s not those people that the city is trying to hurt by looking into this.

“Responsible pet owners that keep their animals confined and enclosed aren’t going to have a problem with the Manteca Police Department,” Bricker said. “But if you’re an irresponsible pet owner with your animal out running the streets or if we find it unattended, then that would be a violation of this ordinance and we would proceed accordingly.”

Bricker encouraged all who attended the informational meeting Monday to show up at the next council meeting to share their concerns if they feel his report doesn’t adequately represent their thoughts.

CA- City of Manteca meeting tonight on mandatory spay/ neuter law for all dogs over six months

Meeting Monday on plan to neuter all city dogs

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/2640/

By Dennis Wyatt
Managing Editor
dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
209-249-3532

Pit bulls and related breeds in Manteca are required by city law to be neutered or spayed.

Now city leaders think it is a good idea to make owners of all dogs - with a few notable exceptions - to have their canines fixed.

Dog owners and the general public have a chance Monday to say what they think of the plan as well as make suggestions on what the city should or shouldn't do during a meeting at 6 p.m. at the Civic Center council chambers at 1001 W. Center St. Police Chief Dave Bricker will conduct the meeting.

Exemptions to the spaying and neutering requirement as the proposed ordinance now stands would be licensed show dogs, livestock dogs, police dogs, breeders licensed by the city, or assistance dogs.

A mandatory neutering and spaying law would work for all dogs over six months of age within Manteca's city limits. That means if Manteca Animal Control picks up your stray dog for wandering the streets you may have to pay in excess of $100 to have it spayed or neutered in addition to impound fees and paying for a license if you do not have one.

City officials estimate there are 20,000 dogs in Manteca of which just fewer than 3,000 are licensed. To obtain a license or to renew a dog license you'd have to proof your dog has been neutered or spayed.

CA- Local Battles- that need to be addressed on the local level

Laguna Woods, CA – The City of Laguna Woods is considering an ordinance requiring spay/neuter of all dogs over four months of age, with few exceptions. These exceptions include a dog “used to show, compete, or breed”, so long as the dog has competed in at least 3 events in a calendar year, earned a title from a purebred registry, or is registered with a purebred breed club. Service animals and dogs unable to be spayed/neutered are also exempted. The AKC wrote a letter to the Laguna Woods City Council expressing our opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws. The ordinance will be discussed at a future meeting.

Laguna Woods, CA – The Laguna Woods City Council passed an ordinance to limit ownership to three dogs or cats per household in the community. While this is an increase on the previous limit of one dog or cat, the AKC still opposes laws that limit dog ownership, as they are difficult to enforce and do not address the issue of responsible dog ownership.

Riverside County, CA – The Riverside County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to enact an ordinance that will require an impounded dog be spayed/neutered, even on a first offense. Spaying/neutering will also be required if the owner is cited for three violations of the animal control ordinance. The ordinance further requires all dogs to be microchipped. The Government Relations Department posted a legislative alert, wrote a letter opposing these changes and worked to support local breeders, owners and fanciers in educating the Board of Supervisors on these issues.
The Board also established a committee to define “breeder” and evaluate the success of the ordinance over the next year. Responsible dog owners who are interested in serving on this committee, which will be comprised equally of supporters and opponents of the ordinance, should contact their representative on the Board of Supervisors.

Santa Barbara County, CA – In 2007, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors declined to pass a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and created a task force to study animal control issues including shelter population issues in the county. A dedicated group of local fanciers, owners and breeders has been attending these meetings, but more help is needed! If you live in the Santa Barbara County area, please consider attending the task force meeting and speak up for the rights of responsible breeders and owners. AKC has sent a letter to the task force and a sample letter to all our constituents in the county.

Lancaster, CA – The City of Lancaster has adopted an ordinance which requires the mandatory spaying/neutering of all Rottweilers, and “pit bulls,” defined as American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, or any dog with the characteristics of these breeds. The legislation also enhances penalties for dogs deemed dangerous or vicious.

Ukiah, CA – The Ukiah City Council has passed an ordinance which will change the term “owner” to “guardian” in the city code. The AKC has sent a letter opposing the change and supporting the term “owner,” as it places responsibility on people for the care and actions of their dogs. AKC has also provided educational pamphlets to local residents to use in educating their elected officials.

Shelter animals transferred from one shelter to another to help fulfill a "wish list"

Shelter animals from Kern County transferred to SLO County
Nearly two dozen dogs from a Kern County animal shelter will be transferred to the San Luis Obispo County Animal Shelter because of continued higher than normal vacancy rates.

Local shelter staff will receive 21 puppies and small adult dogs from the Bakersfield Animal Shelter that will be available for adoption.

"This exchange of animals benefits residents of [SLO County] by providing them with the opportunity to adopt smaller dogs and puppies which are not commonly available in our local shelters which simultaneously helping neighboring Kern County avoid the unnecessary euthanasia of several savable animals" according to a news release from SLO County's Animal Services Division.
This is the third transfer of animals to the local shelter.

Many of the dogs were selected to fulfill a "wish list" left with the local Animal Services Dept. from residents who had been unable to find the specific type of dog they wanted to adopt.

Many of the animals, ranging from Chihuahuas to Shepherd mix puppies, will be available for adoption beginning today.

--Sona Patel

CA- SB 250 The Pet Responsibility Act

This is what the Animal Rights have to say about this bill. They LOVE It.
SACRAMENTO, CA - FEBRUARY 24, 2009 - Social Compassion in
> Legislation, in conjunction with Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez
> (D-Shafter), today announced a new spay and neuter state bill, SB
> 250 -- The Pet Responsibility Act.
>
>
> "Every year in California, approximately one million pets enter into
> our shelters and more than half are killed," said Judie Mancuso,
> founder of Social Compassion in Legislation. "The fact that pets
> are not required to be spayed and neutered statewide causes massive
> unwanted breeding and a major pet overpopulation crisis. This new
> bill will not only help save the lives of millions of loving
> animals, it will also help save money for California taxpayers.
> It's a win-win for everyone."
> Joined at the Capitol by animal welfare advocates and celebrities
> from hit shows like The Bachelor and Rock of Love, the bill aims to
> drastically reduce the half million cats and dogs that are
> euthanized in California shelters each year. The policy change will
> benefit the California taxpayers who spend a quarter of a billion
> dollars housing and killing unwanted pets each year, as well as the
> shelter workers who must deal with that sad reality each day.
>
> "From a moral and ethical perspective, I was shocked at how we can
> even think of tolerating the killing of half a million pets every
> year," said Matt Grant, first international bachelor from ABC's The
> Bachelor. "From my financial background, I was also amazed at how
> we can even afford it. $250 million is a hell of a lot of money."
>
> "As a rescuer, I have looked into the eyes of dogs and cats knowing
> that they will never get to live with a human who loves them and
> knowing that their days are numbered," said Lacey Conner from VH1's
> hit show Rock of Love and Charm School, and founder of Heroes K9
> Rescue. "To me it is obvious to pass a law that requires people to
> spay and neuter their pets."
>
>
>
> SB 250, authored by Senator Florez, provides a reasonable, fiscally
> responsible step towards reducing pet overpopulation. The bill
> simply requires that dogs be spayed or neutered in California unless
> their owner/guardian obtains an unaltered dog license when they
> license their animal. SB 250 also requires that roaming cats be
> spayed and neutered by their owner/guardian. The bill number SB 250
> was chosen because over $250 million dollars is spent housing and
> euthanizing homeless dogs and cats in California.
>
> "We cannot understand how anyone could turn away from a solution
> like SB 250," Brenda Mitchell, humane educator for the Central
> California SPCA. "For over six decades we have been trying to
> educate our community and still we have to decide which really great
> dog should be allowed one more day, which wonderful house cat is
> worth saving. The answer is simple, all of them, every last one."
> "But the underlying problem remains; there are still too many dogs
> and cats entering California's shelters," said Dr. Allan Drusys,
> Riverside County Department of Animal Services. "More animals than
> the public can adopt. More animals than the shelters themselves are
> designed to handle. And far too much euthanasia of these unwanted
> pets is taking place. This is simply a supply side problem and a
> reduction in the fertility rate of the entire population is in order."
>>
> Please consider donating to SCIL. 100% of your donation goes to
> legislative goals in California, including spay and neuter
> legislation and anti-puppy mill legislation.
Together, we will make California a humane model for the nation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Judie Mancuso
> President
> www.SocialCompassion.org

CA- Newly introduced Bill- SB 250 relating to mandatory Spay/neuter

BILL NUMBER: SB 250

INTRODUCED BY Senator Florez

On FEBRUARY 24, 2009

If passed,
This bill would provide, in addition,
*that no person may own,keep, or harbor an unaltered and unspayed dog, except as specified.
*It would make it is unlawful for any person who owns, keeps, or
harbors any unspayed or unaltered cat 6 months of age or older to
allow or permit that unspayed or unaltered cat to remain outdoors.
* It would require an owner or custodian of an unaltered cat to have the
animal spayed or neutered, or provide a certificate of sterility.
*It would allow an unaltered dog license to be denied, revoked, and
reapplied for, as specified, and the licensing agency to utilize its
existing procedures for any appeal of a denial or revocation of an
unaltered dog license
*This bill would require an owner or custodian who offers any
unaltered dog or cat for sale, trade, or adoption to meet specified
requirements.
*It would permit an administrative citation, infraction,
or other authorized penalty for a violation of certain provisions to
be imposed only if the owner or custodian is concurrently cited for
another violation under state or local law, as specified.
* It would require, if an unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant to state or
local law, the owner or custodian to meet specified requirements,
including paying the costs of impoundment.
*It would require all costs, fines, and fees collected under the bill to be paid to the licensing agency for the purpose of defraying the cost of the
implementation and enforcement of the bill.
* By creating new crimes and imposing new duties on local animal control agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program upon local governments.

Track the status of this bill

Bills introduced in NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT

HSUS Off To Fast Start In 2009, But
Dog Owners Triumph In VA And MT
Beware Bills Introduced In NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
And Expect Legislation Soon In TX, MA, WI, MI, IN, OH, OK, AZ, NM

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance

This article is archived:
Dog owners will face unprecedented and potentially devastating challenges in 2009, and it will take dedication and commitment to protect our rights. Sitting on the sidelines simply is not an option. It will take standing up and making your voice count.

The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), buoyed by the victories of 95% of the state and federal candidates it endorsed in the November general election, has struck quickly in 2009 with legislation in 10 states that would severely restrict the rights of dog owners. Our sources also tell us that HSUS-anointed legislation will be introduced shortly in at least nine more states.

HSUS has launched this full-court press in only three weeks, and dog owners must act quickly and decisively or they will be overwhelmed.

However, there is some good news. This week, dog owners won the first two rounds in Virginia and Montana with the sound defeat of mandatory spay/neuter and breed-specific legislation.

In Virginia, HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were s trongly in support of Senate Bill 1151, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of any dog taken to an animal shelter for a second time. The legislation was killed this week by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee by an 8-6 vote.

This bill would have had a strong impact on hunting dogs, especially, and would have opened the door to many animal rights group kidnappings of hunting and companion dogs. Animal rights group kidnappings are becoming more common, and their goal is to take dogs to distant animal shelters were they will be euthanized.

In Montana, HSUS attempted to ram through breed-specific legislation after its usual media bombardment of inflammatory news stories, but it was killed in committee by a 17-1 vote after a reported 150 dog owners attended a hearing to voice opposition. Only three people spoke in favor of the bill.

While breed-specific legislation most often is seen as about “pit bulls,” many local ordinances have extended it to several other breeds ranging from Rottweilers to German shepherds. Moreover, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is concerned about this kind of le gislation because we see hunting breeds as next on the list of HSUS targets. Animal rights group websites frequently and falsely portray hunting dogs as vicious, some states are seriously considering banning or restricting hunting with hounds, and all hunting breeds were targeted specifically in failed federal legislation just two years ago.

HSUS-inspired legislation introduced in eight other states would affect all people who raise dogs. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois and California. Legislation also will be introduced soon in Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is taking an active and aggressive role to defeat this legislation, which takes aim at people who raise dogs as an avocation and reflects the HSUS agenda of working toward the complete elimination of domestic animal ownership in America. We are urging dog owners to join with us to work to defeat this dangerous legislation.

Here is a synopsis of the legislation that has been introduced in each state:

New York

It looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an old one.

Legislation has been introduced that would require every dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both bills.

AB 1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own city from the legislation.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified school.

Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas, and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.

In many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs or obtaining rabies vaccinations.

Here is a link to the text of this bill:
The second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age of four months.

In addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in the state and their owners.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without cause.

Here is a link to the text of this bill:

Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to=2 0contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee:

We also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.

The first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link:

The second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels, which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law) and requires health department inspection and certification.

We see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of bureaucracy.

We are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.

Here is a link to the legislation:

New Jersey

New Jersey dog owners=2 0are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy impact on lost hunting dogs.

Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and truly devastating fines and penalties.

That translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to survive this legislation.

The legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the thousands of dollars.

AB 1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

A breeder is defined as anyon e who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.

Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.

The law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and specifically bans brother-sister matings.

Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda to eliminate animal ownership in America.

Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS. The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering. Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork, veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also20are required. A veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no longer than 14 days before a sale.

Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.

Even a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the first offense.

Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing before the same agency that charged them.

A frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this bill passes!
0A

Here is a link to the actual legislation:

The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in America.

Here is a link to the committee members’ contact information:

New Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are reclaimed by their owners.

This legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.

Exemptions are possible only for currently active show dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or hunting dogs.

In addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.

AB 1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.

Here is a link to the text of AB 1568:

Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.

Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and process.

This legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the status of second-class citizens.

Dog and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!

The draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were mentioned specifically in this requirement.

Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.

Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that is sold.

Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation, which is located about midway through the document:

Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all committee members: Each name links to a page with contact information.

FLORIDA

Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.

Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research has shown may be medically dangerous.

The only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory spay/neuter laws.

No dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance allowing the sale of a breeding permit.


In the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida. However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances, and even to ban all dog breeding outright.

Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.

The preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been documented, and much research contradicts several of them.

Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March, and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.

Here is a link to the actual legislation:

We also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s contact information:

Illinois

Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of purebred dogs.

Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells puppies would be classi fied as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.

In addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of exercise.

There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate qualifications.

Only veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.

Dog owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions, thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime savings.

The legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.

This legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by Reps. Angelo Saviano, Deborah Mell, Jack D. Franks, Daniel J. Burke, Greg Harris, Michael J. Zalewski, JoAnn D. Osmond, Keith Farnham, Lou Lang and Harry Osterman (click on a name for a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D- Mt. Prospect).

The bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet available.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.

The bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an Illinois “puppy mill.”

HSUS has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep. Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.

Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills” by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.

Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of Chicago.

Chicago

We are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes. This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerfu l PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.

The animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the ordinance.

The CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a link to some of these position statements:

In essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between a veterinarian and patient.

For government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical proc edures also is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that are not spayed or neutered, documents show.

In addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization, especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.

Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter alliance.

Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.

PAWS has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.

Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report violations.

However, the revised ordinance has not changed the requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters now.

Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third offense.

It is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise dogs.

Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam, and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be dangerous.

The ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and cats20over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.

It also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are sterilized.

And it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:

Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com), Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com) and Ami Moore (DOGDORIGHT@aol.com).

We hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance; Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network; several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while license revenues fell; and most of all20to Los Angeles (see below).

California

Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization mandates.

This year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again, starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.

But they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy, documents show.

The situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition, she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.

This is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the ordinance.

Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public services.

Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economi cally and efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.

What happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and cats unnecessarily!

But the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality of the animal rights agenda.

At a time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back on their feet and can reunite with their pets.

Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they have lost their homes.

The dogs are paying the price.

In Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.

Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and euthanasia rates.

Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in 2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble for most of this pe riod when shelter rates continued to improve.

The euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by 22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in 2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.

The good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the six months after the ordinance was passed.

Santa Barbara

Now it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to=2 0this county. We hope the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles and several other cities.

Dog owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr. Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several occasions.

The guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.

Here is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: He is very articulate and knows what he is talking about.

Task force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara especially hard.

Data has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5 times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by 554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.

This simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.

Data also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners=2 0are surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal services department personnel.

All of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing their homes and jobs.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals when all other alternatives have not been explored.

Minnesota

Two years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.

It’s back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.

SF 7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.

This bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer than six intact females over six months old.

But it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies, dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just plain pets are counted.

Most hobby breeders would have to undergo e xtensive licensing investigations, inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of care that are vaguely defined.

One standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers necessary to protect the public health and welfare of animals….”

The law also gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for violations.

The right of appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him or her.

Here is a link to the legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.

Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172, sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer). HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.

This legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of un sterilized dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be bred.

No dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered, if the legislation passes.

In addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary examination and certification of suitable health.

Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of a search warrant application.

Here is a link to the text of this legislation:
HB 1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and restrictive.

Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman; Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper, McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and Vigil

Here is a link to contact information for committee members and all other legislators:

Upcoming Legislation

Texas – Breaking news: McAllen, TX, is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We have not had time to research this in depth, and will make a full report soon. Here is a link to a news article about it: However, McAllen is only the beginning. All Texas dog owners will face a fight this year. Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual text.

Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring resources into the state.

Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.

Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the November election.

Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had been hidden even from its sponsor.

Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again to get an anti-breeder law passed here.

Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in several counties, as well.

New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in 2009.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web. Our email is asda@csonline.net.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us

CA- Women gives birth to a Litter of 8 babies

What Gives Los Angeles? Didn’t pet sterilization become law in this California City because of a perceived dog and cat overpopulation problem? It was only 1 year ago that Bob Barker was jubilantly proclaiming, “The next time you hear me say, ‘help control the pet population, have your pet spayed or neutered’ I can add, ‘It’s the law in Los Angeles’.” And City Officials were saying “Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million”- as if that is the measure of Overpopulation.

According to the quote above from the Los Angeles city officials, 30% of the animals brought to the shelter were euthanized (so 70% must have been adopted). Well according the National Data Analysis System, 81,174 children (in the state of California) were in “Out-of-Home Care”- in the custody of Child Welfare. Only 7,490 children (in the State of California) were adopted through a public agency- Less than 10% of the children were adopted. Well you didn’t euthanize them- so they are still costing money- are you calling this an overpopulation problem?

Mr. Barker and City officials- The number of human multiple births has increased over the last decades. According to the U.S. Natality Files in 1980, the total number of multiple births in the United States was 69,676 and increased to 101,709 in 1995, which represents a 46% increase in multiple births between these two time periods. Even though this evidence was for a study done in 1995, it still indicates that multiples have been increasing, and because of this the risks are becoming more of a concern for the mothers and fetuses of multiples. (From wikipedia)

Babies from multiple births are usually born premature, have a low birth weight, have and increased risk of cerebral palsy, and other health problems. These babies have extended hospital stays and often long-term heath care issues.

In the highly public case of Jon & Kate (plus 8), he lost his job because of the amount of work tending to a “litter of 6”. Good thing Americans are so voyeuristic and this family was able to make a living out of exploiting the family situation on Television.

Passing Spay/neuter laws for dogs and cats is a waste of time. Dogs and Cats are not the problem. Spend your time on issues that matter.