Is Mandatory spay-neuter what we really want?

Be cautious about mandatory pet spay-neuter legislation

Sunday, February 28, 2010
Periodically, a number of facts seem to fall into place, revealing a truth that might not have been apparent previously.

Something like this happened to me this week. I had been wondering how it is possible for Americans to be so enchanted with dogs as pets, and at the same time, to hold beliefs that, if put into action, would actually eliminate the species in a relatively short time. Let me review the situation, and let's see if you agree with my conclusions.

Roughly 37 percent of American homes include at least one pet dog. Most people at least pay lip service to an appreciation of how much dogs add to our lives and to our culture. While dogs no longer have the job of warning cave dwellers of approaching danger, the jobs they do perform for us could be even more valuable.

Some very special dogs and their handlers search destroyed buildings seeking for survivors, and for the bodies of those who did not survive. Perhaps you noticed the news clips of search and rescue dogs working in the jumble of what used to be homes and businesses in Haiti?

If you ever fly, them perhaps you have seen bomb or drug detection dogs making us safer at airports? Military dogs are described by their handlers as their most valuable and reliable protection against roadside bombs.

The Dover Public Library is just one of many where dogs patiently help children learn to read. Dogs can also predict epileptic seizures, and locate and predict cancers in humans.

Certainly the tasks performed by dogs no longer fit their job description when they lived with prehistoric people, but an argument could easily be made that their modern jobs are even more important.

Studies show that dogs help us maintain good health. They encourage exercise and social contacts. I've been told that walking with a dog is the best way to meet new friends. I think it is safe to say that dogs have earned their place in our hearts and in our society. And yet ...

And yet laws requiring the mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs are spreading throughout the country. I wonder if people have given much thought to the only possible result if the MSN laws become universal? Logically, if all dogs are surgically neutered, then in about 10 years there will be no dogs.

If all breeding is stopped — where will you find the replacement for the dogs you love now? If you should want to add a purpose-bred dog to your family — will you still be able to in another 10 or so years?

James Serpell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has said: "The thing about mandatory spay-neuter is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you're doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population. What will become of dog ownership if only the ill-tempered puppies from disreputable breeding programs are available?"

Dog and cat owners have certainly grasped the idea that responsible pet ownership entails being responsible for the reproductive capacity of their pets. Somehow, the idea is pushed that vast numbers of dogs are roaming around the country, reproducing at any and every opportunity. In actual fact, the reverse is true. Nationally, over 87 percent of dogs have already been surgically neutered.

Our figures here in the northeast are even more impressive. Last August, I asked three friends to help me perform a survey of veterinary hospitals throughout New Hampshire. I was surprised to learn that 98 percent of owned cats and 95 percent of dogs had been surgically neutered. Yes, we have a population of feral cats. But our pet owners have taken their responsibility to heart, as do owners throughout the north-east.

Here is one example of the adage "no good deed goes unpunished." Since this area of the country has a dearth of available dogs, and especially shelter dogs — we have become the repository of dogs, many with physical or behavioral problems that make them difficult for novice dog owners to deal with, from third-world countries and from parts of our South — where laws and programs such as we have are not established.

So — should we welcome these imported dogs, even if in so doing we put some of our own dogs at risk? Or should we help other parts of our country to grasp the lessons we have learned?

Being a responsible dog owner does not mean that all of our dogs should be neutered. What it does mean is that instead of importing potentially problematic dogs here, those groups who are profiting from these imports should focus their attention on changing attitudes in the areas these dogs come from.

So — do you really want ALL dogs to be neutered?

Spay/neuter..... not so fast

A Healthier Respect for Ovaries - a research study conducted by David J. Waters, DVM,PhD, Diplomate ACVS reveals shortened longevity as a possible complication associated with ovary removal in dogs.

Thank you Dr. for doing a study to show that spaying dogs at an early age (less than 4 years of age) will significantly decrease the life of a female dog. Really, is keeping track of your girl for a few weeks every 6 months so difficult? Is convenience worth more than a few more years with your dog? Not for me. Spaying and neutering causes serious "complications"- ie DEATH.

LA- New Orleans to Consider MSN & Breeding Limits

UPDATE: New Orleans City Council MSN Vote Scheduled for November 5
The AKC has confirmed that the New Orleans City Council has delayed the vote on the mandatory spay/neuter proposal until Thursday, November 5.

It is imperative that dog owners in the New Orleans area use the next few weeks to continue contacting the city council and expressing opposition to this proposal. Read our previous alert for more information on the proposal, as well as obtain contact information for the council.

The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to provide updates as they become available.
NEW ORLEANS UPDATE: CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20! VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION NOW!

[Thursday, October 15, 2009]

The New Orleans City Council will consider Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell’s mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at its meeting on Tuesday, October 20th. The American Kennel Club vehemently opposes this draconian and ineffective proposal. All responsible dog breeders and owners in the New Orleans area are encouraged to attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting to speak in opposition to the ordinance, and to contact the City Council members (listed below). Respectfully yet strongly express your opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable proposal, and urge them to vote against it. Encourage them to begin an in-depth study of any existing animal population issues in New Orleans, and to work on better enforcement of the City’s existing animal ordinance. (For detailed talking points and a sample letter of opposition that you can customize, please click here.)

Meeting details:
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
10:00 AM
City Hall Council Chamber
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112

(Those attending the meeting are encouraged to arrive at least one hour prior to the meeting’s 10:00 AM start time to secure parking near City Hall. Parking is available at several nearby locations.)

Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W40
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1060
Fax: (504) 658-1068
afielkow@cityofno.com

Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W50
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1070
Fax: (504) 658-1077
jbclarkson@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A)
City Hall, Room 2W80
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1010
Fax: (504) 658-1016
smidura@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)
City Hall, Room 2W10
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1020
Fax: (504) 658-1025
shead@cityofno.com

Councilman James Carter (District C)
City Hall, Room 2W70
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1030
Fax: (504) 658-1037
jcarter@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor
City Hall, Room 2W20
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1040
Fax: (504) 658-1048
chmorrell@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E)
City Hall, Room 2W60
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1050
Fax: (504) 658-1058
cwlewis@cityofno.com

For more information and the latest developments on the New Orleans mandatory spay/neuter proposal, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

[Wednesday, September 23, 2009]

A mandatory spay/neuter and breeding restrictions ordinance is under consideration by the New Orleans City Council. The ordinance, which was introduced by Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, will require all dogs to be sterilized by six months of age or force their owners to purchase a costly breeder permit. It is likely that the ordinance will be considered at the city council’s upcoming meeting on Thursday, October 1st. The American Kennel Club, which opposes the ordinance, believes that this proposal is unreasonable, difficult and costly to enforce, potentially unconstitutional, and will do nothing to protect the health and welfare of dogs. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog owners and breeders in New Orleans contact the members of the New Orleans City Council and respectfully yet strongly urge them to vote down this proposal.

The American Kennel Club opposes mandatory spay/neuter laws. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.

If enacted, the new ordinance will impose many new unreasonable requirements on responsible dog owners in New Orleans, which include:

•Requiring all dogs six months of age or older (with few exceptions) to be spayed or neutered or force owners to purchase costly $50 breeder permits to keep any dog intact. Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have not been effective anywhere they have been adopted. In fact, in many cases the euthanization rates in surrounding areas have declines faster than in those areas with mandatory spay/neuter policies. Additionally, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have both issued policy statements in the past year stating that mandatory spay/neuter policies are not effective. Enforcement of existing law, including leash laws, is a better alternative.

•Limiting female dogs from whelping more than one litter per year, or whelping a litter if the female is younger than 18-months of age. The AKC opposes any arbitrary limitation on the responsible breeding of purebred dogs, and believes health and reproduction decisions are best made by owners in consultation with their dogs’ veterinarian.

•Permitting the Louisiana SPCA, which will be responsible for enforcement of this ordinance, to determine whether or not an applicant for a breeder license has “space determined to be suitable…in which to breed dogs and raise puppies.” As there are no specific guidelines included in the ordinance, it is not clear what a breeder would need to do to be approved. This will allow for subjective and arbitrary decisions that may cost responsible breeders thousands of dollars to come into compliance, or may prohibit them from breeding at all.

•Imposing significant fines for those who are found to be in violation of the ordinance, with the income from the fines to be used to further finance the LaSPCA’s animal control efforts. The AKC contends that the cost of enforcement of the ordinance will be far greater than any revenues gained through fines or fees assessed. Further, it may cause a drop in licensing compliance, as otherwise responsible may owners seek to avoid high fees they are unable to pay. It may also lead owners to avoid proper veterinary care and vaccinations in order to avoid detection.
Please click here for a copy of the proposal.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

The American Kennel Club strongly urges all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in New Orleans to contact the City Council members. Let them know that you strongly oppose this ordinance, and urge them to vote against it. Instead, encourage them to strengthen enforcement of New Orleans’ existing animal control laws. For a sample letter that you can download and customize, please click here.

Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W40
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1060
Fax: (504) 658-1068
afielkow@cityofno.com

Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W50
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1070
Fax: (504) 658-1077
jbclarkson@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A)
City Hall, Room 2W80
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1010
Fax: (504) 658-1016
smidura@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)
City Hall, Room 2W10
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1020
Fax: (504) 658-1025
shead@cityofno.com

Councilman James Carter (District C)
City Hall, Room 2W70
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1030
Fax: (504) 658-1037
jcarter@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor
City Hall, Room 2W20
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1040
Fax: (504) 658-1048
chmorrell@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E)
City Hall, Room 2W60
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1050
Fax: (504) 658-1058
cwlewis@cityofno.com

For more information and the latest developments on the New Orleans mandatory spay/neuter proposal, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

MA: State plots dog surcharge

http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1198278&format=email
State plots dog surcharge
By Hillary Chabot and Benjamin Bell
Friday, September 18, 2009 - Updated 2m ago


State Republicans are howling mad over yet another tax hike being slipped through the Legislature that would slap an annual $3 state surcharge on municipal licensing fees canine owners pay for their pet pooches.
Annual license fees range from $6 a year in Boston for neutered or spayed canines (and $17 for unfixed dogs) to a flat $20 in Plymouth. Angry GOP senators are pushing to name the bill “Toby’s Law,” after Gov. Deval Patrick’s wriggling Labrador puppy.
“We’re trying to collar or neuter these onerous fees and counter the Democrats’ rabid obsession with increases,” said state Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth).
But state Sen. Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville) argued the fee is necessary to fund a state spay-and-neutering plan meant to snip the state’s out-of-control problem with strays.
“The number of abandoned animals has gone through the roof over the past few years,” Jehlen said. “Shelters are euthanizing animals because they have too many.”
Jehlen pointed out that the MSPCA and several dog kennels and purebred pooch clubs throughout the state support the bill.
But French bulldog owner Megan Doerrer said she’s tired of the dog pile of state fees and taxes.
“I don’t want to pay more and I don’t think anyone else does either. It’s a weird time to choose to raise prices,” said Doerrer, 25, a math teacher who lives in the South End and was walking her dog Brady in Peters Park.
Clerks from cities and towns also oppose the additional fee, saying the state is snatching even more money away after cutting local aid.
“Given the fact that the state has the money and is giving it to cities and towns, it makes no sense to us at all that they should be taking away money from cities and towns,” said Laurence Pizer, Plymouth town clerk.
Pizer added that the state surcharge would deter many residents from licensing their dogs - a practice that is already a tough sell.
State Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield) said while the bill has many good sections - including creating a dangerous dog directory - it ultimately punishes dog owners. Said Knapik: “The citizens already have to pay millions for a sales tax hike. Let’s leave Fido alone

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 .

MA- July 14 is a big day for dog law

Massachusetts Alert: 15 Bills to be Heard on Tuesday, July 14th!
From AKC
[Thursday, July 09, 2009]
The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government has scheduled consideration of 14 dog-related bills at its meeting on Tuesday, July 14th. Another bill of importance, HB 344 (see info, below) will be heard concurrently by the Joint Judiciary Committee. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Massachusetts federation, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed), encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to take action: attend Tuesday’s committee hearings, and/or contact the committee members and your elected officials in Massachusetts and let them know whether you support or oppose the bills (as highlighted below) they will consider on Tuesday.

Bills of concern to be heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (Tuesday, July 14; 10AM, Room A-2 of the State House in Boston):

The AKC and MassFed both support HB 1977, which seeks to strengthen Massachusetts’ dangerous dog laws. Its provisions include:

•Allowing dogs previously declared to be “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit “at risk” behavior within 24 months after being designated as “at risk”
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared “at risk”.
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared as “dangerous”.
•Includes due process protections for dog owners.
The AKC and MassFed both oppose HB 1997, which seeks to impose many controversial new dog laws, including:

•Requiring that dog owners with intact dogs acquire an intact animal permit along with a health certificate (which will require state-prescribed vaccination protocols) while in compliance with all other licensing laws. Municipalities are to set the fees for intact animal permits by rule.
•Allowing municipalities to ban or further regulate specific breeds of dogs.
•Deeming certain commonplace acts as nuisance behaviors, the punishment for which could result in euthanization of the animal.
•Severely limiting the means by which an owner may humanely restrain their dog.
The AKC and MassFed both also oppose SB 774, which seeks to severely restrict the rights and operations of most responsible dog breeders in Massachusetts, including:

•Requiring anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license.
•Limiting the number of intact dogs six months of age or older a person may own to 25.
•Restricting the breeding of dogs to those between the ages of 18 months and eight years of age.
•Imposing strict, hard-to-comply-with, and expensive engineering standards for kennels.
•Allowing inspections of kennels, including private residences, without notice and at any time.
•Mandating strict exercise requirements for dogs kept in a kennel.
Other bills which will be considered by the Joint Municipalities Committee include HB 3704 (animal shelters), SB 763 (dangerous dog registry), SB 778 (spay/neuter fund), HB 1968 (dangerous dogs), HB 1969 (seizure/impoundment), HB 1975 (cat sterilization), HB 2008 (vicious dogs), HB 2015 (vicious dogs), HB 2016 (vicious dogs), HB 3589 (veterinary technicians), and SB 784 (rabies vaccinations). Click here to read MassFed’s positions.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts contact the members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government listed below. Let them know that you support HB 1977, and oppose both HB 1997 and SB 774.

Senator James B. Eldridge, Chair
Room 213-A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
James.Eldridge@state.ma.us

Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Vice-Chair
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax:617-722-1117
Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us

Senator Susan C. Fargo
State House
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us

Senator Anthony D. Galluccio
State House
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1650
Anthony.Galluccio@state.ma.us

Senator Thomas P. Kennedy
State House
Room 109-E
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Thomas.P.Kennedy@state.ma.us

Senator Richard R. Tisei
State House
Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us

Representative Paul J. Donato
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us

Representative David B. Sullivan
State House
Room 279
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone:617-722-2230
Fax: 617-722-2821
Rep.DavidSullivan@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Sean Curran
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr.
State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2011
Fax: 617-722-2238
Rep.AngeloPuppolo@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative Pam Richardson
State House
Room 448
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2582
Fax: 617-722-2879
Rep.PamRichardson@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US

Representative Brian M. Ashe
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.BrianAshe@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Timothy R. Madden
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2810
Fax: 617-722-2846
Rep.TimothyMadden@hou.state.ma.us

Representative F. Jay Barrows
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
Rep.FJayBarrows@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Robert S. Hargraves
State House
Room 237
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2305
Fax: 617-722-2598
Rep.RobertHargraves@hou.state.ma.us

At Noon on July 14th, a different committee, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, will consider House Bill 344, which seeks to:

•Make it illegal to debark a dog in Massachusetts in most circumstances.
•Impose unreasonable penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $2,500, for those found in violation of the bill.
The AKC believes that much misinformation exists about debarking of dogs. When performed by a veterinarian, debarking is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.

Both the AKC and MassFed oppose House Bill 344.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts are strongly encouraged to attend Tuesday’s hearing in opposition to HB 344 (Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston); and/or to contact the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and let them know that you oppose HB 344, and encourage them to do the same.

Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Chair
State House
Room 416-B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1639
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us

Senator Steven A. Baddour, Vice-Chair
State House
Room 208
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us

Senator Gale D. Candaras
State House
Room 213B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1291
Fax: 617-722-1014
Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US

Senator Jack Hart
State House
Room 109-C
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1150
John.Hart@state.ma.us

Senator Thomas M. McGee
State House
Room 112
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1350
Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us

Senator Bruce E. Tarr
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us

Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Christopher N. Speranzo
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative James H. Fagan
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Fax: 617-722-2346
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Colleen M. Garry
State House
Room 238
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2380
Fax: 617-722-2847
Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Marie P. St. Fleur
State House
Room 43
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2030
Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us

Representative John V. Fernandes
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2215
Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US

Representative James J. Dwyer
State House
Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0831
Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Danielle W. Gregoire
State House
Room 26
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2080
Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Daniel K. Webster
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2487
Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Owners at www.massfeddogs.org.

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.

AL- Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced

[Thursday, April 02, 2009]
From AKC-
Alabama Senator Del Marsh (R) of Anniston has introduced Senate Bill 554, which would, among other provisions, require the sterilization of all privately-owned dogs six months of age or older. The American Kennel Club opposes SB 554, and strongly urges all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama to contact their elected representatives, bill sponsor Senator Marsh, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the health and welfare of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibility seriously. However, the American Kennel Club recognizes the special obligation of dog owners, not only to their pets but also to their neighbors. The AKC supports "curbing" and clean-up ordinances, leash laws, nuisance laws, and other reasonable regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities.

If enacted, SB 554 will:

* Require all dogs six months of age and older to be spayed or neutered.

* Provide that an owner of an unsterilized dog six months of age or older that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and, in addition to any fine, be forced to pay a civil penalty of $50 on the first occurrence; pay a civil penalty of $100 on the second occurrence; and on the third occurrence, require sterilization of the dog.

* Define "complaint" as any oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this act, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means that observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this act, any other provision of state law that relate[s] to dogs or cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.

The measure also would exempt owners of dogs from the act, if:

* Their dog is a breed approved by and is registered with a recognized registry or association, and the dog is actively used to show or compete and has competed in at least one show or sporting competition hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association within the last two years;
Their dog is being trained or groomed to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed;
* Their dog has earned or is in the process of earning a special title, such as agility or herding;
* Their dog is trained or in training for use in law enforcement, military, or rescue activities; or
* By letter from a licensed veterinarian, their dog has been certified to be temporarily or permanently deferred due to age or heath or any other valid reason.

The AKC does not believe that these exemptions adequately address the underlying issue of responsible dog ownership or the right of responsible breeders to maintain an unaltered dog for the purpose of breeding.


As introduced, SB 554 is a substantive copy of a version of California Assembly Bill 1634 that responsible dog breeders and owners in California successfully opposed in 2008. As such, SB 554 is not designed as a solution for any animal control issues for Alabama. Additionally, because SB 554 provides the authority to issue a citation for an unaltered dog (or cat) that is the subject of a complaint (other than for excessive noise or barking) and which includes the consequence of owners being required to sterilize their dog, the bill does not clearly provide animal owners with due process to protect against overzealous enforcement that may result in permanent deprivation of one’s property.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

It is imperative that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama contact their elected representatives, SB 554’s sponsor, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.

To find your Alabama State Representative and State Senator, click here and enter your zip code+4 on the left side of the page.

SB 554 Sponsor - Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Myron C. Penn, Chairman
Alabama State House, Room 731
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7868
E-MAIL: myronpenn28@hotmail.com

Senator Roger H. Bedford, Jr.
Alabama State House, Room 730-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7862
E-MAIL: senbedford@aol.com

Senator Kim S. Benefield
Alabama State House, Room 729-C
State House
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7874
FAX: (334) 353-8277
E-MAIL: kbenefield@acs-isp.com

Senator Ben Brooks
Alabama State House, Room 735-A
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7882
E-MAIL: benbrooksiii@aol.com

Senator Vivian Davis Figures
Alabama State House, Room 732
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7871
E-MAIL: vivian.figures@al-legislature.gov

Senator T.D. "Ted" Little
Alabama State House, Room 740
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7865
E-MAIL: tedlittle@mindspring.com

Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov

Senator Trip Pittman
Alabama State House, Room 738-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7897
E-MAIL: trip.pittman@alsenate.gov

Senator Henry "Hank" Sanders
Alabama State House, Room 730
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7860
(No e-mail available)

Senator Bobby Singleton
Alabama State House, Room 732-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7935
FAX: (334) 242-7191
E-MAIL: BSingle164@yahoo.com

Senator Rodger Mell Smitherman (President Pro Tempore)
Alabama State House, Room 722
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7870
E-MAIL: rodger.smitherman@alsenate.gov

Senator Zeb Little (Senate Majority Leader)
Alabama State House, Room 721
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7855
E-MAIL: zeb@zeblittlelawfirm.com

Senator Arthur Orr
Alabama State House, Suite 737
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130-4600
PHONE: (334) 242-7800
FAX: (334) 242-8819
To e-mail Senator Orr, click here for an online form.

RESOURCES:

For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, please click here.

For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.

For a sample letter of opposition to SB 554 that Alabama residents can customize, please click here.


For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Alabama Canine Coalition at president@alabamacaninecoalition.com.

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.

KS- Local Battle in Wichita

Wichita, KS – The Wichita City Council has given preliminary approval to an ordinance that would severely impact the rights of local dog owners. Anyone wishing to own more than two dogs or cats must obtain an Animal Maintenance Permit (AMP), at which time they may own up to four dogs or cats. Owners of “pit bulls” may not apply for an AMP and must sterilize their dogs. The proposal imposes several other restrictions, including banning “pit bulls” from dog parks and limiting the number of dogs a person may have at a dog park at any time. AKC has submitted a letter and memo to the City Council and is working with local dog clubs to stop this ordinance.

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.

TX- Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bills Introduced

Texas Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bills Introduced
From the AKC
[Monday, March 16, 2009]

Two mandatory spay/neuter bills have been filed in the Texas Legislature. House Bill 4277, sponsored by Representative Jose Menendez of San Antonio, and Senate Bill 1845, sponsored by Senator Leticia Van de Putte also of San Antonio, will require that all dogs over six months of age be sterilized. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Texas federation of owners, the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (RPOA), believe that any attempt at restricting the rights and liberties of responsible breeders–especially via mandatory spay/neuter laws–must be defeated. If adopted, these bills will have a profound negative impact not only on responsible dog breeders in Texas, but also on all current and prospective dog owners. Therefore, it is vital that all responsible dog breeders and all concerned dog owners in Texas, as well as anyone worried about such radical policy, contact their elected state legislatives as well as the bills’ sponsors and respectfully let them know that these draconian measures are unreasonable, unenforceable, and unacceptable.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concepts of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.

As currently written, HB 4277 and SB 1845 would:

Require every person who owns a dog or cat at least six months of age to have the animal spayed or neutered.
Provide few exceptions, including one for owners of a dog or cat who purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of $300 per intact animal.
Make each violation of this law a class C misdemeanor, liable for fines up to $500 per violation.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:

All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Texas, as well as all other concerned Texas residents, are strongly encouraged to write their elected state legislators as well as the bills’ sponsors. Let them know that mandatory spay/neuter bills are radical and unacceptable and will have a profound negative impact upon the state of Texas.

To find out who represents you in the Texas House of Representatives, click here. For a customizable sample letter to send to your representative, click here.

To find out who represents you in the Texas State Senate, click here. For a customizable sample letter to send to your senator, click here.

House Bill 4277 Sponsor Representative Jose Menendez
Capitol Office: EXT E2.204
Capitol Address:
P.O. Box 2910
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78768
PHONE: (512) 463-0634
FAX: (512) 463-7668
To write Representative Menendez via e-mail, click here for an e-mail form.

District Address:
7121 US Hwy. 90 West, Suite 240
San Antonio, TX 78227
PHONE: (210) 673-3579
FAX: (210) 673-3816

Senate Bill 1845 Sponsor Leticia Van De Putte
Capitol Office: EXT E1.704
Capitol Address:
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
PHONE: (512) 463-0126
TOLL FREE: 1 (888) 279-0648
FAX: (512) 463-2114
To write Senator Van De Putte via e-mail, click here for an e-mail form.
District Address:
700 N. St. Mary’s Street, Suite 1725
San Antonio, TX 78205
PHONE: (210) 733-6604
FAX: (210) 733-6605

For a copy of the AKC’s Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.

The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to monitor the consideration of HB 4277 and SB 1845 and will notify the purebred dog community when these bills are assigned to a committee. Contact information for committee members will be provided and purebred dog owners should express their strong opposition to these bills to their respective committee members at that time.

For more information, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance at (210) 822-6763, at www.responsiblepetowners.org, or at rpoa@texas.net.

IL- Pet sterilization ordinance back before aldermen

March 10, 2009

By Fran Spielman, Sun-Times News Group

After adding tamer language to appease opponents, the Chicago City Council's most powerful alderman said Monday he has the votes to require dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets.
Virtually all dogs and cats older than six months would have to be sterilized under the proposal.
But Ald. Edward Burke (14th) has agreed to drop mandatory impoundment of pets as a penalty against three-time violators and cut the fine against those owners from $500 to $100 per month.
The burden on breeders also would be reduced. No longer would they be required to turn over to the city's Commission on Animal Care and Control the name, address and telephone number of new owners of animals within five days of the sale or transfer.
Language prohibiting animals from being sold or adopted until they've been immunized against common disease also has been stricken. The new version simply requires "accompanying documentation providing the dates of any inoculations and medical treatments."
With the changes, Burke said he now has the 26 council votes he needs to win approval of the controversial ordinance, which aims to reduce animal aggression and Chicago's stray population.
The watered-down version is expected to be approved by the council's license committee Thursday and considered by the full council as early as next week. Dogs and cats exempted from sterilization would include animals used in shows, as service animals, in professional guard services, for breeding or for law enforcement.
Burke introduced the ordinance in response to a savage attack by a pack of pit bulls that seriously injured a Southwest Side woman.
But he acknowledged that the passions on display at a July 2008 hearing that starred legendary game show host Bob Barker would be reignited.
"I was actually surprised by the vehement objections raised by so many people. I thought it would be a simple, easy proposal. But that's not the case. People are very passionate about their pets and about animals," Burke said.
The changes made by Burke did nothing to appease the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, which remains adamantly opposed to the ordinance, calling it "bad legislation" that would usher in "a new era of unprecedented oversight of pet health care."
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1468500,031009neuter.article
__._,_.___

IL- Plan to Attend on March 12th- Chicago City Council to Vote on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance

[Monday, March 9, 2009]
Chicago City Council Committee to Vote on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance March 12th!
The Chicago City Council Joint Committee on Finance and License & Consumer Protection will hear a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at their meeting this Thursday, March 12th, 2009. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend the hearing to oppose this measure.

The ordinance will require that all dogs or cats over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:

A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
The dog or cat is of a breed approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission on animal care and control whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purposes of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association (It is unclear how this would affect animals that are older than 6 months who are not yet ready to compete or be shown.).
The dog has earned, or is actively being trained for and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association (It is unclear how an owner would prove that an animal is “being trained”).
Dogs or cats having a valid breeding permit.
Dogs or cats whose owners hold a valid animal care facility license.
The dog is trained or is in the process of being trained as a service dog.
The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The dog is owned by a guard dog service.
The proposal will also establish a $100 breeding permit, require breeders to submit to a criminal background check and establish the following restrictions:

Prohibits the breeding of female dogs and cats more than once a year unless they receive special permission.
Prohibits the sale of puppies and kittens before eight weeks of age.
Requires breeders to provide veterinary and vaccination records to all puppy and kitten purchasers.
Requires that the breeding permit number be displayed in any advertisement offering puppies or kittens for sale.
What You Can Do

Attend the meeting City Council Joint Committee on Finance and License & Consumer Protection. The details are as follows:

Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Chicago City Hall, 2nd Floor
121 North La Salle Street
Chicago, IL

Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Please click here for a sample letter. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as to Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers, please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter

Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955

Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049

Alderman Eugene Schulter
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations

NY- Legislation introduced that would require dog owners to complete certified obedience training, mandate microchipping

From: American Sporting Dog Alliance
by John Yates
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: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01540&sh=t.

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: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00255&sh=t.

Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee: http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/?sec=mem&id=2.

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: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01377&sh=t.

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: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02069&sh=t.

FL- Numerouse Regulations are being proposed in this state

Florida has 3 bills currently on the table: This is the latest

{Monday, March 02, 2009] from the AKC
A bill has been introduced in the Florida House of Representatives to limit dog ownership and impose numerous regulations on responsible breeders and dog owners, including imposing regulations on any person owning 10 or more dogs and limiting ownership to 50 dogs. All Florida responsible dog owners and breeders are encouraged to contact their State legislators and express their opposition to House Bill 1249 and its companion bill, Senate Bill 2002.

If adopted, House Bill 1249/Senate Bill 2002 would impose numerous unenforceable provisions. These include:

*Prohibiting tail docking and ear cropping except by a licensed veterinarian.
*Imposing stringent engineering standards for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs at least four months of age.
*Allowing for a warrantless search by any animal control officer or "other authorized public health or safety official", either upon the receipt of a complaint or upon the officer’s "own initiative".
*Prohibiting anyone from owning, possessing, controlling, or having charge or custody of more than 50 intact dogs over the age of four months at any time.
*Exempting public animal shelters, nonprofit humane societies/animal adoption/rescue organizations, veterinary facilities, retail pet stores, research institutions, and boarding facilities from the standards of care required in this bill.

Florida needs all of us to get involved. Florida House of Representatives
Sample letter from AKC

Don't forget about the following bills that are currently on the table:
SB 288 introduced by Sen. Larcenia Bullard The Pet "Lemmon Law"
HB 451 introduced by Rep.Scott Randolph, D-Orange County Mandatory Spay/neuter
and now:
HB 1249 introduced by Rep. Soto D-Orange County and Rep. Jenne D- Broward
SB 2002 introduced by Sen. Constantine R- Orange County- "Commercial dog breeding"

Local level
Miami-Dade County proposed zoning changes and pet limits
West Palm Beach- PASSED dog and cat breeder laws that penalized dog breeders who do not register with the county. All residents must spay/neuter their pet or registar as a "breeder"

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

TX- New Plano animal ordinance passes, mandatory spay/neuter provisions tabled

Plano's new 56-page animal ordinance passed with a unanimous city council vote Tuesday, with the exception of the animal sales portion. It was the first major revision to the ordinance in ten years.


Several Plano residents who are dog show exhibitors spoke at the city council meeting, and about 30 supporters sat in the audience. They were particularly concerned about section 4-809: Private Animal Sales. This section would have required all animals over the age of four months to be spayed/neutered, microchipped and vaccinated for rabies before being sold or given away.
The speakers, some of whom are hobby breeders of pedigreed dogs, testified that while spaying and neutering very young puppies and kittens is necessary for an animal shelter, it is not healthy for dogs who compete in sporting competitions and are still growing. Many serious genetic defects cannot be identified until an animal is two years old; therefore breeders may wait until such evaluations are completed before making a final decision to spay or neuter. Under the proposed ordinance, for example, it would be illegal to have a dog neutered at two years old and sell or give him away as a pet, which might be necessary if a potential stud dog did not pan out genetically as an adult.
City Council members posed several questions to Animal Services Director Jamey Cantrell and to the citizen speakers. Many of the councilmembers' questions hinged on letters and comments they had received regarding whether or not hobby breeders would continue to be allowed under residential zoning. Hobby breeders raise a small number of puppies and kittens primarily to compete in dog and cat shows, rather than for profit or for resale. The dialog also addressed concerns that the proposed law would place hobby breeders under the same restrictions as commercial breeders and kennels.
Finally, Mayor Pat Evans suggested that the Private Animal Sales portion of the ordinance be pulled for further review, and that the rest of the ordinance be put to a vote. The ordinance, less section 4-809 passed 7-0. City council members Pat Miner and Mabrie Jackson, who are liaisons to the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, the Chair of the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, the Director of Animal Services and representatives from the hobby breeding community will meet to address the concerns voiced at the meeting.
Dr. Karen Dubrow, representing the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, said at the beginning of the meeting that the ordinance had been in work for four years, and that "...at every single meeting we asked for the public to show up." Dr. Dubrow added, "To date there has been absolutely no public comment."
This contrasted with Plano resident Verjean Lunenschloss' statement to the council that her group had been auditing the commission meetings and asking to see a draft copy of the ordinance since August, but had not been given a copy to review until it was published six days prior to the vote.
Several of the citizen speakers praised the majority of the ordinance, which also covers dangerous dogs, another hot topic in state and city government. The new ordinance specifically precludes declaring a dog dangerous "...based solely on the animal's breed, size, or physical appearance. " Dr. Dubrow stressed that avoiding breed-specific legislation was intentional.
To read the ordinance in full please go to:http://pdf.plano.gov/animal/AnimalOrdinanceDraft.pdf
Section 4-809 is the section that was put on hold.