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
Monday, April 13, 2009
Obama Never Promised his dog would be from a shelter
President Obama never "promised" to get a rescued dog. He stated that he MIGHT get a mixed-breed and that he would PREFER it came from the shelter. As usual, the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups started putting pressure on the President and his family to make a COMMITMENT to this end.
In typical fashion these groups were attempting to MANIPULATE the president and even seek to REDUCE the First Families Choice for a family pet. Kudos to you President Obama for doing what was best for your family and not bending to extremest. Now we ask of you- don't let these extremest take away the same choices of the American public.
One campaign promise the President DID make was to end the strangle-hold Lobbyist have on Lawmakers. Lets hold his feet to the fire to up hold this campaign PROMISE.
In typical fashion these groups were attempting to MANIPULATE the president and even seek to REDUCE the First Families Choice for a family pet. Kudos to you President Obama for doing what was best for your family and not bending to extremest. Now we ask of you- don't let these extremest take away the same choices of the American public.
One campaign promise the President DID make was to end the strangle-hold Lobbyist have on Lawmakers. Lets hold his feet to the fire to up hold this campaign PROMISE.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Breeder of Vice President Biden's puppy received death threats from animal activists
http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2009/04/09/news/srv0000005068031.txt
Breeder regrets dog sale to Biden
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009
By GRETCHEN METZ, Staff Writer
EAST COVENTRY It was a proud moment for Linda Brown when then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden selected her kennel to purchase his new German shepherd puppy.
That was in mid-December.
For Brown, that proud moment was short-lived.
After the story about the puppy sale ran in the newspapers and on TV newscasts, three dog wardens from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture showed up on Brown's doorstep for a kennel inspection.
And they showed up again and again for four visits over four months.
She said she has also received death threats from animal activists against her and Biden, which were reported to the Secret Service and the FBI.
Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia field office, said the agency "cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
J.J. Klaver, special agent at the Philadelphia field office of the FBI, said his agency is not investigating the matter at this time.
"I thought when Joe Biden bought a puppy from me, what an honor," Brown said. "Out of millions of breeders in the country, in the world, he picked me."
The glow dimmed almost immediately.
Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.
Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.
Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.
"I'd like to meet that person," Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.
Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.
Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.
According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials "Buy One, Get One Killed" in Biden's home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.
Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
"I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don't tell you why," said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.
Brown's case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found "not guilty" for each citation, the judge's office confirmed Wednesday.
Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.
Brown's kennel, Wolf Den, was inspected twice a year by the agency and routinely had satisfactory reports until December 2008 when it had seven unsatisfactory inspection results out of 26, according to the inspection records on the agency's Web site.
Ryder said the inspectors returned as a matter of follow-up to determine if the unsatisfactory matters had been taken care of. He said more than one inspector was brought in because Brown runs a large kennel.
Before going to court, Brown had to hire a lawyer. So far her legal fees are $4,000, she said.
"Never, never, never again," Brown said about selling a dog to anyone with a high profile.
Brown said she gets her breeding stock from Germany. Each dog costs between $5,000 and $10,000.
"If I paid that much for them, don't you think I'd treat them pretty good?" Brown asks.
While the First Family was shopping for a Portuguese water dog, Brown said those breeders were getting in touch with her to find out what her experience had been like.
Brown has a few words for them.
"It's been horrific since December," she said.
Breeder regrets dog sale to Biden
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009
By GRETCHEN METZ, Staff Writer
EAST COVENTRY It was a proud moment for Linda Brown when then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden selected her kennel to purchase his new German shepherd puppy.
That was in mid-December.
For Brown, that proud moment was short-lived.
After the story about the puppy sale ran in the newspapers and on TV newscasts, three dog wardens from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture showed up on Brown's doorstep for a kennel inspection.
And they showed up again and again for four visits over four months.
She said she has also received death threats from animal activists against her and Biden, which were reported to the Secret Service and the FBI.
Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia field office, said the agency "cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
J.J. Klaver, special agent at the Philadelphia field office of the FBI, said his agency is not investigating the matter at this time.
"I thought when Joe Biden bought a puppy from me, what an honor," Brown said. "Out of millions of breeders in the country, in the world, he picked me."
The glow dimmed almost immediately.
Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.
Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.
Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.
"I'd like to meet that person," Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.
Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.
Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.
According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials "Buy One, Get One Killed" in Biden's home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.
Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
"I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don't tell you why," said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.
Brown's case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found "not guilty" for each citation, the judge's office confirmed Wednesday.
Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.
Brown's kennel, Wolf Den, was inspected twice a year by the agency and routinely had satisfactory reports until December 2008 when it had seven unsatisfactory inspection results out of 26, according to the inspection records on the agency's Web site.
Ryder said the inspectors returned as a matter of follow-up to determine if the unsatisfactory matters had been taken care of. He said more than one inspector was brought in because Brown runs a large kennel.
Before going to court, Brown had to hire a lawyer. So far her legal fees are $4,000, she said.
"Never, never, never again," Brown said about selling a dog to anyone with a high profile.
Brown said she gets her breeding stock from Germany. Each dog costs between $5,000 and $10,000.
"If I paid that much for them, don't you think I'd treat them pretty good?" Brown asks.
While the First Family was shopping for a Portuguese water dog, Brown said those breeders were getting in touch with her to find out what her experience had been like.
Brown has a few words for them.
"It's been horrific since December," she said.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
This was left as a comment on Canada-Ontario's Animal Protection Law The strongest- but this could happen to you!
Hi, my name is Elisa Antonacci and I live in a condominium with my mother and 3 other siblings. We moved in with 2 dogs, cookie and bella. We have currenlty been sent to court to have our dogs removed because they have been deemed a "neusence". We won the first time then lost the second. The court has orderd the dogs to be permently removed; we have no money for lawyers. Bella is safe in a home but before we could find a place for cookie the ospca and a sheriff came to take her away. 5 days later I tried to see cookie but they didn't aloow it. They said that cookie was doing horrible and she wasn't eating and very very terrified. We found a temperary home for her but we are soon to be at the end of our road and dont know what to do. I am very certain that if we do give her up she will die. We are all that she has and all that she knows; we love her with all of our heart and dont know what to do! if you have any input on this situation please help' it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
elisaantonacci@hotmail.com
Thanks
elisaantonacci@hotmail.com
Friday, April 3, 2009
Letter to IRS regarding HSUS
Just one comment: My letter mentions a specific bill and hearing I attended in Maryland. If anyone wants to write a similar letter, they should be careful about straight cut/copy paste. Actually, if people can find other examples, that's even better!
The key thing with writing a letter like this is to address the TAX issue - nothing about whether the lobbying is good or bad. I wanted to make the public point that if other lobbying groups can't get contributions that are tax deductible, why should HSUS? In other words - the American taxpayer (merely as a taxpayer) shouldn't pay for any lobbying, not just HSUS, if it isn't legal!
Caroline
I have complained to the IRS about a 501(c)(3) organization
expending much of its resources in lobbying efforts. Perhaps if
others do the same, the IRS will investigate. Yes, there is a
"Humane Society Legislative Fund" that is authorized to conduct
lobbying. I don't know if tecnically that group is doing the
lobbying, but I doubt it. Here is my letter. Feel free to use
anything that might be useful, and you can cross-post if it would
help. It would probably be good if there were individual,
specific examples - such as my Maryland example - to show how
wide-spread their lobbying efforts are. Douglas Shulman is the
Commissioner of the IRS, and I copied him.
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am very upset that the American taxpayers are being denied tens
of millions of dollars in taxes that should be paid. As I
understand it, IRC Section 501(c)(3) charities are not allowed to
conduct more than a minimal amount of lobbying. Yet, one of the
largest "charities" in the country is constantly lobbying and
helping to draft and pass legislation.
In 2007, the Humane Society of The United States (EIN 53-0225390)
received over $150 million, yet paid no taxes. During that time,
they vigorously lobbied to enact many laws. According to their
own annual report
(http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/annual_report_2007_p1.pdf)
they lobbied for many new laws. Some of the more blatant
examples: page 6 - "We lobbied for the successful passage
of legislation in Illinois"; page 12 "In Congress, we secured language in the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill to"; page 12 "We persuaded the New Jersey Legislature to allocate
$850,000"; page 15 "We
also won passage of two precedent-setting bills in the New
York State legislature" and "helped pass a resolution
in the U.S. House of Representatives"; and page 17
"Following our successful state ballot initiative
campaigns in Arizona and Florida" Your own web
site states, "An organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the
public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for
the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or
if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
legislation." It's pretty clear that the HSUS
is "attempted to influence legislation."
This is not an isolated year. In fact, their current web site
indicates that they are going to increase their lobbying efforts!
See http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/.
"On the heels of
these advances, the HSUS is better positioned than ever to make
new gains for animals in 2009. We intend to pass federal
legislation to crack down on abusive puppy mills."
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/advances_in_2008.htm
This, despite the fact that a 501(c)(3) organization can
only conduct minimal lobbying. Their web site encourages the
public to contact the members of the legislature to adopt the
laws proposed by HSUS. I was at a recent hearing of a proposed
state bill (Maryland HB 495), and representatives of HSUS were
there to advocate their position. It is my understanding that
this is occurring across the country. Their agenda clearly
includes influencing legislation.
Even if HSUS were properly approved as a non-profit lobbying
organization, the American taxpayers have lost millions of
dollars in taxes that weren't paid because money
contributed to this non-charity was deducted from taxable income.
In 2007 alone, the public donated over $85 million to HSUS. Even
using an extremely conservative tax rate of 10%, taxpayers were
cheated out of $8.5 million“ and that's only in
2007!
Not only does the HSUS engage in extensive lobbying, but they are
also involved in campaigning for the politicians who support
their agenda!!!
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
elective public office.[V]oter education or registration
activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one
candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or
(c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of
candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or
intervention."
During a recent seminar, the HSUS distributed a "voting
record" of all candidates.
According to their 2007 Form 990, the HSUS paid only $6 million
out of their $150 million in receipts for services that actually
helped animals (line 22b). The rest of their "program
services" expenditures went essentially to salaries and
"educational" literature. Yet, much of this
material ($15 million in expenses) references their lobbying
efforts. In fact, one publication details their legislative
efforts! How much of the salaries, travel, and other expenses
went to lobby for legislation that they helped write? How much
did they spend in lobbying efforts in Proposition 2 in California
alone? Their 990 indicates over $1.5 million (out of the $6
million supposedly used for program causes), but this does not
include the salaries and travel of staff, publicizing their
viewpoint in an effort to convince the general public to vote for
their own law, and other "hidden" expenses.
If the HSUS wants to be a lobbying organization, they should be
upfront about it. Please do not allow them to benefit from
millions of dollars in tax exemptions that should be paid as
income tax, or allow charitable deductions for money paid to a
lobbying group.
I hope that as a government agency not directly connected with
the goals of the HSUS (other than allowing them to retain
millions of dollars that should rightly be paid as taxes), you
will take appropriate action to rescind their charitable
organization status and collect the taxes that could be, and
should be, used to pay for taxpayer services.
Caroline Sullivan
The key thing with writing a letter like this is to address the TAX issue - nothing about whether the lobbying is good or bad. I wanted to make the public point that if other lobbying groups can't get contributions that are tax deductible, why should HSUS? In other words - the American taxpayer (merely as a taxpayer) shouldn't pay for any lobbying, not just HSUS, if it isn't legal!
Caroline
I have complained to the IRS about a 501(c)(3) organization
expending much of its resources in lobbying efforts. Perhaps if
others do the same, the IRS will investigate. Yes, there is a
"Humane Society Legislative Fund" that is authorized to conduct
lobbying. I don't know if tecnically that group is doing the
lobbying, but I doubt it. Here is my letter. Feel free to use
anything that might be useful, and you can cross-post if it would
help. It would probably be good if there were individual,
specific examples - such as my Maryland example - to show how
wide-spread their lobbying efforts are. Douglas Shulman is the
Commissioner of the IRS, and I copied him.
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am very upset that the American taxpayers are being denied tens
of millions of dollars in taxes that should be paid. As I
understand it, IRC Section 501(c)(3) charities are not allowed to
conduct more than a minimal amount of lobbying. Yet, one of the
largest "charities" in the country is constantly lobbying and
helping to draft and pass legislation.
In 2007, the Humane Society of The United States (EIN 53-0225390)
received over $150 million, yet paid no taxes. During that time,
they vigorously lobbied to enact many laws. According to their
own annual report
(http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/annual_report_2007_p1.pdf)
they lobbied for many new laws. Some of the more blatant
examples: page 6 - "We lobbied for the successful passage
of legislation in Illinois"; page 12 "In Congress, we secured language in the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill to"; page 12 "We persuaded the New Jersey Legislature to allocate
$850,000"; page 15 "We
also won passage of two precedent-setting bills in the New
York State legislature" and "helped pass a resolution
in the U.S. House of Representatives"; and page 17
"Following our successful state ballot initiative
campaigns in Arizona and Florida" Your own web
site states, "An organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the
public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for
the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or
if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
legislation." It's pretty clear that the HSUS
is "attempted to influence legislation."
This is not an isolated year. In fact, their current web site
indicates that they are going to increase their lobbying efforts!
See http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/.
"On the heels of
these advances, the HSUS is better positioned than ever to make
new gains for animals in 2009. We intend to pass federal
legislation to crack down on abusive puppy mills."
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/advances_in_2008.htm
This, despite the fact that a 501(c)(3) organization can
only conduct minimal lobbying. Their web site encourages the
public to contact the members of the legislature to adopt the
laws proposed by HSUS. I was at a recent hearing of a proposed
state bill (Maryland HB 495), and representatives of HSUS were
there to advocate their position. It is my understanding that
this is occurring across the country. Their agenda clearly
includes influencing legislation.
Even if HSUS were properly approved as a non-profit lobbying
organization, the American taxpayers have lost millions of
dollars in taxes that weren't paid because money
contributed to this non-charity was deducted from taxable income.
In 2007 alone, the public donated over $85 million to HSUS. Even
using an extremely conservative tax rate of 10%, taxpayers were
cheated out of $8.5 million“ and that's only in
2007!
Not only does the HSUS engage in extensive lobbying, but they are
also involved in campaigning for the politicians who support
their agenda!!!
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
elective public office.[V]oter education or registration
activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one
candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or
(c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of
candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or
intervention."
During a recent seminar, the HSUS distributed a "voting
record" of all candidates.
According to their 2007 Form 990, the HSUS paid only $6 million
out of their $150 million in receipts for services that actually
helped animals (line 22b). The rest of their "program
services" expenditures went essentially to salaries and
"educational" literature. Yet, much of this
material ($15 million in expenses) references their lobbying
efforts. In fact, one publication details their legislative
efforts! How much of the salaries, travel, and other expenses
went to lobby for legislation that they helped write? How much
did they spend in lobbying efforts in Proposition 2 in California
alone? Their 990 indicates over $1.5 million (out of the $6
million supposedly used for program causes), but this does not
include the salaries and travel of staff, publicizing their
viewpoint in an effort to convince the general public to vote for
their own law, and other "hidden" expenses.
If the HSUS wants to be a lobbying organization, they should be
upfront about it. Please do not allow them to benefit from
millions of dollars in tax exemptions that should be paid as
income tax, or allow charitable deductions for money paid to a
lobbying group.
I hope that as a government agency not directly connected with
the goals of the HSUS (other than allowing them to retain
millions of dollars that should rightly be paid as taxes), you
will take appropriate action to rescind their charitable
organization status and collect the taxes that could be, and
should be, used to pay for taxpayer services.
Caroline Sullivan
NY- Tail docking bill
A07218
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to making tail docking of dogs unlawful
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: Prohibits the docking of dog tails for
reasons other than to protect the life or health of the dog as deemed
necessary by a duly licensed veterinarian.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1. The agriculture and markets
law is amended by adding a new section 365-a: Any person who cuts the
tail of a dog for reasons other than to protect the life or health of
the animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than five hundred dollars. Any person who shows or exhibits a dog whose
tail has been docked or altered, at a show or other exhibition, is guil-
ty of a misdemeanor, punishable as above. Any dog owner who is injured
or damaged by a violation of these provisions may institute a private
right of action in the supreme court of this state, to obtain redress
for such injury or violation. The provisions shall not apply to any dog
or person who is the owner of any dog whose tail has been certified as
docked, cut or altered prior to August 1, 2009.
JUSTIFICATION: The enactment of this bill would ensure that dogs are not
caused unnecessary risk and pain by cosmetic tail docking. Performed
under anesthetic, the procedure carries within it inherent risks of
blood loss and infection, as well as causing lasting chronic tension in
the back and hindquarter muscles of dogs after the procedure. While
illegal in many countries, docking procedures are so prevalent today
that dogs of some breeds are not recognizable when they are in fact
intact. This legislation would ensure that dogs are no longer subjected
to lasting pain as a result of docking, and also that shows and exhibi-
tions will no favor dogs whose tails have been docked.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect August 1, 2009; provided,
however, if it shall become law after such date it shall take effect
immediately and shall be deemed to have been in full force and effect on
and after August 1, 2009.
SPONSOR Glick (MS)
COSPNSR http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=086, Colton, Dinowitz, Eddington, Kellner, Paulin, Rosenthal
MLTSPNSR Ball, Boyland, Gottfried, McDonough, McEneny
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to making tail docking of dogs unlawful
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: Prohibits the docking of dog tails for
reasons other than to protect the life or health of the dog as deemed
necessary by a duly licensed veterinarian.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1. The agriculture and markets
law is amended by adding a new section 365-a: Any person who cuts the
tail of a dog for reasons other than to protect the life or health of
the animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than five hundred dollars. Any person who shows or exhibits a dog whose
tail has been docked or altered, at a show or other exhibition, is guil-
ty of a misdemeanor, punishable as above. Any dog owner who is injured
or damaged by a violation of these provisions may institute a private
right of action in the supreme court of this state, to obtain redress
for such injury or violation. The provisions shall not apply to any dog
or person who is the owner of any dog whose tail has been certified as
docked, cut or altered prior to August 1, 2009.
JUSTIFICATION: The enactment of this bill would ensure that dogs are not
caused unnecessary risk and pain by cosmetic tail docking. Performed
under anesthetic, the procedure carries within it inherent risks of
blood loss and infection, as well as causing lasting chronic tension in
the back and hindquarter muscles of dogs after the procedure. While
illegal in many countries, docking procedures are so prevalent today
that dogs of some breeds are not recognizable when they are in fact
intact. This legislation would ensure that dogs are no longer subjected
to lasting pain as a result of docking, and also that shows and exhibi-
tions will no favor dogs whose tails have been docked.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect August 1, 2009; provided,
however, if it shall become law after such date it shall take effect
immediately and shall be deemed to have been in full force and effect on
and after August 1, 2009.
SPONSOR Glick (MS)
COSPNSR http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=086, Colton, Dinowitz, Eddington, Kellner, Paulin, Rosenthal
MLTSPNSR Ball, Boyland, Gottfried, McDonough, McEneny
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)