Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has approved amendments to the animal county code, Title 10 - Animals, relating to the licensing of animals and animal facilities and the care and breeding of animals.
Per DACC manager Marcia Mayeda, the new revisions address "grooming, tethering, housing and exercise.....Crates must be secured.....These changes will protect all animals in the county's jurisdiction including individual pets....All breeders will be required to separate pregnant females from other adult dogs at least 3 days before giving birth".
Along with these changes, ownership of animals will generally be limited to an arbitrarily selected number of "50." There is also a requirement for microchip or tatoo of puppies by the time they are 4 months old.
43. Recommendation: Approve introduction of ordinance to add, delete and modify the relevant sections related to the care of animals, both as individual pets and those housed in commercial animal facilities (Department of Animal Care and Control) APPROVE
The letter to the board, containing the proposed changes can be found here:
If you own or operate an animal facility in Los Angeles County, this will affect you. If you breed in Los Angeles County (a rarity unless done "underground"), this will affect you. If you own a single pet in Los Angeles County this will affect you, too.
Local animal facilities operators have been working with the DACC to implement these changes, as has CARPOC and NAIA.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Irvine City Council to Draft Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Restrictive Ordinances
Dear AKC Delegates, Judges, Club Officers and Breeders,
Please forward this information to any of your members who reside in the Irvine area.
The Irvine City Council has directed staff to draft three ordinances which will impact how the city handles animals in the future. As the specific language is not yet available, it is not possible to know the exact impact. City staff has approximately three months to make recommendations and AKC encourages responsible breeders and owners to make an effort to educate staff and city council members.
The memo from the Irvine Mayor's office lists three proposed actions:
- Prohibition on the retail sale of dogs and cats
- Mandating that all dogs and cats over 6 months of age which are impounded for being at-large be sterilized on a third impoundment
- Prohibition of performances featuring large or exotic animals
It is possible that these measures could be changed significantly during this development stage, so it is important that responsible breeders and owners are involved in this process.
Please contact the AKC Government Relations staff at email@example.com or 919-816-3720 for additional information on how you can help. We are working to connect Irvine residents who can work together in the education process.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Date: March 8, 2011 11:31:07 AM PSTSubject:Please read the attached PIJAC PetAlert concerning a proposed Irvine, CA ordinance which would ban retail shops from selling dogs and cats.
Reply-To: "PIJAC" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Retail Pet Sale Ban On The Horizon In Irvine, California The Issue:A request for action has been made to the City Council of Irvine, California to consider a proposed ordinance that would ban retail pet shops from selling dogs and cats. Two other ordinances have also been proposed that provide for mandatory spay/neuter and a ban on traveling animal exhibit performances.The Impact:The request calls for the Council to consider the following ordinances:
- Prohibition of retail sale of dogs/puppies and cats/kittens from stores located in Irvine, with a "grandfather" provision that would protect the one store in Irvine that currently sells pets for some defined period.
- Mandating that dogs and cats over the age of six months be spayed or neutered when the animal is stray and picked up by Animal Control or housed at the Animal Care Center for the third time; and
- Prohibition of performances featuring large or exotic animals in Irvine (e.g., rodeos, or circuses featuring elephants, lions and tigers).NOTE: No official text of any of the ordinances has been made available.This initiative reflects an ongoing campaign by extremists who wish to limit the availability of pets to the public. The Irvine proposal (delivered in the form of a memo from the Mayor) is the result of meetings between the Mayor and local animal welfare proponents who have asked the City Council to consider prohibiting retail pet stores from selling dogs and cats. The City Council placed the proposal on its agenda and voted 4-1 to move forward on drafting formal plans. The only dissenting council member was Jeff Lalloway who said he was unwilling to support government action on retail pet shops that outweighs individual human rights.PIJAC Position:PIJAC strongly supports the right of pet owners to have options as to where they obtain their animals based on the pet owner's individual circumstances, needs and preferences. Pet stores provide healthy, responsibly raised pets to the public, and should serve as one of the options pet owners may turn to in choosing a companion animal. Discriminatory bans against the sale of animals by pet stores are poor public policy, and are harmful to pets and pet owners. Such bans do not benefit animals or the pet owning public.Recommended Action:According to published reports, the proposed measure appears headed for passage. Even though a public hearing has not been set at this time, retail pet stores and pet owners should not wait for a public hearing on this proposal. All citizens of the city of Irvine are strongly encouraged to contact members of the City Council to voice opposition to this anti-pet proposal.You may wish to make the following points, in your own words:
- Contrary to the claims of some advocates, research demonstrates that pet store puppies are as healthy, or healthier, than puppies from any other source.
- Most pet stores obtain their puppies from responsible breeders, and customers choosing pet store puppies overwhelmingly end up with healthy and well-socialized pets.
- A ban targeting pet stores to protect animals is not rational. Pet stores are already more heavily regulated than any other source of animals.
- Regulations on business should be based on a rational relationship between the restrictions and a goal serving the public interest. This proposal does not meet that standard.It is critical that Council Members be contacted by pet stores and other businesses dealing with pets and pet products, as well as pet owners and others who love pets, BEFORE this proposal ever gets scheduled on a Council agenda. If a hearing is scheduled, all persons able to do so should attend!When a hearing date is announced, or there is some other change in status, PIJAC will post a revised PetAlert on the Breaking News page of its website to advise members and to recommend appropriate action. You are encouraged to check the PIJAC website regularly for additional information.Those having questions about this proposal should contact PIJAC's Michael Maddox via email at email@example.com or by phone at 202-452-1525, ext. 106.
CA AB 485 to be heard in Committee June 26 CA AB 485 heads to the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee to be ...