Monday, September 19, 2011

CA:City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations



City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:02 pm (PDT)

From: Jana Ransom  ;
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:27 AM
To: Jana Ransom 
Cc: Brian Fisk ; Sharon Landers ; Michelle Grettenberg 
Subject: City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

The City of Irvine City Council will hold a public hearing on OCTOBER 11, 2011 beginning at 4:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers in the Irvine Civic Center. 

The following proposals will be considered:

1) Spay/neutering: no ordinance change will be proposed. Staff will request direction to develop an educational campaign as to the benefits of spaying and neutering animals.

2) Retail sales of dogs and cats: ordinance language will be presented to prohibit the retail sale of dogs and cats from commercial establishments in Irvine. If approved, this ordinance and all referencing sections of the Municipal Code will g o into effect 30 days after 2nd reading of ordinance (scheduled under "Consent calendar" for October 25, 2011). One existing store will be allowed to continue sales through October 31, 2012. 

3) Circuses and Rodeos: ordinance language will be presented to prohibit wild and exotic animal performances in circuses and to prohibit rodeos altogether in Irvine. If approved, this ordinance and all referencing sections of the Municipal Code will go into effect 30 days after 2nd reading of ordinance (scheduled under "Consent calendar" for October 25, 2011). Animal exhibits, petting zoos, pony rides and other exhibitions are currently regulated in the City of Irvine and will still be allowed subject to the conditions of the Municipal Code and permit requirements established by the Irvine Public Safety Department.

A number of alternatives were suggested for Council consideration or were found to be in place in other jurisdic tions. These alternatives are summarized in a chart (attached) or can be found on our webpage located athttp://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cs/animalcare/proposed_animal_welfare_ordinances.asp. 

Ordinance language is being developed for numbers 2 and 3 above. Unless the City Council directs it at their meeting of October 11, 2011, no additional ordinance language will be developed for the alternatives. 

Please note: City Council will receive the proposed ordinance language on October 7, 2011. It will be posted on our website by 5:00 p.m. on that date at this site: http://www.cityofirvine.org/council/agenda/agenda_archive.asp(click on agenda for October 11, 2011). 

As I had indicated that I hoped to have the actual language available for review further in advance, I apologize. However, it will NOT be released prior to the City Council first receiving it in the staff report that goes to Council October 7. 

Thank you all for your interest in these matters.

[Also, please forgive any duplicate emails - we are merging lists and some may have been inadvertently repeated.]

JANA M. RANSOM

COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

CITY OF IRVINE

P.O. BOX 19575

IRVINE, CA 92623-9575

(949) 724-6694

jransom@ci.irvine.ca.us

__._,_.___
 

Monday, September 12, 2011

Governor Brown - please VETO AB 1121 (puppy licensing/seller reporting)

 
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
September 12, 2011
 
Re: CA AB 1121 (Pan) Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses: OPPOSE. Request for veto.
 
Dear Governor Brown,
 
The California Federation of Dog Clubs, founded in 1990, represents thousands of dog owners across our state. We are dedicated to the promotion of responsible dog ownership and to protecting the rights of responsible dog owners. Among our current projects are implementation of a breed identification workshop for shelter workers, distribution of a dog care and training brochure for new owners who adopt from a shelter, and establishment of a 1-800 help line for pet owners struggling with behavior or training problems. We also maintain and administer a relief fund for animals affected by disasters such as earthquakes or fires. We are active in support of animal legislation that provides positive benefits to society, such as CA SB 390 (LaMalfa) and CA AB 258  "Molly's Bill" (medical exemptions for rabies vaccination), for which we are a co-sponsor.
 
The CFoDC is OPPOSED to AB 1121. This bill mandates reporting of pet sales to the local licensing agency by pet stores, breeders and rescues. Current law already requires the pet owner to seek and obtain a dog license. AB 1121 would improperly transfer this reporting responsibility to the seller. Licensing is ultimately the legal and moral responsibility of the dog owner, not the seller. Sellers should not be required to report personal details of animal buyers to the state. This smacks of the very worst type of "snitch" culture and can only foster further distrust of government.
 
Rescue groups currently operate on a shoestring budget with volunteers handling the bulk of the work. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in this bill are onerous for nonprofits to contend with and could have a dampering effect on continued rescue activities.
 
Currently, most veterinarians are already required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to licensing authorities. This new seller reporting requirement is duplicative, and creates another bureaucratic layer in animal control with increased additional costs to the public. Further, the provisions of the bill regarding who must report are confusing and subject to individual interpretation.
 
AB 1121 also contains provisions for puppy licensing for a discounted fee. Firstly, there is no justification for a puppy too young for rabies vaccination to be licensed. The sole original purpose for dog licensing was to protect public health through canine rabies vaccination enforcement. Also, there will be additional license levels and confusion with the puppy provisions.
 
Only puppies who are microchipped qualify for the puppy license discount; however, microchipping is a stand-alone measure to facilitate return to owner in case of a lost dog. Microchip information is registered with independent agencies and is not tracked by the state. A license does not provide any additional benefits to the microchipped dog.
 
The proposed discount is only applicable during the first year of life. Owners in certain areas (like heavily populated Los Angeles) will discover only too late that they will face mandatory, unnecessary and costly sterilization surgery, or else pay an exorbitant intact license fee for their dog once the puppy license expires. This will cause an increase in shelter relinquishments by those with limited financial means. It is not uncommon to find an intact license fee of 500% or more higher than the amount charged for altered dogs. Differential license fees based on age or reproductive status are punitive in nature and counterproductive to encouraging licensing compliance.
 
Bearing in mind that our state has the worst budget crisis in history, it seems ludicrous that we would now prioritize precious resources to implement additional bureaucratic red tape in the tracking of dogs. More money will be needed to ensure compliance; money for advertising, money for tracking and paperwork, and money for more employees needed for enforcement. This will only add to the city/county budget woes.
 
Reporting of private matters will only cause citizens further dissatisfaction with intrusive government, and there will be decreased compliance across the board. 
 
We urge you to veto AB 1121.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
 
Geneva Coats, R.N.
Secretary
California Federation of Dog Clubs
 

Friday, September 9, 2011

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 1121

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 1121 - dog sales reporting and puppy licensing
 
TAKE ACTION / CALL Gov. Jerry Brown, tell him to veto AB 1121.
Phone: (916) 445-2841 / Fax: (916) 558-3160

This bill was rushed through both legislative bodies yesterday, and passed the assembly despite only 49 out of 80 assembly members voting for it.
 
CA AB 1121 would require each pet dealer, dog breeder, humane society, rescue group, or SPCA to report details of their puppy sales to the local licensing agency. Required information to disclose would be the new owner's name and address, breed and age of dog, and reproductive and microchip status of the dog. The bill would allow puppies to receive a discounted license, contingent upon being microchipped. It would allow veterinarians to license dogs through their offices.
 
Here are some details of who would need to comply with the seller reporting provisions:
 
  • A "pet dealer" means a person engaging in the business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, who is required to possess a sales tax permit. A current sales tax permit is required of anyone who sells more than two animals in a year.
  • A breeder who has three litters per year OR sells twenty or more dogs in a year must also comply with the breeder reporting requirements.
 
A retailer who sells less than 50 animals in a year is not currently considered a "pet dealer." However, the first sentence of the bill states:
 
"It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage anyone transferring ownership of a dog to advise the new owner that all dogs four months of age or older must be licensed under state law. It is further the intent of the Legislature to encourage all veterinarians to advise their clients to license all of the clients' dogs that are four months of age or older."
  
This bill is ripe for incrementalism. It establishes a new reporting requirement that is limited to a relatively small group at the onset, but could easily be expanded or tightened up in the future to include a wider group of breeders or even veterinarians. Since the stated intent of the bill is to "encourage" licensing by anyone transferring a dog or by all veterinarians, no doubt the proposed law will eventually be amended to include more hobby breeders. It could even be amended to require veterinarians to verify that dogs they treat are licensed. (A bill like this recently passed in Philadelphia. No doubt the ARs have a plan to expand this to other areas)
 
Speaking of incrementalism, did you realize that the only initial purpose for dog licensing was rabies control? This is a perfect example of incrementlism at its worst. Licensing has expanded significantly beyond the role of protecting public health from the threat of rabies, to where we now have all manner of government control over our animals associated with licensing, such as forced sterilization, mandated microchips, limits on the numbers of animals we can own and limits on the choice to breed. 
 
Unfortunately, a group claiming to represent the interests of California dog owners is sponsoring this bill. We can only emphasize that this is extremely foolish and shortsighted on the part of this group. PAWPac, an animal rights lobbying group, is actively supporting AB 1121. Other supporting groups include the HSUS and the ASPCA.
 
The animal rights groups just want to get this law passed. They know that once the law is on the books, they can refine and strengthen it later.
 
There are several serious concerns regarding this bill:
  •  Licensing is ultimately the legal and moral responsibility of the dog owner, not the seller. Sellers should not be required to report personal details of animal buyers to the state. This smacks of the very worst type of "snitch" activity.
  • Currently, most veterinarians in the state already are required to report to the local animal control agency the owner name and address for pets vaccinated against rabies in order to comply with state health requirements for rabies control. This bill is duplicative and unnecessary.
  • This bill imposes a state-mandated local program. The seller reporting requirement adds an additional bureaucratic layer to animal control, with increased costs that will be borne by all of us as dog license holders and taxpayers.
  • Rescue groups currently operate on a shoestring budget with volunteers handling the bulk of the work. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in this bill are onerous for nonprofits to contend with and could have a dampering effect on continued rescue activities.
  • In addition, this bill will likely bring more puppies into the system for their owners in certain areas to find out only too late that they may face mandatory, unnecessary and costly sterilization surgery, or else pay an exorbitant intact license fee for their dog once the puppy license expires.
  • Only puppies who are microchipped qualify for the puppy discount license. The discount is only applied during the first year of life.  
  • Unfortunately, as happens with all punitive laws, under the provisions of this bill, more dogs will end up in shelters. There is no thought about the unintended consequences of the seller reporting requirements in areas with local mandatory sterilization laws or stringent limit laws.
  • The bill allows for "veterinarians to issue the licenses to owners of dogs who make application." There is a concern that this concept could be expanded in the future to turn veterinarians into the dog licensing police, which would cause some owners to avoid seeking needed veterinary care for their pets.
"No Kill" methodology advises against punitive, coercive legislation because they know such laws create more problems than they solve. AB 1121 certainly falls into the category of coercive legislation. The small benefit of a reduced fee puppy license is far outweighed by the onerous seller reporting requirements.
 
Please contact the governor today to urge his veto.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Glendale bans pet store sale of dogs and cats

This "reporter" neglected to note the opposition of the California Federation of Dog Clubs which contacted the City Council repeatedly. Notice how "no pet stores in Glendale are currently selling dogs." Yet this ordinance was such a big priority.
 
And, these anti-animal, "animal rights" fanatics don't care about the loss of revenues from shows held there. They are idealogues not driven by economics or practical concerns. They wish to spread sales bans to as many cities as possible, and eventually nationwide. The original proposal was to ban breeding completely in the city, and there was a big push for that. Any time there is a ban on sales/breeding against one segment of the population, all of us are at risk.
 
The group CAPS (Companion Animal Protection Society) worked with the city, inspected the one pet store that used to sell dogs, and wrote the ordinance. They are a nationwide animal rights organization opposed to breeding and selling dogs unless they are "rescues". Isn't it frightening that our government officials are listening to these animal wrongists? Hiring them to do "consultations" and write ordinances!
 
 
 
Glendale bans pet store sale of dogs and cats
The Glendale City Council voted unanimously last night to pass an ordinance banning the retail sale of dogs and cats in pet stores, to take effect in 30 days.
 
Due to both public and council input, the ordinance was revised to exclude a section that would have exempted onsite breeding at pet stores, which according to Glendale City Attorney Michael Garcia, raised concerns about encouraging irresponsible "backyard" breeding.
 
He said the ordinance won't apply to individuals whose pets occasionally have a litter or "hobby" breeders, and Glendale residents can still purchase dogs and cats from breeders or adopt through non-profit agencies or shelters. He stated that no pet stores in Glendale are currently selling dogs.
 
Elizabeth Oreck, National Manager of Puppy Mill Initiatives for Best Friends Animal Society, told the Council that Best Friends is currently working with Pets R Us (until recently the only seller of puppy mill dogs in Glendale). When the store opted to go humane and offer only rescue dogs, they contacted Best Friends, which partners with pet stores to promote adoption. Pets R Us joins Pet Rush, which last year became Glendale's first rescue-only pet store.
Lisa Kuta, a small-scale breeder/rescuer of exotic cats, expressed concern that the ordinance might affect the cat shows held twice yearly at Glendale Civic Auditorium, which she pointed out bring added revenue to the city.
 
And completely opposed to the ordinance was Michael Shelton, Southwest Regional Director of The Cat Fanciers' Association. He was also concerned the ban would affect public events where cats are shown and put local breeders in increased danger from animal activists.
 
Both Garcia and Glendale Mayor Laura Friedman assured them the ordinance wouldn't apply to cat shows.
 
"I think it's selfish to breed animals while millions are destroyed in shelters," said Dana Miller Coburn, a Glendale resident there to show her support. "If you truly love animals, you should be wholeheartedly in favor of this ban."
 
Another local resident, Angie Groom, told the Council: "I look forward to the ripple effect this will hopefully have on other cities."
 
Animal advocates are confident that the ordinance's impact will extend far beyond Glendale's borders. Aside from inspiring other California and U.S. cities to adopt similar bans, they feel it will create more awareness of the puppy/kitten mill-pet store connection, which will in turn help curtail online sales of animals from inhumane puppy and kitten mills -- and ultimately increase adoptions.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Ask the Governor to VETO SB 702 (microchipping impounded animals)

While you are on the phone or faxing regarding AB 1117, please also mention SB 702.
 
 
TAKE ACTION / CALL Gov. Jerry Brown, tell him to veto SB 702.
Phone: (916) 445-2841 / Fax: (916) 558-3160
 
"I am OPPOSED to SB 702, a mandate to routinely microchip dogs upon release from a shelter."
 
Talking points: 
 
Mandated microchipping will have unintended consequences. Since the cost of the microchip will be borne by the owner, this will result in higher impound/adoption fees. Considering today's economic climate, for many animals this increased cost will reduce the chances of being adopted or reclaimed.  
 
A microchip can be a wonderful tool, but they are not without pitfalls. There have been rare instances of microchip insertion resulting in illness and death. Dogs have bled to death after insertion and developed abscesses at the insertion site. Some have had the chip improperly inserted into muscle tissue or even the spinal canal, and there are also cases of lethal cancer formation at microchip sites. Chips can migrate in the body or fail, rendering them useless. Microchips also vary considerably by manufacturer, and there is no universal scanner at this time.
 
Other forms of identification such as tattoos or tags can be immediately read by anyone who finds a stray dog, allowing rapid return to owner and reducing the burden on local shelters. Animal welfare groups such as AKC and OFA consider tattoos to be an acceptable form of permanent ID. Freeze branding is also an alternative.
 
Information on a microchip may not always be updated upon transfer of ownership. Reliance on a microchip may mean the death of a pet who would have survived with a more visible form of identification.
 
Bill proponents are making false claims about this bill, stating that animals control officers in the field will scan and return animals without having them enter the shelter system first. While it is possible for such a system to be implemented, it is NOT the reality of what happens here in California.
 
A full 11% of shelter intakes are animals that are DOA. Another 14% are animals that are relinquished by their owner. That's 25% who won't be helped by this microchip mandate. Over 50% of all intakes are cats and kittens, few of which have owners. Microchips won't help feral cats and kittens. The proven method for dealing with feral cats and kittens is trap-neuter-release programs. Killing or microchipping feral cats are obviously not humane or beneficial methods of dealing with them.
 
In light of the risks associated with these devices, it is ill-advised to mandate their routine usage. Pet owners should be allowed to decide if they wish to utilize a permanent ID system, and, if so, if they prefer to use collars and tags or tattoos instead of microchips. We urge you to veto CA SB 702.

ASK GOVERNOR BROWN TO VETO AB 1117



AB 1117 has passed both legislative bodies and is on to the Governor's desk now for signature.

 


Dear Governor Brown:

Please veto AB 1117.

It is unfair to MANDATE no pets or animals to be owned for five years on a misdemeanor charge. 

Please let the judicial system do its job and decide the penalties.

Many cities such as Oakland have time limits on tethering of dogs. If one were to overstay this time limit by minutes, this misdemeanor charge would result in losing their dog and ALL other pets for FIVE YEARS.


AB 1117 would extend civil asset forfeiture to include animals. Existing law requires a convicted person to pay for the costs involved with seizing and impounding their animals. AB 1117 would extend the lien on animals based simply upon a correctly issued warrant. This would be not only unjust, but onerous and cost-prohibitive to most owners, who would be forced to forfeit their animals even if innocent. The animals would then further add to the financial strain on local shelters.
This bill would require any order prohibiting ownership to also prohibit the person from possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for animals of any kind.  It would further require the owner to make "additional showings" in order for the court to direct the release of seized or impounded animals. This bill creates 5 and 10-year probation periods. This mandated monitoring for extended periods of time would significantly impact local budgets, already strained with the economic recession. 
This bill creates a new misdemeanor offense for a person found to be in violation of the animal-possession injunction. This bill may exacerbate the current overcrowding crisis in county jails, since a person who violates an animal-ban order is subject to prosecution for a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Under the influence of AB 109, moving state inmates to jails and probation control, costs to monitor for extended probation periods will be considerable.
  
Sentencing terms and conditions of probation are best left to the discretion of judges based on each individual case. For instance, a case of neglect may be as minor as leaving an animal without water, yet the offender would be prohibited from owning or residing with family members who have animals for a proscribed period of between five to ten years. This could adversely impact those people with guide dogs or other service animals.
The California Judges Association opposes the elimination of judicial discretion and noted in the May 18, 2011 analysis: An enjoining order would probably be appropriate in most cases of animal abuse, but exceptional cases can arise". The California Judges Association concludes:
                                                            "AB 1117 goes too far."
AB 1117 is unnecessary. Judges already have the discretion to enter an order forbidding persons from caring for animals when warranted. Making this order mandatory could unjustly impact individuals who make a living working with or caring for animals. It could also be detrimental to those who depend on therapy dogs.  While this Bill makes an exemption regarding residing with animals for stockowners, other animal owners, for instance an animal trainer, or one who owns a therapy dog, should have the same consideration. This again should be subject to judicial discretion, and not a blanket mandate.
   
The Bill would have the party that made the seizure determine whether the convicted party can abide by these "future" events.  This is a conflict of interest. A court should determine this, if necessary. The person convicted of animal abuse must prove various future conditions; that he owns the animal, that he has paid the costs of seizure, that the animals are physically fit, that he will provide the necessary care, and that he can legally retain all the animals in question. This is asking an individual to prove acts in the future, which is impossible.

TAKE ACTION / CALL Gov. Jerry Brown, tell him to veto AB 1117
Phone: (916) 445-2841 / Fax: (916) 558-3160

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 610



California's Spay-Neuter License Plate Program - CA AB 610
CA AB 610, sponsored by the California Veterinary Medical Board, would lower the number of required pre-orders for specialized spay-neuter license plates. The text of the bill is based on misinformation and exaggerated claims about dog and cat populations in California. The bill wrongfully declares that a state of "emergency" exists in our state, and creates  poorly defined programs without proper oversight.
The funds from sales of these specialized license plates would be collected by the Veterinary Medical Board, and then distributed for projects and programs that support city and county animal shelters, including, but not limited to, spaying and neutering programs and adoption programs.
Currently, the bill is sitting in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. You can read the full text of the bill here:
In particular, we strongly object to this verbiage present in the bill:
"In six years one unspayed female dog and her offspring can reproduce 67,000 dogs. On average it costs approximately one hundred dollars ($100) to capture, house, feed, and eventually kill a homeless animal- a cost that ultimately comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. Low-cost spaying and neutering services are far below that amount. Thus, the cost of having a pregnant female dog can be much higher than the cost of spaying." 
"Each day, seven dogs and cats are born for each person born in the United States. Of those, only one in five puppies and kittens stay in their original homes for their natural lifetime. The remaining four are abandoned to the streets or end up at a shelter. As long as these birth rates exist, there will never be enough homes for all of the animals".
Please contact the California Veterinary Medical Board, your state Senator and the members of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee to let them know that there are serious concerns with this bill. Here are some talking points for your phone calls and letters.
I am opposed to CA AB 610 for these reasons:
  • The program being set up is vague and the exact distribution of the funds collected is unspecified.  
  • AB 610 is an attempt to prop up a failing program that does not have sufficient public support to sustain itself.
  • The bill's analysis questions whether this would be, "a worthwhile investment" at the lowered threshold. It concludes, "This would net less than $75,000 in funds raised, an amount that seems hardly worth the state's effort."
  • Lowering the 7,500 paid plate applications threshold to 2,500 will net insufficient funds raised to validate the expense of the license plate startup program.
  • There are reasonable concerns that funds from the license plate program could potentially be used in support of mandatory Spay and Neuter, in addition to the voluntary S/N programs originally specified in this bill. Mandatory spay and neuter is a proven failure everywhere it has been tried.
  • The bill should specify that funds will only go to free or low-cost voluntary spaying and neutering programs, and not be allocated to mandatory spay/neuter programs.
  • There is a potential conflict of interest with a VMB member whose organization may benefit financially from these funds.
  • The proposed adoption program would build a completely new bureaucracy with unknown administrative costs. 
  • Claims about pet populations in AB 610 range from misleading to egregiously false and should certainly not be written into California law.
  • California laws should be based on verifiable facts, not on misleading, biased, and inaccurate information. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claims presented in this bill regarding costs per shelter death, the costs of spay/neuter, the number of offspring that one animal can produce, or the numbers of births of dogs and cats in the United States. These "statistics" are based on unsupported information, and derived from internet "urban legends".
  • Use of unsupported facts and figures is unbecoming of a professional organization like the Veterinary Medical Board.
  • There are approximately 4 million persons born in the U.S. each year. According to the claims of the bill, there are 7 dogs and cats born for each person born. This would mean that there must be 28 million to 35 million dogs and cats born each year. If 80 percent of those animals are "abandoned or end up at a shelter," there must be 23 million to 28 million dogs and cats entering shelters every year. Yet current national shelter intakes are estimated at 6-8 million, about four times less than the bill author claims.
  • Statistics comparing human birthrates to pet birthrates are misleading. The average lifespan of a companion animal is considerably shorter than that of a human, and each pet owner will likely have many pets during his lifetime.
  • This bill claims that an 'emergency' exists. However, there is no evidence to support that claim. Shelter numbers in California have been declining steadily for decades. Over 78% of all owned dogs and over 88% of all owned cats are already spayed or neutered (Source: American Pet Products Association 2011-2012 National Pet Owners Survey). In fact, some rescue groups import dogs from other states and even from other countries.
  • According to current shelter statistics, the actual number of live animals entering California's shelters was 768,504. This is a far cry from the "one million" figure quoted on the California Veterinary Medical Board's website. California shelter statistics for 2010 show that 11.4% of intakes, or 99,025 animals, were picked up dead or died from causes other than euthanasia. This fact is omitted from the text of the bill. Dead animals collected by animal control at the request of the public should not be reflected in shelter intake statistics for the purpose of sensationalism.
  • The bill's claim of an emergency pet "overpopulation" problem in California are false. According to Dr. John Hamil, past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association: "If the animals in the shelter were due to 'overpopulation'; we would find desirable puppies available in shelters, there would be no market for Internet and pet store puppies, there would be no need for shelters to import puppies and puppy smugglers and brokers would be out of business due to market saturation. There is, in fact, a shortage of healthy, well-bred and socialized puppies and kittens in California."
CONTACT INFORMATION:
   Susan Geranen, Executive Officer
   Veterinary Medical Board
   2005 Evergreen St., Suite 2250
   Sacramento, CA 95815-3831
   Phone: 916-263-2610
   Fax:     916-263-2621
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Members 
Mark DeSaulnier (D-7), Chair
Room 5035, Sacramento, CA 94248
Ph: 916-651-4007
Fax: 916-445-2527
District Ph:925-942-6082
Fax: 925-942-608
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ted Gaines (R-1) Vice Chair
Room 3056, Sacramento, CA 94248
Ph: 916.651-4001
Fax 916.324.2680
District Ph: 916.783-8232
Fax:916-783-5487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Tom Harmon (R-35)
State Capitol 
Room 5094
Sacramento, CA 94248
Ph:916-651-4035
Fax: 916-445-9263
District Office Ph:714-957-4555
Fax:714-957-4560
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Robert Huff (R-29)
State Capitol 
Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 94248
Ph:916-651-4029
Fax:916-324-0922
District Ph: 909-598-3981
Fax: 909-598-6459
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Christine Kehoe (D-39))
State Capitol
Room 5050
Sacramento, CA 94248
Ph: 916-651-4039
Fax: 916-327-2188
District Ph: 619-645-3133
Fax: 619-645-3144
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-27)
State Capitol
Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 94248
Ph: 916-651-4027
Fax: 916-651-9113
District Ph: 562-495-4766
Fax: 562-495-1876
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Fran Pavely (D-23)
State Capitol
Room 4035
Sacramento, Ca 94248
Ph: 916-651-4023
Fax: 324-4823
District Ph: 310-314-5214
Fax: 310-314-5263
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Michael Rubio (D-16)
State Capitol
Room 4090
Sacramento, Ca 94248
Ph: 916-651-4016
Fax: 916-327-5989
District Ph: 559-364-3070
Fax: 559-364-6506
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator Joe Simitian (D-11)
State Capitol
Room 2080
Sacramento, CA 94248
Ph: 916-651-4011
Fax: 916-323-4529
District Ph: 916-651-4011
Fax: 916-323-4529
District Ph: 650-688-6384
Fax: 650-688-6370
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Committee Staff
Chief Consultant Carrie Cornwell
Room 2209
Ph: 916-651-4121
Fax: 916-445-2209
 


DOGS Alert CA AB 485-Pet Store Rescue Monopoly

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 ...