TOMORROW!!!: Chula Vista City Council to Consider Ordinance Regulating Pet Sellers

From: "AKC's Government Relations Department" <mba@akc.org>
Date: September 10, 2012 1:31:50 PM PDT
Subject: Chula Vista City Council to Consider Ordinance Regulating Pet  
Sellers
 
Chula Vista City Council to Consider Ordinance Regulating Pet Sellers
 
 
Please forward this information onto club members and responsible dog  
owners in the Chula Vista area. We apologize for the late notice; we  
only became aware of this ordinance today.
 
TOMORROW, SEPT. 11, the Chula Vista Council will consider an ordinance  
which will place specific requirements on "pet sellers," including  
requiring them to submit to inspections and requiring that intact  
males and females be kept separately unless they are being bred. In  
2011, the council adopted language which defines a "pet seller" as  
"anyone who sells more than two dogs and/or cats in Chula Vista in a  
12-month period."  This low threshold means that a person who has sold  
a single litter of puppies or kittens is considered to be a pet  
seller. As Chula Vista does not currently have any kennels, pet owners  
in residential homes are the sole targets of the proposal. Responsible  
owners and breeders are encouraged to attend the meeting and ask that  
this ordinance be revised with more complete definitions and  
appropriate provisions.
 
The draft of the ordinance can be seen here (Item 7 begins on page 103).
 
AKC has numerous concerns about the vagueness of the ordinance  
language and its potential negative impact on responsible breeders and  
owners in Chula Vista.
 
• The most concerning section is Section L, which allows the city to  
inspect pet sellers if there is a complaint.  However, it is unclear  
how exactly a pet seller will be impacted. For example, if a litter of  
puppies is whelped in January, sold in March, and a complaint is filed  
in December, is that person considered a "pet seller" and subject to  
inspection even if the puppies are no longer on the premises? What do  
the complaints need to be in regards to? What will be the criteria of  
the inspection? Does it only encompass those items listed in Section  
6.30.040, the full animal control code, or other items not mentioned?  
What will be the result of an unsatisfactory inspection – warning,  
fine, confiscation of animals? What will the scope of the inspection  
be given that these are private residences? Will residents be expected  
to allow animal control (or another agency) unfettered access to all  
areas of their homes? What happens if a resident refuses to allow  
inspectors to enter? What happens if the resident is not home? The AKC  
believes this provision has the potential to significantly impact a  
responsible breeder or owner and yet very few details about its  
administration are provided.
• Section I prohibits housing males and females together unless they  
are being bred. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge about canine  
biology. A female dog can only become pregnant when she is "in  
season," something which occurs twice a year. It is unreasonable to  
require pet owners to keep unaltered animals separate at all times.
• In other sections the proposal lacks key definitions, such as  
"primary enclosure" and "kennel house" in Section H. If these  
provisions applied to commercial kennels, it might be possible to  
infer their meaning.  However, the proposal deals with household pets  
in residential settings and as a result is less clear. For example,  
does an animal need to spend a specific amount of time in a "primary  
enclosure" every day for it to be required to meet the space  
requirements? The code section containing the space requirements is  
for commercial kennels, yet it may now be applied to residential homes  
without revision.
• Similarly, in Section D the proposal requires water receptacles to  
be secured to prevent it from being tipped over. It is unclear if a  
water bowl on the ground would be acceptable. Again, this provision  
seems suited for commercial kennels, not private homes.
Given the breadth of these concerns, the AKC believes a more prudent  
course of action may be to redraft the proposal with more specific  
details so that pet sellers, residents and animal control can all have  
a clear understanding of what is required and how it will be enforced.
 
What You Can Do
 
• Attend the Chula Vista City Council Meeting on Tuesday September  
11th and speak against the proposed ordinance.
Chula Vista City Council Meeting
 
Date: Tuesday, September 11th, 2012
 
Time: 10 AM
 
Location: Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
 
The measure is currently on the Consent Calendar but it can be removed  
by a city council member or a citizen for discussion. If the item is  
passed without being removed, it will appear on the agenda for  
September 25th for final adoption.
 
• Contact the Mayor and City Council members and ask them to oppose  
this ordinance as drafted.
Mayor and City Council Office
 
Phone: (619) 691-5044
 
Fax: (619) 476-5379
 
Mayor Cheryl Cox
 
Click here to email her using the city's web form
 
Councilmember Rudy Ramirez
 
Email: rramirez@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
 
Councilmember Patricia Aguilar
 
Click here to email her using the city's web form
 
Councilmember Pamela Bensoussan
 
Email: pbensoussan@chulavistaca.gov
 
Councilmember Steve Castenada
 
Email: scastaneda@chulavistaca.gov
 
 
For more information, please contact the AKC Government Relations  
Department at 919-816-3720, or email doglaw@akc.org.
 
 
 

HSUS attacks AKC over the proposed APHIS Regulations

Permission given to forward.  If you want to save your right to breed dogs and show them and have them as pets, You have until JULY 16 to put your name down as being opposed to these regulations.  All of the ways to respond are below

Stop APHIS from taking away the right of small breeders from selling to the public quality pets. 
View the proposed rules at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=APHIS-2011-0003
Comment at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001
Sign the AKC petition to stop the APHIS rules and regulations: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/join-with-the-akc-to-protect-responsible-small-breeders.html
Send a letter to your Senators and Congress to let them know what the USDA is doing; It is easy and painless!:
http://the-cavalry-group.rallycongress.com/6980/urge-congress-take-action-to-support-cavalry-group-mission/?m=3179346

Send a letter to Agricultural Secretary Vilsack:
http://www.thecavalrygroup.com/letter1.php

If you don't think they are after you, read this biased article that is presented by ABC news.

 http://tinyurl.com/7jhp5j5

Humane Society Accuses American Kennel Club of Protecting Puppy Mills

In what could become a nasty dogfight, the Humane Society of the United States alleged today that the American Kennel Club is thwarting efforts to prevent animal cruelty by blocking laws that would crack down on so-called "puppy mills, and is also blocking a new federal law that would greatly expand inspections of breeders who sell dogs over the internet.

"This is one of the most important dog welfare reforms of the decade, and AKC is opposing it," Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the US, told ABC News.

In a 13-page report called "The American Kennel Club: No Longer 'The Dog's Champion?'," the HSUS accuses the world's largest purebred dog registry, which collects membership fees from thousands of dog breeders, of blocking laws across the country that would crack down on puppy mills – and affect the AKC's members.

"When we added it all up, we learned that the AKC has opposed 80 state and local proposals to crack down on puppy mills," said Pacelle. "That's a shocking pattern of behavior for an organization that says it's focused on the health of dogs."

"Puppy mills" are large-scale dog-breeding facilities that provide puppies to pet stores across the country and for sale via the internet directly to consumers. Many belong to the AKC and produce AKC-registered purebred puppies. The Humane Society says that many puppy mills have substandard living conditions that create health and behavior problems in dogs.

The Humane Society also charges the AKC with trying to stop a proposed change to the federal Animal Welfare Act that would make breeders who sell puppies over the internet subject to regular health and safety inspections by the U.S. Dept of Agriculture.

The Animal Welfare Act currently requires USDA inspections of breeders but does not require inspections of pet stores, based on the old-fashioned "how much is that doggie in the window" method of dog-buying, in which consumers could see the conditions in the stores where they bought their puppies. The rule was drafted before the advent of the internet, which has now become a significant resource for consumers purchasing both purebred and mixed-breed dogs.

The proposed rule would still exempt physical "retail pet stores" from inspection, but would close a loophole via which internet dog breeders had also classified themselves as "retail pet stores." Any breeder with more than four breeding females would become liable to inspection. The change would add thousands of internet breeders, many of them selling AKC-registered purebreds, to the list of breeders subject to USDA inspection and oversight.

In a press release announcing the proposed rule, the USDA described the move as primarily designed to ensure the proper treatment of animals: "By revising the definition of retail pet store to be better suited to today's marketplace, we will improve the welfare of pets sold to consumers via online, phone and mail-based business."

Yet the AKC – which bills itself on its website as "The Dog's Champion" – has opposed the proposed changes, stating on its website that the changes "have the potential to significantly impact AKC breeders." The organization cites a number of concerns, including the challenge for smaller breeders to comply with regulations now reserved for larger ones, and the expense to smaller breeders to establish "commercial-level facilities."

Both the AKC and HSUS are encouraging consumers to voice their opinions on the proposed rule, which is supposed to take effect later this year and is open to public comment through July 16.

The AKC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

JOIN CALIFORNIA ANIMAL VOTERS ALLIANCE
at www.cavotersalliance.com
It's time to VOTE OUT those politicians that bend to special interests  rather than uphold the State Constitution.
Call (712) 432-8595 Press Option 7 for  Call to Action Alerts



**********************************************************************
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will
convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would
do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." Lyndon
Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

AB 1939 - Puppy licensing, seller sales reporting

Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
State Capital, Room 2053

Sacramento, CA 95814

Fax: 916-324-0917

June 28, 2012

 

 

Re: AB 1939 (Pan) Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses: (as amended June 19, 2012):

 

OPPOSE. Request to be listed in official opposition.

 

 

Dear Senator Price and Committee Members,

 

The California Federation of Dog Clubs, founded in 1990, represents thousands of dog owners across our state. We are advocates for animal welfare and for protecting the rights of responsible dog owners. The CFoDC conducts breed identification workshops for shelter workers, distributes a dog care and training brochure for new owners who adopt from shelters, and provides a toll-free 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. CFoDC supports animal legislation with positive benefits to society.

 

The CFoDC is OPPOSED to AB 1939. This bill mandates reporting of pet sales to the local licensing agency by pet stores, breeders and rescue groups. AB 1939 also contains provisions for puppy licensing. There will be additional license levels and confusion with the puppy provisions. In addition, differential license fees based on age or reproductive status unreasonably penalize responsible owners of intact, mature animals.

 

The license fee discount is only offered for puppies under the age of six months, and expires at the age of one year. Owners in certain areas (such as  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 (currently $335 yearly per dog in the City of Los Angeles), once the puppy license expires. This hardship will cause an increase in shelter relinquishments by low- and fixed-income families.

 

Only puppies who are microchipped qualify for the puppy discount license; however, microchipping itself is an effective measure to facilitate return to owner in case of a lost dog. A license may not provide any additional benefits to the microchipped dog. Microchip information is registered with independent agencies and does not need be tracked by government. Reporting of private matters such as animal ownership information or microchip data will only foster further distrust of government and result in decreased compliance with critically important rabies control programs.

 

Most veterinarians in our state are required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to local licensing authorities. The reporting requirement in this bill is duplicative, creating another bureaucratic layer in animal control with increased costs to local governments. Additionally, there is no reason for a puppy too young for rabies vaccination to be licensed. The sole original purpose for dog licensing was to protect public health through enforcement of canine rabies vaccination requirements.

 

Rescue groups operate on limited budgets and rely on unpaid volunteers. The burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in AB 1939 would seriously compromise the activities of rescue organizations. Fewer animals will be rescued from local shelters, and local governments will find their animal control budget swelling as they will need to house and feed more animals for extended stays. A recent exemption was written in for rescues; however, only the smallest of rescue groups (those who place less than 20 pets per year) would be exempt. An exemption for the smallest and least efficient rescue groups is counterproductive. It discourages rescue groups from saving lives. More animals will be left to die in our shelters.

 

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.

 

 

 

We urge you to reject AB 1939.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

 

 

 

 

CC: Curren Price, Bill Emmerson, Ellen Corbett, Lou Correa, Ed Hernandez, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Tony Strickland, Juan Vargas, Mark Wyland, Bill Gage, G.V. Ayers, S. Mason, K. Sullivan,

SB 1221 - anti-hunting bill

 

Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
1020 N Street, Room 160
Sacramento, California 95814
916.319.2196 fax

June 29, 2012

 

Re: SB 1221 Lieu: Mammals; use of dog to hunt bobcats/bears (as amended 3-26-12): OPPOSE.

 

Dear Assemblyman Huffman and committee members,

 

The California Federation of Dog Clubs wishes to reiterate our staunch opposition to SB 1221, and urges you to reject this bill. Wildlife policy should be determined by science and logic, not emotion. Use of dogs to tree animals that pose a danger to humans is an efficient and humane method of wildlife management. The California Fish and Game Commission is the appropriate agency with the scientific resources to make determinations regarding regulations on hunting, not the legislature.

 

While SB 1221 bans certain types of hunting with hounds, it also poses a serious threat to any dog being walked by its owner, if that dog is deemed to threaten or pursue a bear or bobcat. This bill gives DFG officials the authority to shoot ANY dog they believe to be chasing bears or bobcats. This is extreme government over-reach and abuse of regulatory authority.

 

More than banning hunting with dogs, history shows that animal rights extremist groups have attempted to ban all fieldwork with dogs. All forms of dog training are now being challenged on government owned land. In the late 1990's, there was a directed attempt to ban field trialers, dog testers, and organized dog training from Pittman-Robertson funded state game lands. Venery (scenthound hunting/training), and coursing (sighthound hunting/training) are all in danger is SB 1221 becomes law. 

 

We urge you to reject this ill-conceived idea which would establish a dangerous "foot in the door" precedent. This measure is meant to promote the anti-hunting agenda of the HSUS and other animal extremist groups. It poses a serious threat to the traditional human-dog partnership that has existed since the dawn of time.

 

Please vote NO on SB 1221.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

 

CC: Jared Huffman, Linda Halderman, Bill Berryhill, Bob Blumenfield, Nora Campos, Paul Fong, Beth Gaines, Mike Gatto, Roger Hernandez, Ben Hueso, Brian W. Jones, Ricardo Lara, Mariko Yamada

 

ACTION ALERT - grooming and hunting bills

Two important bills are coming up for possible action in their respective committees tomorrow, June 26.

 

SB 969 would create a grooming council (that includes animal rights activist lawyers) and require hundreds of hours of training to qualify for certification to bathe and brush pets.

SB 1221 would prohibit hunting bears and bobcats using hounds.

 

 CALL TODAY!!! hearing is tomorrow.

---

CA SB 969 (Vargas) Pet Grooming (As amended 06-20-2012): OPPOSE

 

Talking points:

 

• This bill would further strain the state's budget for a program regulating the bathing and brushing of pets.
• Grooming programs would be required to be approved for certification by this new council. The proposed council would include animal rights proponents and animal rights activist lawyers. Animal rights extremists are philosophically opposed to animal ownership and certainly should not have a seat on any council pertaining to animal husbandry. 
• AKC administers a voluntary nationwide Registered Professional Handlers program. Professional handlers certainly should not need to also apply for state certification in order to claim they are professionally qualified to groom dogs. Professional handlers who travel into California from other states may find themselves in a legal quandary under the terms of SB 969.
• Grooming establishments already must comply with requirements for business licenses and are subject to consumer regulation by word of mouth. If groomers do a poor job, they go out of business.
• Our state can ill-afford a new program that provides no benefits to the citizens of the state beyond the functions of local Better Business Bureaus. 
• The exact type of pet covered by this bill is not specified; it could be any sort of pet, from a hamster to a horse.
• A person applying for an Emergency Medical Technologist license in California needs a combined total of 120 hours of classroom and clinical experience. Certification for bathing and brushing pets would require many more educational hours than those required for certification to provide lifesaving medical services for humans.
• Implementation of this certification program would be a costly burden to both taxpayers and consumers. Please reject SB 969 so that the state's resources can instead be utilized for programs of genuine importance to our taxpayers and citizens.

 

Please contact these assembly members today and tell them that you oppose SB 969!

 

Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee

State Capital, Room 3013

Sacramento, CA 95814

FAX 916-319-3306

 

 

 Mary Hayashi (D) -Chair ph (916) 319-2018

Bill Berryhill (R) -Vice Chair ph (916) 319-2026

Michael Allen (D) -Majority Leader ph (916) 319-2007

Betsy Butler (D) -Assem Member ph(916) 319-2053

Mike Eng (D) -Assem Member ph (916) 319-2049

Curt Hagman (R) -Assem Member ph(916) 319-2060

Jerry Hill (D) -Dem Caucus Chair ph(916) 319-2019

Fiona Ma (D) -Speaker Pro Tem ph(916) 319-2012

Cameron Smythe (R) -Assem Member ph (916) 319-2038

 

---

 

SB 1221 Lieu: Mammals; use of dog to hunt bobcats/bears (as amended 3-26-12): OPPOSE.

 

Talking points:

• The sponsors of this bill allege that the use of hounds is inhumane, unsporting and unfair.  Unfortunately, the information they use to support this bill comes from anti-hunting organizations that have no motivation to be truthful about the practice. 
• Hunting with hounds is not only humane but a sensible and valuable tool for wildlife management. Hound hunting is virtually the only form of non-consumptive hunting, and is very similar to catch-and-release fishing. It allows an animal's age and sex to be determined before any attempt to harvest is made. It also allows a houndsman to determine if a female is pregnant, nursing, or has offspring so that they can be left alive and well in the tree. 
• The use of hounds allows for the timely and accurate resolution of incidents involving threats to public safety or livestock by identifying, locating, and taking only the offending animal.
• Large predatory mammals such as bears and bobcats can readily defend themselves and are not in any danger of bodily injury from dogs.
• Not only is this bill unreasonable as a hunting and wildlife management measure, but it places the lives of our dogs in danger. Any dog determined to be a supposed threat to a "big game mammal" can be captured and/or "dispatched" (i.e. KILLED) by game wardens, and the owner of the dog would have no recourse.
• This bill is a product of sensationalism and emotion rather than logic and science.

                              

CALL or FAX NOW.

 

Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
916.319.2096 phone
916.319.2196 fax

 

Jared Huffman, chair (916) 319-2006

 

Linda Halderman, Vice Chair   (916) 319-2029

 

Bill Berryhill  (916) 319-2026

 

Bob Blumenfield  (916) 319-2040

 

Nora Campos  (916) 319-2023

 

Paul Fong (916) 319-2022

 

Beth Gaines  (916) 319-2004

 

Mike Gatto   (916) 319-2043

 

Roger Hernandez  (916) 319-2057

 

Ben Hueso  (916) 319-2079

 

Brian W. Jones  (916) 319-2077

 

Ricardo Lara  (916) 319-2050

 

Mariko Yamada  (916) 319-2008

 

AB 1939 - seller reporting and discounted puppy licensing

Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
State Capital, Room 2053

Sacramento, CA 95814

Fax: 916-324-0917

June 15, 2012

 

 

Re: AB 1939 (Pan) Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses: (as amended 4-16-2012): OPPOSE. Request to be listed in official opposition.

 

 

 

Dear Senator Price and Committee Members,

 

The California Federation of Dog Clubs, founded in 1990, represents thousands of dog owners across our state. We are advocates for animal welfare and for protecting the rights of responsible dog owners. The CFoDC conducts breed identification workshops for shelter workers, distributes a dog care and training brochure for new owners who adopt from shelters, and provides 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. CFoDC supports animal legislation with positive benefits to society.

 

The CFoDC is OPPOSED to AB 1939. This bill mandates reporting of pet sales to the local licensing agency by pet stores, breeders and rescue groups. AB 1939 also contains provisions for puppy licensing. There will be additional license levels and confusion with the puppy provisions. In addition, differential license fees based on age or reproductive status unreasonably penalize responsible owners of intact, mature animals.

 

The license fee discount is only applicable up to the age of one year. Owners in certain areas (such as  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 (currently $335 yearly per dog in the City of Los Angeles). once the puppy license expires. This will cause an increase in shelter relinquishments by low income families and those surviving on fixed incomes.

 

Only puppies who are microchipped qualify for the puppy discount license; however, microchipping itself is an effective measure to facilitate return to owner in case of a lost dog. A license may not provide any additional benefits to the microchipped dog. Microchip information is registered with independent agencies and does not need be tracked by government. Reporting of private matters such as animal ownership information or microchip data will only foster further distrust of government and result in decreased compliance with critically important rabies control programs.

 

Most veterinarians in our state are required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to local licensing authorities. The reporting requirement in this bill is duplicative, creating another bureaucratic layer in animal control with increased costs to local governments. Additionally, there is no reason for a puppy too young for rabies vaccination to be licensed. The sole original purpose for dog licensing was to protect public health through enforcement of canine rabies vaccination requirements.

 

Rescue groups operate on limited budgets and rely on unpaid volunteers.  The burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in AB 1939 would seriously compromise the activities of rescue organizations. Fewer animals will be rescued from local shelters, and local governments will find their animal control budget swelling as they will need to house and feed more animals for extended stays.

 

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.

 

 

 

We urge you to reject AB 1939.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

 

 

 

 

CC: Curren Price, Bill Emmerson, Ellen Corbett, Lou Correa, Ed Hernandez, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Tony Strickland, Juan Vargas, Mark Wyland, Bill Gage, G.V. Ayers, S. Mason, K. Sullivan,

 

SB 969 - Pet Grooming

Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee

State Capital, Room 3013

Sacramento, CA 95814

FAX 916-319-3306

 

June 8, 2012

 

Re: CA SB 969 (Vargas) Pet Grooming (As amended 05-23-2012): OPPOSE

Request to be listed as official opposition

 

Dear Committee Members,

 

The California Federation of Dog Clubs, founded in 1990, represents thousands of dog owners across our state. We are advocates for animal welfare and for protecting the rights of responsible dog owners. The CFoDC conducts breed identification workshops for shelter workers, distributes a dog care and training brochure for new owners who adopt from shelters, and provides 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. CFoDC supports animal legislation which positively benefits society.

 

The CFoDC is OPPOSED to SB 969. This bill would further strain the state's budget for a program regulating the bathing and brushing of pets. A costly new council will be created to oversee another bureaucratic agency. Groomers must complete 1300 combined hours of instruction and hand-on experience before they will be allowed the privilege of paying for a biennial certification, in order to bathe and brush pets. Participating grooming schools must be approved by this new board. An examination process must also be instituted, to include written exams as well as demonstrations.

 

Grooming programs would be required to be approved for certification by this new council, a group composed of individuals overwhelmingly unfamiliar with established grooming practices. Only two of the members would be versed in practices standard to the grooming profession.

 

 

Instead, the proposed council would consist primarily of animal rights proponents and animal rights activist lawyers. Animal rights extremists are philosophically opposed to animal ownership and certainly should not have a seat on any council pertaining to animal husbandry. 

 

AKC administers a voluntary nationwide Registered Professional Handlers program. Professional handlers certainly should not need to also apply for state certification in order to claim they are professionally qualified to groom dogs. Professional handlers who travel into California from other states may find themselves in a legal quandary under the terms of SB 969.

 

Grooming establishments already must comply with requirements for business licenses and are subject to consumer regulation by word of mouth. If groomers do a poor job, they go out of business. Our state can ill-afford a new program that provides no benefits to the citizens of the state beyond the functions of local Better Business Bureaus.  Incidentally, the exact type of pet covered by this bill is not specified; it could be any sort of pet, from a hamster to a horse.

 

This bill is unnecessary. There is a presumption that certification for grooming of animals should be on a par with provision of cosmetology services to humans. The implementation of this certification program would be a costly burden to both taxpayers and consumers. Please reject SB 969 so that the state's resources can instead be utilized for programs of genuine importance to our taxpayers and citizens.

  

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

 

Cc: Mary Hayashi, Bill Berryhill, Michael Allen, Betsy Butler, Mike Eng, Curt Hagman, Jerry Hill, Fiona Ma, Cameron Smyth

ALERT - USDA proposal to regulate hobby breeders

The Humane Society of the US recently submitted a petition on the "WhiteHouse.gov" website asking the Federal government to crack down on "puppy mills". In response to the over 30,000 signatures on that petition, USDA/APHIS is considering revising their rules.

 

Currently, anyone who sells pets at retail is exempt from USDA licensure requirements. That means if you are a hobby breeder or a pet store selling pets directly to the public, you do not need a license from the USDA. Only those breeders who sell pets at the wholesale level currently need a USDA license.

 

The new rule, however, would revise the definition of "retail seller".

 

If you:

• Have MORE than four intact female animals, and 
• ADVERTISE over the internet, in the newspaper or over the telephone, and
• Don't arrange for each buyer to visit your place of business to see the pet before or immediately after the purchase, then

 

You would no longer be considered an exempt retail seller, and under the new proposal would be required to be licensed and inspected by USDA.

 

Needless to say, this would be devastating to most serious hobby breeders. However, the USDA is accepting public comments on this proposed new rule. ALL comments will be read and considered. We call upon all pet owners to contact the USDA either on-line or by mail and inform them of your concerns over this proposal.

 

 

Be sure to have your comments e-mailed on line or sent by mail by July 16th. Note that letters sent by mail MUST be received on or before July 16th to be considered.

 

The link that will take you to the "submit comments" page is:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

 

 

Do not send form letters. All form letters that are the same but signed by different individuals are considered ONE letter, no matter how many are received by APHIS. Your personal comment is important, even if it is only a sentence or two. A long letter is not necessary. You may comment more than once.

 

When commenting on line, please note that there is a time limit (approximately 20 minutes) that you can keep the "submit comments" page open. If you want to take time to compose your letter, then it is most efficient to draft it in a word program and then cut and paste it onto the comment section.  

 

In writing your letters or comments, you may wish to use some of the following talking points:

• It would be cost-prohibitive for me to have to build a USDA-compliant kennel. I would be unable to continue breeding.
• I prefer to raise pets in my home for optimal socialization. I do not wish to keep them in a kennel.
• This proposal would be harmful to my rare breed. Buyers are usually distant and rarely visit the premises during a sales transaction.
• I am selective in the homes I approve for my puppies; I sell few pets locally, and must advertise and ship. This proposal would hinder my ability to find the best homes for my pets.
• This new rule would be financially devastating to me. I cannot afford thousands of dollars to build a kennel facility to come into USDA compliance.
• Requiring me to allow strangers into my home exposes my animals to contagious diseases. These can be fatal, particularly for young puppies and kittens.
• Strangers entering my home makes me vulnerable to criminals who could target me for robbery or other crimes.
• Strangers entering my home can include animal rights activists who are philosophically opposed to any pet breeding. These extremists may likely file unsubstantiated complaints against me, claiming authority by having entered my home.
• Rescue groups often rely on use of a foster home network. They could not comply with USDA requirements and would be forced to cease operations. Crippling rescue groups would cause shelter intakes and deaths to rise.
• This proposal is government overreach.
• This proposal is a violation of my right to privacy.
• As a pet owner, I am concerned about my future ability to purchase a well-bred, well-socialized pet for a reasonable price.
• I am concerned about the future availability of service dogs, such as guide dogs for the blind. These dogs must be exposed to a variety of social situations and external stimuli. If serious hobby breeders are forced to keep their dogs and puppies in kennels, those dogs will not be suitable for service work.
• As a hobby breeder who works away from my home, I cannot comply with the APHIS requirement to be available for unannounced inspections. I would be forced to quit breeding or face thousands of dollars in fines for noncompliance with this rules.

 

There are undoubtedly many more concerns with this new proposal. You may return to the page and comment as many times as you wish.

 

The AKC is also gathering signatures on a petition to send to USDA.

 

http://www.akc.org/petition/ 

 

As of today, June 14, 2012, there are over 31,000 signatures on the AKC petition….a nice counter to the HSUS anti-breeder petition. Please do sign the AKC petition also, but remember, your signature on a petition is NOT a substitute for your official, personal comment to the USDA on their website. Both are helpful, but your personal comment to the USDA is ESSENTIAL to defeat this proposal.

 

Thank you for taking a few moments out of your day to post a comment to the USDA and to sign AKC's petition.

 

Sincerely yours,

Officers and Board of Directors

California Federation of Dog Clubs

 

*****Cross-posting encouraged******