Monday, February 27, 2012

CHULA VISTA - Proposed Amendments to municipal Title 6 - Animals

The Chula Vista City Council will hold their first hearing Tuesday, February 28 on an ordinance which will essentially prohibit the breeding of animals in private homes and will require animals to be sterilized on a second impoundment. The ordinance also prohibits sales of dogs and cats in pet stores. There is language prohibiting the sales of animals in public (modeled after state SB 917). Concerned citizens are encouraged to attend the city council meeting or contact the council members and ask them not to move this ordinance forward.

Chula Vista City Council Meeting

Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Time: 4pm (Agenda Item #13)

Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall-Building 100, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA

Chapter 6.22 of the proposed ordinance will require the mandatory sterilization of any animal the second time it is impounded. It allows the City Manager or his/her designee to waive this provision in extraordinary circumstances such as fire or earthquake. The two violations may occur years apart and not be a true reflection of a habitually irresponsible owner. If a dog gets loose one time as a 6-month old puppy and is then accidentally released by a gardener 5 years later, that does not signify a problem animal.

The proposed ordinance defines a "pet seller" as anyone who sells more than two cats or dogs in a twelve-month period. This definition is used by the State Board of Equalization in determining who is required to pay sales tax. The problem in the Chula Vista ordinance is that the city then uses that threshold to decide who is required to abide by kennel requirements. The provisions for kennels are such that a resident who bred a litter of puppies or kittens in their homes would likely be unable to comply.

For example, Sections 6.08.100 (L) and (M) will require that pet sellers have a facility whose interior walls are impervious to moisture and which are able to be readily sanitized. They are also required to have a drainage system to rapidly drain animal excreta. No home environment is likely to meet these criteria. The measure will also require pet sellers to pay for and undergo inspections, at least annually, by city staff. These provisions are completely unreasonable for a hobby breeder who produces a few litters in their home.

What You Can Do

Attend the Chula Vista City Council Meeting on Tuesday February, 28th and speak against the proposed ordinance.
Talking points:
  • Chula Vista intake and impound numbers are currently so low that shelter manager Ms. Anton admits that NO adoptable animal is ever euthanized.
  • Punitive legislation that increases fees and fines always results in higher intake numbers. Yet the stated goal of this ordinance is to reduce numbers of impounds and euthanaias
  • Punitive legislation that restricts breeding removes the best sources for healthy, well-bred puppies and kittens
  • Restrictive and punitive pet laws will increase the numbers of puppies smuggled into Chula Vista from Mexico (the city is just 11 miles from the Mexican border). According to the US Border Patrol, over 10,000 dogs and puppies are already being imported into San Diego County each year. Such puppies are bred under unregulated conditions that may well be substandard.
  • Chula Vista needs to implement a TNR program for feral cats. Currently they kill feral cats. 
  • The new regulation restricting public sales by some entities while it allowing others will eventually be challenged in court.
  • The rights of hobby breeders to pursue their hobby are being unreasonably restricted.
  • The rights of store owners to sell pets from well-regulated sources is being unreasonably infringed upon.
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

Councilmember Rudy Ramirez


Councilmember Patricia Aguilar
(Contact via city fax)

Councilmember Pamela Bensoussan


Councilmember Steve Castenada


Monday, February 20, 2012

A Dog Groomer on SB 969

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:46 AM
Subject: SB 969 Dog Grooming Bill
More of my observations with SB 969 Dog Grooming Bill. Please feel free to cross post. Jacquie

Dog groomers apprentice under experienced dog groomers, or at least they should, unfortunately that is not usually the case. Most often dog groomers come out of school and think they are qualified to groom dogs. I get a lot of dogs that have come from inexperienced groomers, and Petco is a big one.

Most dog groomers careers last just 10 years. It is physically demanding, and grooming 5, 20# dogs a day you have physically moved 1 TON of weight usually by noon. My back, shoulders, and wrists are shot.

  Pet owners out there, do your research, observe, ask for references, take the time to find a groomer like you would finding a doctor for your child. Even then accidents can and will happen.
I have been grooming for almost 25 years, and I specialize in biters, and guess what, if a groomer is bitten they have no recourse against the owner. A groomer I know got bit in the face and sued the owner, the judge told the groomer that bites were an occupational hazard of the job, and threw out the case. I assume all little dogs that enter my shop have bad patellas, and that all big dogs are dysplastic and treat them accordingly. I have had two dogs die while in my care, one of kidney failure, and the other from a heart attack neither of them my fault, and both of them died while I worked at a  vets office. I go to people's homes and groom their dogs in their bathrooms, or yards. I groom show horses and I have had my nose broke, been kicked and stepped on, and I groom show lambs for 4-H kids. I have been bit only twice, once by a dog that was trained to bite, and by a cat with a brain tumor. I have had dogs bit my clippers hard enough to break the case, and have had clippers, and toe nail clippers kicked out of my hands resulting in stitches to me not the animal. Animals are animals and you need to expect the unexpected to keep the animal and yourself safe. There are people who change dog groomers as much as they change their clothes this is not good for the animal, and sometimes people change groomers because their dog is a bitter or has other issues, and you know what, the owners LIE to you.
There are three simple rules for grooming dogs:
1) Don't leave them tied up anywhere, bathtub, or table they WILL hang themselves or fall (I have caught a few unattended dogs falling off tables at dog shows), and no choke chains, or leashes in kennels, again, they will figure out a way to hurt themselves.
2) Don't leave a dog in a dryer cage, or with a force air dryer hooked to the kennel running unattended ever, even ambient air dryers use surrounding air be that 60 degrees or 90 degrees to dry the dog.
3) Be honest with the owner, I don't know your dog, it doesn't know me so give me at least 4 hours to do the dog. Do new dogs when you have plenty of time. Take your time and don't get distracted that's when accidents happen.
Regulations? I am against them, I can't raise my prices any more, if I do people will do their own dogs. So my options are to drop my health care, or shut my door and start a new career at 50. I am hanging on by a thread now because of the economy. Oh, and one last thing, I don't have to have a business license  where I live, my business is in the county not the city. Everyone knows who the bad groomers are, just do your homework and ask.
I have one really big question. Why am I being punished and made to take the fall for a dog owner who didn't research where they were taking their precious pet to begin with? I AM SICK TO DEATH OF PEOPLE NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. It is really sad that dogs or any animal gets hurt, but the responsibility ultimately lies directly with the dog's/animal's owner PERIOD.
Jacquie Brown

Boxer Club of Hawaii supports HSUS

American Boxer Club, Inc.
Sandy Orr, Corresponding secretary
7106 N. 57th St.
Omaha, NE 68152
Feb 13, 2012
Dear American Boxer Club Officers and Board of Directors,
We are writing you today to express our dismay and concern regarding the recent public statements made by the secretary of the Boxer Club of Hawaii in support of the goals of the Humane Society of the US. This message was recently posted on the HSUS website in regard to the HSUS's new Breeders Advisory and Resource Council.
Aloha, my name is Theresa Donnelly, and I am the secretary of Boxer Club of Hawaii. Thank you so much for taking this on and questioning the AKC. I am involved with helping pass some animal protection bills here in Hawaii, and I have really enjoyed working with HSUS. I have been hoping that the AKC could partner with HSUS for some time. The fact that health is not a standard that is judged against in confirmation shows is wrong. As a hobby breeder, I feel health and temperament should come before appearance. I can only hope that the AKC will stop opposing bills like our commercial breed bill here. It is too bad too, because AKC has a lot of great programs and it hurts both sides when we don't work together. I thank you for standing up for what is right and confronting them for their breeding standards. We can only hope that as time goes by, more ethical breeders will join the fight. Theresa
As members of the dog community, we should all be aware of the threat posed to our existence by animal rights groups such as the HSUS. These groups are opposed to individual choice in regard to spay/neuter, crop/dock, and breeding in general. The members of "animal rights" groups have no credentials in animal husbandry to legitimize their positions, so they are latching onto others who are respected members of the dog community and using them to promote their anti-dog legislative agenda to the public. With the support of such a naïve person who also represents an AKC dog club, is it any wonder that the state of Hawaii is currently considering a law requiring every pet sold be sterilized?
While everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, however sadly misinformed, we strongly feel that this person who is publicly representing an AKC breed club needs to be educated in regard to the threats posed by animal rights groups, of which the HSUS is the largest, most aggressive and most dangerous to our existence. Perhaps such information would best come from the national parent club for the breed.
Churchill is reputed to have said that an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. There is no way to compromise or to work with animal rights groups because they have nothing to give up. We as dog breeders, on the other hand, have everything to lose.
Sincerely yours,
Geneva Coats
California Federation of Dog Clubs

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Dana Point - Retail Sales Tyranny

California (Dana Point). **ORDINANCE ADOPTED** The "Pet Shop Ordinance", banning the retail sale of cats and dogs in Dana Point, CA was approved by the City Council at its January 31st meeting. The ordinance provides that no commercial establishment shall, for the purposes of resale or retail, display, sell, deliver, offer for sale, barter, auction, or otherwise transfer or dispose of dogs or cats in Dana Point, California on or after March 1, 2012.

Dear Dana Point City Council Members,

A friend from Arizona just wrote to me asking about the crazy tyrannical
laws against commercial retail businesses being passed in California, she
and her husband took their business to Arizona a few years ago. First West
Los Angeles bans the sale of furs but does not ban leather because so many
of their citizens enjoy wearing leather into the "bar scene." As if there
is a difference between leather and fur...... Go figure how crazy California
has become following the dictates of anthropomorphic leftist politician's
supporters. Along with this they have banned the sale of pets in pet shops.

Now I am told Dana Point has followed West Los Angeles' march to ban the
sale of pets at pet shops. Why was the Polanco/Lockyer bill passed in the
State of California? Have you never heard of that law? It was
California's offer of the greatest financial protection of any State for
those who purchase a pet from a pet shop. There is no other place a person
can buy a pet, be it from a Rescue, Shelter or breeder where such
protection is given and now you take that away from your citizens. Do the
people of Dana Point know what their City Council has done by removing that
protection for all of their citizens?  Absolutely amazing that this was

Did you really know what you were doing when you passed this law? Did you
talk to the veterinary community? Or did you only listen to the rescue
community who so focus on feral cats that they cannot see beyond that?
Would you like a list of rescues that are importing animals from foreign
countries to meet their adoption demands?

Did you not know through education the shelter numbers have been
dramatically dropping every year? Did you also not know that many shelters
bring animals in from other parts of the country to meet their adoption
demands? AND you have banned the sale of pets. Absolutely amazing and pets
are not YET illegal....... maybe next year. Now, please tell me where I can
find my next pet that must be of a coated breed that my very allergic son
can tolerate and be small enough for me to handle?

Citizen, Taxpayer and Voter

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 ...