Saturday, June 30, 2012

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
 

Monday, June 25, 2012

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
 

Friday, June 15, 2012

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

Thursday, June 14, 2012

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:


 
 
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.
 
 
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******
 

SB 1221 - anti-hunting bill

WRITE - CALL - FAX NOW! SEE CONTACT INFO BELOW
 
 
The animal rights groups, led by HSUS, have vowed to put an end to all hunting, and this is their first step. California Federation of Dog Clubs joins with the  California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, the California Houndsmen for Conservation, the Masters of Foxhounds, and the US Sportsmen's Alliance in opposing this fundamentally flawed bill.
 
The sponsors of SB 1221allege 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
 
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 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.
 

 
CURRENT BILL STATUS

MEASURE :  S.B. No. 1221
AUTHOR(S) :  Lieu (Coauthor: Senator Steinberg).
TOPIC :  Mammals: use of dogs to pursue bears and bobcats.
HOUSE LOCATION :  ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE  :  03/26/2012


COMMITTEE LOCATION :  ASSEMBLY WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
HEARING DATE :  06/26/2012

WRITE-CALL-FAX now.
 
Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
1020 N Street, Room 160
Sacramento, California 95814

916.319.2096 phone

916.319.2196 fax

Jared Huffman, chair
P.O. Box 942849, Room 3120, Sacramento, CA 94249-0006; (916) 319-2006
 
Linda Halderman, Vice Chair
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009, Sacramento, CA 94249-0029; (916) 319-2029
 
Bill Berryhill
P.O. Box 942849, Room 3141, Sacramento, CA 94249-0026; (916) 319-2026
 
Bob Blumenfield
P.O. Box 942849, Room 6026, Sacramento, CA 94249-0040; (916) 319-2040
 
Nora Campos
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0023; (916) 319-2023
 
Paul Fong
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5135, Sacramento, CA 94249-0022; (916) 319-2022
 
Beth Gaines
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009, Sacramento, CA 94249-0004; (916) 319-2004
 
Mike Gatto
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4140, Sacramento, CA 94249-0043; (916) 319-2043
 
Roger Hernandez
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5150, Sacramento, CA 94249-0057; (916) 319-2057
 
Ben Hueso
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5144, Sacramento, CA 94249-0079; (916) 319-2079
 
Brian W. Jones
P.O. Box 942849, Room 3147, Sacramento, CA 94249-0077; (916) 319-2077
 
Ricardo Lara
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2179, Sacramento, CA 94249-0050; (916) 319-2050
 
Mariko Yamada
State Capitol, Room 5160, Sacramento, CA 94248-0001; (916) 319-2008