AZ Alert: Phoenix City Council to Consider Problematic Definition of “Pet Dealer” TOMORROW (12/18)

 Trouble for our neighbors in Arizona.....

 

December 17, 2013

The AKC Government Relations Department (AKC GR) has just learned that the Phoenix City Council will consider a proposal tomorrow that would prevent "pet dealers" from selling puppies unless the puppies come from a shelter or nonprofit rescue.

The concern is that the definition of "pet dealer" exempts kennels, which are defined as those who keep or harbor five or more dogs.  It is unclear if those who have fewer than five dogs would be considered a "pet dealer" and therefore subject to this regulation.

Those who reside or participate in dog events in Phoenix are encouraged to consider attending tomorrow's hearing and contacting the Phoenix City Council and respectfully ask them to clarify this proposal to ensure that Phoenix hobbyists with fewer than five dogs are not included in this ordinance.

Meeting Information:

Phoenix City Council Hearing
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
3:00 pm
Phoenix City Hall Council Chambers
200 W Jefferson Street

Contact Information:
Click here to find your City Council member

Click here to find the contact information for Mayor Stanton and the Phoenix City Council.

 

 

 

 

 

       
            
    

__._,_.___

                                        

      

 

   

.

__,_._,___

MSN is counterproductive

From: Jan Dykema

To: supervisor.foy@ventura.org

Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 11:38 pm

Subject: MSN

Dear Supervisor Foy:

I spent the entire evening watching the entire public hearing on Ventura passing a mandatory spay/neuter law. Much of it was painful as I listened to erudite speakers having to defend their right to breed a litter of puppies without the government looking over their shoulder (or rather "inspecting" their private homes) and extracting fees and other fines, and  .. let's call it what it really is, a TAX.. on people who wish to breed their dog.

 

I watched as speaker after speaker presented concrete evidence; facts and statistics that without any doubt showed that MSN does not work, never has worked and never will work. I watched as people decried and denied these facts as somehow irrelevant to Ventura County; as if it was somehow special and that what happens in LA is not relevant. It IS relevant, and always will be.

 

Facts are facts. The housing "bubble" cannot be blamed for years of proven statistics that show MSN does not work.

 

I live in Napa County. We do not have MSN. Lake County is the next county over, and they do have MSN . Their shelter kills many more animals than we do. 

As I looked at Ventura County stats I wondered, how much better can they get? Your shelter is doing a great job, numbers are dropping at a huge rate, so why the need for this (I hesitate to use the word as it was so overworked) "tool"? It appears that you will reach the 90% rate in very little time if all continues as it has neen, without MSN. I was impressed with the amount of VOLUNTARY surgeries that were already done in your area and with the fact they were low cost or even free. Good for you! It is working and working well, if all of that is true.

I will be forthcoming. I am a licensed American Kennel Club judge and an occasional breeder of English Bull Terriers ( the Target dog, General Patton or Spuds Mackenzie depending on your shopping habits, age and propensity for libations). I sit on the Board of Directors of the California Federation of Dog Clubs and have spent much time in Sacramento lobbying for people rights to own and breed animals of all types and for them  to be able to use the animals for the work they were bred for, so I am not entirely neutral on this issue; but I try to be open minded because I am also a trained Humane Officer.

I did see that much information was handed to you all during the hearing. I wondered why? None of you had any time to read the information before the vote was taken, although it did seem that you ( and you alone) had time to look at the charts that were presented and at least absorb the information. 

Animals are a very emotional issue, but all facts must be considered including loss of income for the county, and less licensing for dogs and cats. A major problem that I did not hear addressed in a very significant way was the drop in rabies vaccinations that occurs when punitive laws are put into effect. Rabies is not a dog issue. It is a serious public health issue and when people do not comply due to fear or interference, the risk is escalated to a degree that cannot be calculated until a human being is infected and dies.

Finally, I heard the words  "No Kill" over and over again. And yet, no one actually reported who is the "father" of the No Kill movement. That would be Nathan Winograd. Mr. Winograd invented the words "No Kill" and has a very specific plan on how shelters can become "No Kill". Nowhere anywhere in his statements and writings regarding No Kill does Mr Winograd EVER say MSN is a part of the No Kill program. If fact, he intentionally says MSN NEVER helps the No Kill program and that MSN should never be a part of any No Kill program. 

I have taken the liberty to include a few of Mr. Winograds information by attachments here. (all safe to open) Here is an excerpt:

"Moreover, mandatory spay/neuter laws are not a new or untested idea in the U.S. They have been around for decades and historically have been the favored form of pseudo-advocacy by the voices of tradition within the animal sheltering industry. In fact, many U.S. communities already have such laws. Are those communities No Kill? No, far from it. While mandatory spay/neuter laws have long been the siren song of the animal protection movement, the evidence proves that when implemented in the U.S., such laws have been disastrous. Over and over, mandatory spay/neuter legislation is pushed as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing."

 

 

“If only we had a spay/neuter law” the argument goes, “all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn’t have to kill so many animals.” If this were true, given the proliferation of such punitive mandates nationwide, these laws would have already created many No Kill communities. That there are none as a result of mandatory spay/neuter laws proves that such legislation does not work. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Communities that have passed such laws are not only far from No Kill; they are moving in the opposite direction, killing more, not fewer animals."

I hope Ventura County will be the exception to this rule but statistics and time do not bear this out.

Thank you for your support of less government interference in the lives of American citizens and for voting no on this ordinance. You would have my vote if I had one!

Jan

Jan Dykema

Certified Humane Officer

American Kennel Club Judge

BOD California Federation of Dog Clubs

attachments:

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?tag=mandatory-spayneuter

http://fixaustin.blogspot.com/2008/01/mandatory-spayneuter-success-not.html

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mandatorylaws.pdf

Ventura County, CA Holds Final Vote on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance, Breeder Permits

 

 

Dear AKC Delegates, Club Officers, Breeders and Legislative Liaisons,

Please pass this information on to your club members in the Ventura County area.

On Tuesday, December 10^th, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors will hold a final vote on an ordinance that would establish mandatory spay/neuter of dogs and cats in the county unless the owner qualifies for an exemption. The measure passed by a vote of 4-1 in November. It also would require breeders to purchase a $100 breeding permit and submit to property inspections. It is imperative that responsible owners and breeders attend this meeting and oppose these burdensome and ineffective proposals.

Dog clubs and organizations are encouraged to personalize the attached letter and send it to the Supervisors at the email addresses listed below. A sample letter for individuals to personalize can be found here.

Ventura County Board of Supervisors Meeting

Date: Tuesday December 10^th

Time: 2:00 PM (Special hearing time for this item)

Location: County Government Center, Hall of Administration, Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009

The full draft of the ordinance can be seen online here. Very few modifications have been made from the November draft. Provisions include:

Section 4221: Prohibition against Unaltered Dog or Cat

Animals may only remain intact if one the following exemptions apply:

• The dog or cat is a breed approved by and is registered with the American Kennel Club or a similar foreign registry recognized by the Division, whose program and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dog or cat is actively used to exhibit or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate exhibition or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, the American Kennel Club or a similar foreign registry, within the last two years, or is being trained or groomed to exhibit or compete and is too young to have yet competed.
• The dog has earned, or if under three years old, is actively being trained and in the process of earning, an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working, or other title from a registry or association approved by the Division.
• The dog is being, or has been, appropriately trained and is actively used in a manner that meets the definition of a guide, signal or service dog as set forth in Penal Code section 365.5, subdivisions (d), (e) and (f), or the dog is enrolled in a guide dog program administered by a person licensed under Business and Professions Code section 7200 et seq.
• The dog is being, or has been, appropriately trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies, the military, or search and rescue organizations, for law enforcement, military, or search and rescue activities.
• The owner of the dog or cat provides a letter to the Division from a licensed veterinarian certifying that the animal's health would be best served by spaying or neutering after a specified date; or that due to age, poor health, or illness of the animal, it is detrimental to the health of the animal to spay or neuter the animal; or that arrangements have been made to spay or neuter the dog or cat within 60 days after the compliance deadline and the dog or cat is spayed or neutered within that 60-day period. This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number and the date by which the animal may be safely spayed or neutered. The letter shall be updated periodically as necessary in the event the condition of the animal changes.
• The owner of the dog or cat is an AKC "Breeder of Merit."
• The dog or cat has a valid breeding permit issued to the owner by the Division. 

The American Kennel Club opposes the spay/neuter laws and arbitrary breeder permits as ineffective because they fail to address the underlying issue of irresponsible ownership. California state law already provides for the sterilization of animals adopted from shelters and mandates that the license fee for intact animals be at least double that of sterilized animals. The mandatory sterilization requirements proposed in this ordinance will merely punish those who are responsible owners and breeders, and the irresponsible owners who are not complying with current laws are likely to continue their behavior. 

Many communities that have implemented mandatory spay/neuter policies have found them to be ineffective and expensive. For example, after Dallas, Texas enacted MSN policies in 2008, it experienced a 22 percent increase in animal control costs and an overall decrease in licensing compliance. MSN laws often result in owners either ignoring animal control laws entirely, or relinquishing their pets to the public shelter to be cared for at the taxpayers' expense rather than pay for expensive sterilization surgery or breeder permits.  According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), some owners also opt to avoid rabies vaccinations and other general veterinary care in order to hide their lack of compliance with MSN laws. 

Section 4225: Breeding Permit

• The fee for this permit will be $100 and a separate permit is required for EACH animal to be bred.
• Limits residents who own female dogs to a single litter per household per year unless written permission is obtained from the animal control director.
• Requires breeders to submit to inspections of their property.
• Requires breeders to provide their permit number to puppy purchasers and in advertisements.
• Requires breeders to provide the department with contact information for puppy purchasers.
• AKC Breeders of Merit are exempt. 

Section 4428: Prohibition on the Sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in pet stores

• Prohibits the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits in any pet store, retail establishment or commercial establishment, with the exception of animals obtained from an animal shelter or rescue group. 

AKC Resources:

AKC Position Statement: Canine Population Issues
AKC Position Statement: Spaying and Neutering
Mandatory Spay-Neuter Issue Brief
Issue Analysis: Why Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws are Ineffective
 

What You Can Do:

• Attend the Ventura County Board of Supervisors Meeting Tuesday, December 10^th at 2:00 PM and speak in opposition to this burdensome and ineffective measure.
• If you are unable to attend this hearing, please send an email to the commissioners asking them to oppose this ordinance:

 

First District – Supervisor Steve Bennett steve.bennett@ventura.org

Second District – Supervisor Linda Parks  Linda.Parks@ventura.org

Third District – Supervisor Kathy Long kathy.long@ventura.org

Fourth District - Supervisor Peter C. Foy supervisorfoy@ventura.org

Fifth District - Supervisor John C. Zaragoza John.zaragoza@ventura.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you would rather not receive future communications from The American Kennel Club, let us know by clicking here.
The American Kennel Club, 8051 Arco Corporate Dr., Raleigh, NC 27617 United States

 

.

__,_._,___

Ventura County votes on Mandatory S/N

 

Ventura County CA Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance

                      

According to the November 8's article pages 7 & 8, in the Simi Valley (CA)
Acorn authored by Rick Hazeltine (hazeltina@theacorn. com) the Ventura
County Supervisors voted 4-1 (with Supervisor Foy dissenting) to approve a
proposed amendment/ordinance mandating mandatory spay neuter of dogs and
cats in unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Per the article,
proponents consisting of mostly Animal Services personnel and private
animal rescue groups believe that this ordinance will be a key factor in
making Ventura a no-kill county, as County Supervisors have charged Animal
Services. "Although the ordinance doesn't cover individual cities,
proponents hope the ordinance will spur cities to adopt it. Animal
Services and Ventura County Health Care Agency officials said they plan to
take the ordinance to each of the city councils" , says Hazeltine in the
article. It contiues- "The amendment to the existing ordinance , approved
in a 4-1 vote with Supervisor Foy dissenting, is scheduled to receive final
adoption at the Board's Dec. 10 meeting and would take effect 30 days
later. The ordinance will require pet owners living in the unincorporated
areas of Ventura County to have their dogs and cats sterilized by 6 months
of age or 60 days after being notified by Animal Services. Notification
can begin when the animal is 4 months old. Exceptions are made for pet
owners who exhibit and show their animals; dogs working in law enforcement,
military and search and rescue, service and guide dogs; specified working
dogs; and those who have a statement from their veterinarian that the
procedure would be detrimental to the animal's health. Owners who wish to
breed their animals can do so after paying a $100 permit fee for the year
the dog or cat has a litter. Those pet owners found inviolation of the
spay/neuter ordinance will first receive written notice and low-cost
sterilization information. After 60 days, the owner could be issued a
citation with a penalty of $25 per day until the animal is altered.
Unpermitted breeders will be given written notice, and after 60 days could
be fined up to $500 per cat/dog. The ordiance also makes it unlawful for
dogs, cats or rabbits to be sold in any commercial pet store within the
unincorporated areas of the county. Animal Services personnel told the
Board that there are just two retail pet stores in the county that sell
dogs, and neither is in an unincorporated area.". .. The article continues
" Barry Fischer, cheif deputy director of the Ventura County Health Care
Agency, which oversees the Animal Control division, introduced the
amendment to the board. 'The ordinance is 30 years old' Fischer said.
'Obviously, we need to bring it up to speed'. A steady parade of people,
mostly representing animal rescue groups or other shelters spoke to the
board in favor of the amendment, but others were against it. Several dog
enthusiasts and breeders also spoke.Most didn't believe the ordinance would
work primarily because Animal Services doesn't have enough resourcesand
thought it would be a burden for responsible breeders. Others were
concerned with intrusion. Nancy Rapaport of Simi Valley, said that she was
not a breeder but if she wanted to become one, she would have to open her
home to inspection. She told the board she thought more public education
programs would be a better way to reduce overpopulation and that the
ordinance was 'unfair to responsible owneers' . Foy, whose district
includes Simi Valley, told the audience he struggled with his vote.
Untimately, Foy, a noted proponent of limited government, voted no. 'I
wish I could break it up into pieces that I could vote for', he said. Foy
said he he'd have preferred, instead, to add incentive to the ordinance by
significantly raising the the license fee for unaltered pets from $75,
$100, $150'. He said he'd rather citizens decide its 'my choice' rather
than 'government telling me what I need to do with my dog'. 'I can't
support (the amendment), Foy said. 'But I support (your effort to reduce
euthanization) ' Supervor Kathy Long, whose district includes Camarillo,
says Animal Services needs the ordinance to help it become a no-kill
shelter, a goal the board gave Animal Services in June 2012. Several
speakers noted that great progress had been made in the past year in
reducing the euthanasia rate but there needs to be even more help. 'We
can't adopt our way out of this', Long said. One breeder who spoke in
favor of the amendment was Donn Hollingsworth of Camarillo. Hollingsworth
is a long-time breeder of Samoyeds and is designated a Breeder of Merit by
the American Kennel Club, which sent a letter to the supervisors opposing
the ordinance. 'I feel this is an ordinance whose time has come',
Hollingsworth said. 'A year ago, if you used the words mandate and
spay/neuter together, my hair would catch on fire. 'I have read this
ordinance' , she said. 'It is needed' ", the article concluded.

I could not find this particular article on the Acorn's website, so I've
re-typed/quoted it due its various concerns. My apologies for any
re-typos. The Acorn had an associated article which URL I was able to get-

Simi Valley/Camarillo Acorn
http://www.thecamar illoacorn. com/news/ 2013-11-08/ Front_Page/ Supervisors_ vote_to_mandate_ spaying_neuterin g_of_p.html

The Ventura Star newspaper had an article also, that I couldn't read but
here's the URL if one is a subscriber.

Ventura County Star
http://www.vcstar. com/news/ 2013/nov/ 05/supervisors- approve-rule- to-spay-or- neuter-dogs/
(Subscription required to read)

 
 

  

CFODC Ventura County letter

Ventura County Board of Supervisors

Ventura County Government Center

800 S. Victoria Ave. – 4th Floor

Ventura, CA 93009

Fax: 805-654-2226

November 5, 2013

Dear Ventura County Supervisor,

The California Federation of Dog Clubs is an association of thousands of dog owners across the State of California. Formed in 1990, the CFoDC works tirelessly to promote animal welfare, educate the public regarding responsible animal ownership, and protect the rights of responsible animal owners. We administer a disaster relief fund, conduct breed ID workshops for shelter personnel, provide educational information on responsible pet ownership. We also man a toll-free assistance line for animal owners who need advice regarding pet training and behavioral issues. We support animal legislation with positive benefits to society.

The CFODC is OPPOSED to the mandated sterilization of pets, regardless of exemptions. We are opposed to high fees and excessive restrictions for licensing and breeding permits. Some of the reasons for our opposition include:

• The ASPCA, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club and many other animal welfare groups are OPPOSED to mandatory sterilization because it creates more problems than it solves.

• Coercive sterilization laws and excessive animal-related fees result in increased shelter intakes and deaths anywhere they are tried. Fewer people will reclaim their pets due to high costs. Los Angeles has seen a steep rise in shelter intakes since implementing its own mandatory spay/neuter law. So has Memphis, Tennessee.
• Mandatory sterilization is costly to enforce.
• Revenues will drop, as owners will increasingly avoid licensing and forced surgery on their pets. There will be even LESS money for the needed enforcement.
• Oppressive forced sterilization laws have resulted in increased incidence of RABIES in some areas, as owners who avoid licensing may also fail to vaccinate for rabies. This creates a dire risk to human health. With recent instances of rabid wildlife in the Inland valley we should not do anything that would jeopardize public cooperation with rabies vaccination programs. Fort Worth TX repealed their law due to increased cases of rabies.
• Dogs are being smuggled in by the thousands now, from Mexico and other countries, to meet the demand for pets. Mandatory sterilization creates a black market for dogs and puppies. Black market pets bring rabies and parasites along with them.
• Feral cats comprise the majority of shelter intakes, and sterilization mandates do not help feral cats. The only result is that Good Samaritans who care for feral cats are punished. Existing leash and confinement laws should be enforced. Sterilization does NOT prevent roaming.
• There is no evidence to support the assertion that shelter intakes are caused by animals bred locally. Most puppies are sold outside of the local area where they are born.
• Mandated surgery disproportionately punishes low-income families.

 

We urge you to REJECT any mandatory sterilization ordinances and instead focus on measures proven to work over the past thirty years….aggressive public education campaigns, trap/neuter and release programs for feral cats, and low-cost voluntary sterilization clinics.

The CFoDC is also OPPOSED to bans on retail sales of pets, regardless of exemptions. Pet sales bans encourage the growth of a totally unregulated underground market. This ordinance would, in effect, trade a heavily regulated business for a largely unregulated industry, the pet rescue industry. A sales ban would only hurt legitimate businesses and responsible, regulated breeders and do nothing to improve animal welfare.

Sales bans create a shortage of desirable pets, a black market for dogs and cats, and a rise in imports from other countries. Many "rescue" groups are already importing dogs from overseas to meet the demand for pets. This is happening right now in southern California. A rescue group in LA imports dogs and sells them for hundreds of dollars each. Per the "Dogs Without Borders" website: "We currently rescue most dogs from local shelters and strays, but sometimes we rescue dogs from as far away as Taiwan!....Some of the dogs you see on our site are not here in the States."

There is ample evidence collected by the LA County Veterinary Public Health Dept, the US Customs and Border Patrol, and the Centers for Disease Control proving that a high and rising number of dogs

in the marketplace are being imported into the US for the rescue-shelter enterprise. More than 10,000 dogs enter the US from Mexico each and every year. Some dogs are imported for the rescue trade from as far away as Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

The practice of so-called "humane relocation" is not only outrageous, but is also very irresponsible on the part of the shelters/rescues that participate. There are diseases and parasites in other countries which are transmitted from dog-to-dog or from dogs to humans which put the safety of our citizens and our dog population at great risk. In late 2004, the first case of canine rabies in Los Angeles County in 30 years was confirmed. The dog had recently come in from Mexico. Rabies is a fatal disease that still claims over 50,000 human lives annually worldwide.

The demand for shelter dogs drives the importation of dogs for the rescue market niche. Helen Woodward Humane Society imports dogs on a regular basis from other states and even from other countries as far away as Romania into San Diego County. Bans on animal sales exempting "rescues" would exacerbate the spread of disease.

Claims of high incidence of illness in pet store puppies are totally unsubstantiated. Pets bred under USDA rules and regulations receive regular veterinary care. There is evidence that the pet industry provides more veterinary care for puppies than the public at large. DVM/VPI Insurance Group, the largest provider of animal health insurance, testified during a hearing in California that "preconceived notions" concerning pet store puppies "could not have been more wrong." After insuring more than 89,000 pet store puppies and kittens and handling health claims from a pool of more than 500,000 insured animals, the insurance company reduced its premiums for pet store puppies and kittens substantially by as much as 22 percent compared to premiums charged for animals from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary attention during the first 12 weeks of age than any other puppies and, as a result, have fewer claims.

California law provides consumer protection for pets purchased in pet stores; however, shelter and rescue animals are exempt from health, safety and disclosure requirements and from the consumer protection laws which are required of traditional pet stores and breeders under the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act and the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act. This proposed ordinance would eliminate consumer protection and would encourage the proliferation of unhealthy pets.

While many rescue groups do good work, none of them are regulated. Some animal rescue groups raise the animals that they sell under poor conditions, the very conditions this ordinance seeks to eliminate. Just last January, dogs purchased from a Simi Valley rescue/shelter operation came down with parvo within days of purchase. This operation, like most of its counterparts, offers no warranty nor is it required to by law. Veterinary bills for the purchasers of these rescued pets ran into the thousands of dollars. Consumers have no recourse when they purchase a rescued pet with health problems and resultant big veterinary bills.

A recent study revealed that less than 5% of dogs sourced from pet shops end up in an animal shelter. Commercial breeders are a legitimate source for healthy, well-bred animals. Shelter and rescued animals are a different matter, with unknown health, temperament, parasites and infectious diseases.

If implemented, this sales ban will not directly provide a home for even ONE shelter animal.

We urge you to reject the proposal for unincorporated Ventura County that would institute counterproductive mandatory sterilization, oppressive animal-related fees, and the prohibition of the retail sale of pets by replacing them with unregulated "rescue" animals.

Sincerely yours,

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

P.S. HOW MUCH INCOME DO THE DOG SHOWS AT THE VENTURA COUNTY FAIRGOUNDS BRING TO YOUR COUNTY EACH AND EVERY YEAR? WOULD YOU LIKE THAT INCOME TO DISAPPEAR?

Cc: Steve Bennett, Linda Parks, Kathy Long, Peter Foy, John Zaragoza

Action required: spay/neuter hearing in Ventura Tuesday 11/5 at 10 a.m.

Subject: spay/neuter hearing in Ventura

overview:
applies to all dogs and cats over 4 months old unless exempted (exemptions are written proof from a veterinarian that surgery would be risky, registered show dogs, service dogs and dogs used by law enforcement agencies)

violations would be subject to a $25 per day fine.

breeders would be restricted to one litter per year and have to show proof of a breeding permit number in their marketing.

breeding violations would result in an infraction fine of up to $500 per dog or cat.

Officials are counting on veterinarians to help enforce the new rules through education and follow-up phone calls to owners who have not spayed or neutered their pets.

There is more....right now this is for the unincorporated areas of the county and they are hoping that if it passes, it will go county wide.

Public hearing scheduled Tuesday 11/5 at 10 a.m. in the hearing room of the Hall of Administration at the Ventura County Gov't Center, 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura Ca.

Please crosspost

Pasadena Mandatory Spay Neuter - Victory!

-----Original Message-----
From: JMillerArt <JMillerArt@aol.com>
To: CFA-Southwest <CFA-Southwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 5:34 pm
Subject: Pasadena Mandatory Spay Neuter - Victory!

Thank you to everyone who wrote letters or made calls to the Pasadena Council members.   Special thanks to those willing to come to the hearing and testify.  This report will be on the CFA legislative Alert Page soon.  Forwarding is OK. 

 

www.cfa.org/Legislative/LegislativeAlerts.aspx#Localspx#Local

 

Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Information Liaison
JMillerArt@aol.com
San Diego California
619-269-0107
www.cfa.org

****************************************************************************

Pasadena Mandatory Spay Neuter Ordinance - Victory!

October 7, 2013

by Joan Miller, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

 

Reason saved the day in Pasadena resulting in a positive outcome for everyone last night.  Following lengthy testimony, Mayor Bill Bogaard decided not to call for a vote on the ordinance and instead expressed the council's consensus  to give initiatives recently started or being developed by the Humane Society an opportunity to show results and then review and discuss the situation further in 6 months

 

The City Council listened intently to our testimony and obviously several had carefully read all the letters submitted.  Mayor Bogaard mentioned and quoted from a few, including letters from the The California Federation of Dog Clubs and from Jan Dykema.  The ordinance instigator, Council Member Steve Madison, actually was swayed by the end of the evening and suggested they withdraw the ordinance saying it had become apparent it would not achieve the primary goal he had hoped for. 

 

Madison's original concern resulted from a case of a young boy mauled by a "pit-bull" dog.  He wanted the Public Safety Committee to approve a neuter/spay ordinance for pit-bulls.  When they discovered this was against State law, which prohibits breed specific legislation (BSL), the proposal to mandate that all dogs be altered by 4 months came about, with exemptions for show dogs and service dogs.  They felt that spaying and neutering would prevent dangerous dogs from roaming the streets and also would cut down on the large numbers of pit-bull type dogs and Chihuahuas in the shelter. Then "and cats" was added because 70% of the animals killed in the shelter are cat/kittens and the ordinance became more directed toward reducing shelter intakes and euthanasia.

 

This proposal passed in the Public Safety Committee and language was copied from the Los Angeles County MSN ordinance, requiring altering before 4 months with exemptions for working dogs and show dogs. But they left out similar exemptions for cats.  I believe it would have passed in the Council last night had it not been for the letters received and testimony, all of which raised the awareness of a responsive Council.  AKC, CFA, CARPOC, CFODC and many dog fanciers submitted letters - they made a big impression.

 

I thank cat fanciers, Sarah Bixler and Peter Keys, for their testimony, in addition to mine, on cat issues.   Many thanks to dog fanciers Florence, Anne, Lois and two or three others plus a Veterinary Assistant.  They covered the dog issues from health matters including history of other communities with MSN laws leading to dog owners avoidance of veterinary care/rabies vaccination and problems with early age altering of puppies to dog bite and aggression data.  It was stated that before humans raised "pit-bulls" to be aggressive there were other breeds irresponsibly bred that became dangerous.   These people do not comply with MSN laws.

 

We presented facts showing that voluntary spay/neuter of owned cats is a huge success with a high percentage of owned cats already altered (88% to 94% in some parts of the country).  It is the unowned or "loosely owned" cat population that remains intact (this percentage is less than 3% altered).  Owners who have intact cats say their kittens are too young or they cannot afford the cost. There is a trend for cats to be kept indoors leading to a higher rate of s/n..  Fewer cats have a litter before spay now in jurisdictions that offer free or low cost spay/neuter.  I spoke of innovative ways in which shelters are handling "community cats".  It would be more productive to encourage people feeding doorstep cats to take the next step to spay/neuter these cats by offering assistance not punishment. 

 

The Humane Society Vice President, Elizabeth Campo, was questioned about the shelter programs.  She discussed their new door-to-door canvassing to increase dog licensing and provide educational material about shelter services and advantages for licensed dogs.   They also are in the process of building a clinic for high volume/low cost spay/neuter. Humane Society President, Steve Mc Nall, talked about their efforts to alter the feral/community cats. Though they support MSN, especially for first time impounds with fines, they also expressed concerns about adding mandated s/n to their licensing canvassing as this may harm a currently well received program.  

 

Following the hearing we talked with Ms. Campo and Mr. Mc Nall and found them to be professional and aligned with our mutual interests to help Pasadena's animals.  They both plan to be at the National Council on Pet Population All Day Cat Research Program in conjunction with the Society of Animal Welfare Administrators (SAWA) conference November 9-12, 2013 in Tempe, AZ.  CFA representatives will also be at this conference and we look forward to continued dialog.

 

 

Fwd: Petstore sales ban to Carlsbad City Council tonight

 

CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad City Council is set to decide Tuesday night whether to ban pet stores in the city from selling dogs and cats based on concerns they typically get their animals from places that activists call "puppy mills" and "kitten factories."

The proposal comes three months after the city of San Diego passed a similar ban and two weeks after the Oceanside City Council voted 3-2 against such a ban.

Unlike those bans, Carlsbad's measure would exempt the city's one existing store — California Pets in Westfield Carlsbad mall. More than two dozen other cities across the nation have passed bans, and none of them have exempted existing stores.

Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, say banning the sale of dogs and cats at pet stores helps reduce the number of animals treated inhumanely and encourages the adoption of more pets from shelters and rescue groups.

They say puppy mills and kitten factories mass produce large volumes of animals that they breed irresponsibly. The groups say the animals live in overcrowded cages, don't get proper veterinary care and lack the proper socialization to be good pets.

Pet store owners and some mass breeders say the criticisms are overblown. They say the ban would limit consumer choice, threaten the long-term viability of dog breeding and encourage the "underground" sale of dogs.

Joe Shamore, who owns California Pets locations in Carlsbad and Escondido, said unregulated breeders and people selling pets online are the more pressing problems facing his industry.

But a local group called And Justice for All Animals encourages people to boycott pet stores that sell dogs and cats, including one in Oceanside, two in Escondido, one in National City, one in Santee and the Carlsbad store.

David Garrick

NORTH COUNTY

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___

AKC -Pasadena -URGENT ALERT!-Monday,October 7th- 7PM

 

                    

AKC -Pasadena -URGENT ALERT!-Monday,October 7th- 7PM

AKC Delegates, Club Officers, Judges and Breeders,

Please pass this message along to any of your club members in the Pasadena (Los Angeles) area. The AKC apologizes for the short notice, the city agenda containing this language was only posted Thursday evening.

The Pasadena City Council will vote on a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance this Monday, October 7th. This measure will require dogs and cats over the age of four months to be sterilized unless the owner qualifies for an exemption.

If a dog or cat is impounded it will not be released until it has been sterilized by a city approved veterinarian, even if the owner has a current intact license. It is imperative that responsible dog owners and breeders immediately contact their elected officials to oppose this ordinance.

Additionally, any intact dog owner who wishes to breed their dog shall deemed a kennel and is prohibited from maintaining the dog within 1000 feet of any dwelling other than the owner's home. Current law also requires that dog kennel operators purchase a business license.

The current code defines a dog kennel as "any lot, building, structure, enclosure or premises wherein 5 or more canine animals 4 months of age or older are kept or permitted to remain or where any dog gives birth to 2 or more litters within a 12-month period." It is unclear what the process will be if a resident possessing fewer than 5 dogs wishes to breed a single litter. This language could be interpreted to prohibit anyone who does not meet the definition of a kennel from engaging in breeding.

Pasadena City Council Meeting

Date/Time: Monday, October 7, 2013, 7:00 PM

Location: Council Chamber, Pasadena City Hall, 100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S249, Pasadena, CA 91101

Provisions of the Ordinance:

Prohibits the ownership of an intact dog or cat over four months of age unless the owner qualifies for a specific exemption.
Exemptions:
Medical – must provide written confirmation from a veterinarian that sterilization is a threat to the animal's health.
Law enforcement dog.
Dogs trained and actively being used for guide, signal or service dog work or enrolled in a breeding program for these dogs administered by a person licensed under the California Business and Professions Code.
A dog used to show, to compete or to breed, and which is registered with AKC, UKC, ADBA or other approved breed registries. The owner must also meet one of the following criteria:
The dog has competed in at least one dog show or sporting competition sanctioned by a national registry or approved by the Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA within the last 365 days.
The dog has earned a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred dog registry referenced above or other registry or dog sport association or Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA.
The owner is a member of a Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA approved purebred dog breed club which maintains and enforces a code of ethics for dog breeding that includes restrictions from breeding dogs with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed.
Provides that any resident who wishes to breed their intact dog is subject to the definition and regulations pertaining to "dog kennels."
Intact dog licenses can be revoked if:
The city receives two complaints within a twelve-month period, verified by the Poundmaster, that the applicant or licensee has allowed a dog to run loose or escape, or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his/her dog or other animals.
The applicant or licensee has been previously cited, ticketed, sued, fined and/or prosecuted for violating a state law, county code or other municipal provision related to the care and control of animals.
The unaltered dog has been adjudicated as dangerous or vicious, or to be a nuisance.
Any other unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been revoked.
What You Can Do

Attend the Pasadena City Council meeting Monday, October 7th and oppose these burdensome restrictions on responsible owners and breeders.
Call or email the members of the Pasadena City Council and ask them to oppose this ordinance.
AKC Resources
AKC Position Statement: Breeding Restrictions
AKC Position Statement: Canine Population Issues
AKC Position Statement: Spaying and Neutering
Mandatory Spay-Neuter Issue Brief
Issue Analysis: Why Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws are Ineffective
Issue Analysis: Conformation Shows- More Than Just a Pretty Face
Sample Letter to Lawmakers – Mandatory Spay Neuter – Word | PDF | Text

Pasadena City Council

Mayor Bill Bogaard Phone (626) 744-4311
Fax (626) 744-3727 Email bbogaard@cityofpasadena.net

Vice Mayor Jacque Robinson, District 1 Phone (626) 744-4444
Fax (626) 396-7300 Email district1@cityofpasadena.net

Councilmember Margaret McAustin, District 2 Phone (626) 744-4742
Email mlmorales@cityofpasadena.net

Councilmember John J. Kennedy, District 3 Phone (626) 744-4738
Fax (626) 744-4774 Email ChristianCruz@cityofpasadena.net or jwest@cityofpasadena.net

Councilmember Gene Masuda, District 4 Phone (626) 744-4740
Email nsullivan@cityofpasadena.net

Councilmember Victor M. Gordo, Esq. District 5 Phone (626) 744-4741 or (626) 831-8609
Fax (626) 398-1836 Email vdelacuba@cityofpasadena.net

Councilmember Steve Madison, District 6 Phone (626) 744-4739 Email smadison@cityofpasadena.net

Councilmember Terry Tornek, District 7 Phone (626) 441-4802
Fax (626) 441-4806 Email ttornek@cityofpasadena.net

 

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___

Pasadena Mandatory Spay-Neuter Law: Monday, Oct. 7 City Council Mtg!

 

Hi Folks,

 

I wanted to alert you that the Pasadena City Council agenda for this coming Monday includes the draft mandatory spay neuter ordinance (the agenda was posted this evening).  This is a "first reading", and essentially, THIS is the time to provide comments.  As people involved in pure bred dogs in Pasadena, I strongly encourage you to read the draft ordinance and share you thoughts with City Council via email, letter or in person at the meeting if you have any concerns.  There are some new measures in there that were NOT in the original staff report back in July (like what happens if an unaltered dog ends up in Pasadena Humane Society's shelter!).  

 < /o>

While I'm not contacting you to encourage you comment one way or another on this issue, I am very concerned that not enough people involved with pure bred dogs in Pasadena are aware of this, so please share with others who might be interested.  Here is some information that might be of use:

 

 

The City Council agenda can be found at:  

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2013%20agendas/Oct_07_13/agenda.asp

 

And the draft ordinance and fact sheet (which is attached to the agenda) can be found at:

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2013%20agendas/Oct_07_13/AR%209.pdf

 

City Council contacts where you can send your comments:

 

City Clerk's office comment form: http://www.cityofpasadena.net/CityClerk/Contact_Director/

 

Mayor Bill Bogaard: bbogaard@cityofpasadena.net

Mayor's Field Representative Rhonda Stone: rstone@cityofpasadena.net

 

Councilmember Jacque Robinson (via her Field Representative Tina Williams): 

district1@cityofpasadena.net

 

Councilmember Margaret McAustin (via her Field Representative Margo Morales): 

mlmorales@cityofpasadena.net

 

Councilmember John Kennedy (via his Field Representatives Christian Cruz and Jana West):  

ChristianCruz@cityofpasadena.net 

jwest@cityofpasadena.net

 

Councilmember Gene Masuda (via his Field Representative Noreen Sullivan):

< span style="font-size:9.0pt;background:white;">nsullivan@cityofpasadena.net 

 

Councilmember Steve Madison (from what I understand, he started the 'ball rolling' on all of this...his original concern was dog aggression/ public safety and with breed specific legislation not an option, moved onto MSN as a strategy):

smadison@cityofpasadena.net

 

Councilmember Terry Tornak:

ttornek@cityofpasadena.net

 

 

 

Thank you!

Anne Dove 

(Pasadena resident - Cairn Terriers)

  ;

__._,_.___

Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

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

.

__,_._,___

Fwd: APHIS Final Rule Revising Pet Seller Exemptions and You

APHIS Final Rule Revising Pet Seller Exemptions and You

 

SAOVA Friends,

 

As  you know by now, APHIS published the Final Rule September 10, 2013 which revises the definition of "retail pet store" under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) licensing and regulations. The new definition of retail pet store means a place of business or residence where the seller, buyer, and animal are physically present in the same location. Not only dogs, but cats, rabbits, mice, small exotic animals, and other small pets will no longer be sold at retail without either public or APHIS oversight.  If you cannot qualify for the retail pet store exemption in the AWA by selling only face-to-face, then you must either obtain a federal license or be limited to 4 or fewer females bred and raised on your premises. This limit of 4 is an aggregate number of females regardless of species (i.e., 2 dogs, 1 cat, 1 rabbit).

 

The transaction does not have to take place at the seller's home.  A meeting place can be set up to transfer the animal. However, everyone needs to be aware that many municipalities have ordinances restricting sales in public places and should plan accordingly. It appears APHIS will allow a third party to be designated as the agent to stand in for the breeder or buyer in the face-to-face transaction, but this needs additional clarification.

 

Anyone selling dogs for hunting, breeding, security purposes, or as working dogs is excluded from the definition of Dealer and from the definition of Retail Pet Store.

 

APHIS held a teleconference to announce the final rule.  If you could not attend, we urge you to read the transcribed call which is posted at the SAOVA website http://tinyurl.com/nyb4s5g   

 

In general, APHIS says this rule is driven by purpose of breeding and method of delivery for the sale; and that their goal is only to end sight-unseen sales.  However, since breeding programs do not fall into nice neat categories, and scenarios change from breeder to breeder and species to species, covering the retail sector with such a regulation creates many areas of uncertainty for the average breeder. 

 

The list of questions is long:

Can hunting dog kennel owners sell pets

Can breeders ship sight-unseen where relationships have been well established

Can litters be whelped inside the house

Are rescues still exempt if they ship sight-unseen

Can animals, other than rabbits, be shipped for preservation of the species

Do the APHIS regulations take precedence over state license regulations

How can we believe the answers from APHIS staff who do not understand the questions

Does APHIS plan to offer any protection for newly licensed breeders so that kennel photos are not added to the ASPCA "puppy mill" data base and other sensationalized uses

If you are reported to APHIS as needing a license, are investigators required to have a warrant to enter your premises

Is everyone on the same premise required to be licensed if one person must be licensed

 

The rule is overly complicated, inconsistent, and certainly not easy to understand. The internet and chat groups are full of conversation about this rule with a number of interpretations and a wide variety of opinions being circulated.  APHIS also posted another Question and Answer Fact Sheet with their explanations to some of the major concerns submitted during the rule making process.  Again as last year, the Q&A contains many half, incomplete, or misleading answers.  The reality is that the final interpretation of the rule and its definitions will be at the discretion of APHIS inspectors and staff.    

 

Rather than attempt to analyze the rule and/or interpret how it will impact hundreds of thousands of breeders in dozens of varying situations we'll review what we do know regarding the new rule and current AWA standards.

 

The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register September 18, 2013 and is effective 60 days from publication. APHIS plans a phased implementation of the rule. Kevin Shea, APHIS Director, stated in the teleconference, "We will be trying to identify the facilities that aren't currently licensed that should be licensed under the rule. We'll be doing this, using publicly available data - breed registries, advertisements that folks are doing on the internet, etc., to identify the facilities that we need to approach about getting licensed."  APHIS is still finalizing their "outreach" plan and we will share that information when it becomes available.

 

The AWA Standards of Care for housing, facilities, exercise, cleaning, sanitization, employees, housekeeping, and pest control will not be revised.

 

Living under USDA licensing is NOT an option for the average home-based retail seller. The average house cannot be converted to a USDA compliant facility. Federal standards for licensed facilities dictate sanitation measures not feasible in a normal home, surfaces that are impervious to moisture, ventilation, bio-hazard control, veterinary care, exercise, temperature controls, waste disposal systems, diurnal lighting, drainage systems, washrooms, perimeter fencing, as well as transportation standards for regulated animals.

 

We are very concerned about the Q&A section regarding use of your homes. The answer is disingenuous and we trust those who have read it do not believe they can continue utilizing their homes once they are licensed.  The revised APHIS Q&A asks the question: Will regulated breeders who keep their dogs in their homes have to put them in a kennel?  APHIS answers "generally not" and proceeds with a misleading explanation that APHIS will determine if your home meets their standards; and states that a number of currently licensed wholesale breeders maintain their animals in their homes. 

 

IF you can give up a room in your house and convert it to be the moisture proof, sterile environment described above, AND gain approval from an APHIS inspector, you may be able to crate or pen animals in that room. This room would then be for either adults or puppies/kittens but not both. Under the USDA standards puppies and kittens under 4 months of age cannot be housed in the same primary enclosure with adults, other than the dam/queen or foster dam/queen. Since the remainder of your house does not meet the above requirements, allowing animals to roam freely would cause you to be in violation of the AWA. And unless your bedroom is coated in epoxy and has a floor drain, you won't be doing any whelping there.

 

A separate facility will be needed for females by two weeks prior to whelping. Even if you make one room in your house compliant with the AWA standards, females cannot be whelped in that room. That means an additional room will be required, plus one for each additional litter within the next 3.5 months.

 

Any room in your home used for whelping or birthing must meet USDA standards – impervious to moisture – meaning tile floor and vinyl-coated walls.

 

All surfaces touched by animals must be waterproof and sterilized every two weeks with your choice of live steam under pressure, 180 degree water and detergent with disinfectant, or a combination detergent/disinfectant product.

 

You must have a separate food preparation area from your kitchen.

 

In addition to a written exercise plan and veterinary plan you must now have an emergency plan that documents your awareness and understanding of your responsibility to protect your animals in emergency situations.

 

The USDA license may classify you as a commercial business. You will need to know the allowed uses for your property in the current zoning and land use regulations and whether home businesses are allowed. Your property tax status may be affected and your tax liabilities could change, depending on state and local laws.

 

Finally, your information, photos of your property, and inspection reports will be the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests by activists.  Inspectors will always write you up for something or it looks as if they are not doing their jobs, thus giving activists something to read and complain about.  Activists are not above taking the information out of context and using it to suit their purposes.

 

The new rule centers on shipping sight-unseen which at this time presents unanswered questions, and could target you for investigation as to whether you need a license.  Until APHIS issues meaningful dialogue on their intentions and we know how inspectors should interpret the new rule, it might be best to delay use of commercial shipping if possible.  If you have more than four females, rely on shipping to keep your program viable, and have no alternative options, then you will have to contact USDA and ask for an application kit and begin the licensing process.  

 

When you contact APHIS with questions, record the answers.   If you make the decision to go forward and apply for a license, record the conversations and the inspections and have a witness with you during the pre-licensing process. 

 

It is impossible to predict the full impact and potential damage on breeders once this rule is actually in place and enforcement begins.  In the meantime, please do not start reducing your kennels, catteries, and small businesses, and jeopardize the years of hard work that went into building your breeding programs.  There is more to learn on this rule and what can be done so that we can continue to pursue our hobbies, avocations, and livelihoods.  Many people are working on your behalf and we will not go down quietly.

 

Cross posting is encouraged.

 

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators

saova@earthlink.net

__._,_.___

                                        

      

 

   

                 

.

__,_._,___