Tuesday, April 30, 2013

San Diego City - another pet store sales ban proposal

-----Original Message-----
From: JMillerArt <JMillerArt@aol.com>
To: JMillerArt <JMillerArt@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 3:23 pm
Subject: San Diego City - ALERT

CFA Alert - City of San Diego
Joan Miller, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Forwarding is encouraged

More information on the San Diego Pet Store Ban on sales of dogs, cats
and rabbits.

Cat and Dog Fanciers - this will impact YOU!!

TOMORROW Wednesday, May 1, 2013:

A proposed ordinance to ban pet sales by pet stores will be discussed
by the SD Council Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee;

WE NEED YOU TO BE THERE to show there is strong opposition to this
proposal. (Don't wear red - the animal rights group behind this, San
Diego Animal Defense Team, is asking their supporters to wear red.)
You do not have to testify.

WHEN - The Committee hearing starts at 2PM - be there by 1PM to meet
and get a seat.

WHERE - SD City Hall; 202 C Street; Council Committee Room 12th floor.

THE ISSUE:
There is only one pet store in the City of San Diego that sells dogs
(no cats or rabbits). San Diego Puppy obtains their puppies through a
dealer who delivers healthy dogs bred by USDA licensed and inspected
breeders. The proposed ordinance  will be detrimental to this
business. It would also mean that no dogs/cats/rabbits could be sold
by future stores in the City of San Diego. .

The ordinance is not designed to end cruelty nor is it based on
consumer complaints. This is strictly a step in the direction of
ending the sales of all pets other than through shelters or rescue
groups. Pet Stores are thought to be an easy target in California -
Similar bans have passed in West Hollywood and in Los Angeles. Next we
will see the same pressure on home breeders of cats and dogs.

LETS HELP STOP THIS IN SAN DIEGO !!

Contact the Public Safety Committee Members:

Marti Emerald (Chair)       martiemerald@sandiego.gov      619-236-6699
Lorie Zapf (Vice Chair)     loriezapf@sandiego.gov
619-236-6616
Mark
Kersey                      markkersey@sandiego.gov         619-238-0915
David
Alvarez                     davidalvarez@sandiego.gov       619-236-6688

Contact the CFA Legislative Group - legislation@cfa.org

Monday, April 22, 2013

"Cujo's Law" - AB 272

Rabies Vaccination of puppies in California may soon be required at the tender age of three months

By Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary, California Federation of Dog Clubs

A bill, dubbed by its sponsor as "Cujo's Law", is awaiting a vote of the California Assembly. This bill would mandate that puppies receive rabies vaccination at three months old.

This bill has provoked vigorous opposition from dog groups and animal welfare groups. Dr. W. Jean Dodds, a California veterinarian, and Co-Trustee of the Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust, is one of the veterinary professionals most knowledgeable on the subject of immunology and vaccination. Dr. Dodds has personally and repeatedly contacted members of the assembly to voice concerns over this bill since February. California Federation of Dog Clubs wrote a letter of opposition to this bill in March, 2013. Despite our request to be listed among the opponents of the bill, our letter was ignored and we were not included on the opposition list.

Despite much protesting and all the evidence presented regarding how bad this bill is, it passed merrily along out of both the Assembly Agriculture and Assembly Appropriations committees by unanimous vote!

As most dogs breeders are aware, vaccination of puppies at an early age flies in the face of science and is counter to the advice of the medical community. Early-age vaccination is often ineffective due to the interference of maternal antibodies. This would mean that a large percentage of young dogs in the community would be presumed immune to rabies after an ineffective early-age vaccination, when in

fact they are not immune and could, in theory, acquire and transfer rabies to humans.

There have been some gross misrepresentations and inaccuracies relating to AB 272.

Proponents have claimed that it does not mandate rabies vaccination at the age of three months. However, the text of the bill clearly does mandate a rabies vaccination at the age of three months.
The Agriculture Committee comments on AB 272 report that "California is the only state that sets a minimum age of four months for dogs rabies vaccination." This statement is false. Only twelve (12) out of fifty (50) states require that dogs be vaccinated by 3 months. Thirteen (13) states require that dogs be vaccinated by the age of 4 months; one (1) state requires vaccination by 5 months; and six (6) require vaccination by the age of 6 months, and twelve (12) refer to the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians' Rabies Compendium which recommends that rabies vaccines should be administered according to the manufacturers' labeled instructions.
Rabies vaccine labels indicate that they may be given at 3 months, not that they must be. It is implied in the comments that the Compendium advises that puppies should or must be vaccinated at 3 months of age, which is not the case. Merial's IMRAB rabies vaccine labels indicate that they "can be administered to puppies as early as 3 months of age" and Pfizer's Defensor rabies vaccine labels advise that they are for dogs and cats "3 months of age or older." These instructions denote the minimum age at which it is safe to administer rabies vaccines (i.e., do not administer before 3 months of age) and not a minimum age at which they must be administered to be effective. Scientific data reflect that the later a puppy can be vaccinated, the more likely the vaccine will have the desired immunological response due to reduced interference of maternal antibodies, which are still present in 3 month old puppies. The 2011 American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines reports that: "Because dogs older than 14-16 wk of age are not likely to have interfering levels of MDA [maternally derived antibodies], administration of a single initial dose of an infectious vaccine to an adult dog can be expected to induce a protective immune response. ..... MDA is the most common reason early vaccination fails to immunize."
Puppies are finishing up their initial vaccination series of distemper, hepatitis, and parvovirus at 12 weeks (3 months) of age. According to vaccination expert Dr. W. Jean Dodds, addition of a rabies vaccine into the mix will not only increase the possibility of adverse reactions, but also the probability that the vaccine components will interfere with each other and neutralize or negate an appropriate immunological response.
Dr. Karen Ehnert, acting Director of Veterinary Public Health, also explained that one of the reasons she has pushed for this change is she and the Health Officers Association "… want to give owners the opportunity to vaccinate puppies earlier when there is increased risk." This is completely disingenuous, as currently there is no law prohibiting anyone from vaccinating their puppy for rabies at the age of three months should they choose to do so.
Dr Ehnert claims that "the past two years we have seen a 4 -5 fold increase in bat rabies in LA County, with some areas being hot spots." Yes, there have been increased cases of bat rabies, but there has been no escalation in canine rabies corresponding to the increase in bat rabies. According to the Department of Health's Reported Animal Rabies, for Los Angeles County there were no cases of rabid dogs from 2010 through 2012, while there were 114 rabid bats (22 in 2010, 38 in 2011, and 54 in 2011—representing an increase of nearly 2.5 times instead of a 4-5 fold increase). Statewide, there have only been three cases of rabies in dogs since 2007, as opposed to 981 rabid bats and 147 rabid skunks for the same period, which evidences the fact that the current law requiring puppies to be vaccinated against rabies by 4 months of age is effective at controlling rabies in California's canine community and does not need to be changed.
The sole amendment of April 19 was to eliminate the provision to refer to the bill as 'Cujo's Bill.' This coming from a veterinary organization? Are politicians now being paid for lame attempts at stand-up comedy? This original lead-in statement to the bill clues us in to the fact that there is quite an anti-dog bias evident in the intent. No wonder the politicians advancing this ridiculous agenda don't care to hear about how our dogs' health might be adversely affected....they just plain DON'T CARE!

The politicians have ignored our pleas and are woefully ignorant to the dangers of this bill. One assemblywoman, ASM Joan Buchanan, has promised to speak on the Assembly floor AGAINST AB 272 but she claims that there has been little noise about this, including letters, faxes, or phone calls. I don't suppose emailed information from experts in the field like Dr. Dodds counts for anything. And of course, letters from organizations have been left off the opposition list, seemingly in a deliberate manner.

Rabies remains a very serious world wide health threat, causing on average 55,000 human deaths per year. Most of these sad cases happen in Africa and Asia. But for those of us living in the California, the chances of a dog transmitting rabies to a human are much less than the odds of being struck by lightening or winning the Powerball lottery. In a state of nearly 40 million people, we have had three, count 'em, THREE cases of canine rabies in the state in the last four years, and one of those was in a dog recently imported into Los Angeles from Mexico.

As it currently stands, the law requiring puppies to be vaccinated at 4 months of age is and has been effective at controlling rabies in California's canine population. There is no epidemiological or scientific rationale for changing this law and prematurely exposing puppies to the potentially harmful, sometimes fatal, adverse side affects of the rabies vaccine prior to the age of 4 months. If you live in California please call your assemblymember TODAY as the bill may be voted on as early as Thursday April 25^th.

AB 272 letter to Assembly

California State Assembly
April 21, 2013

Re: CA AB 272: Rabies: vaccinations (Gomez) as amended April 19, 2013 :
OPPOSE

Dear Assemblymember,

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 who
are 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 that is
beneficial to society and to animal welfare. We sponsored 'Molly's
Law", which allowed for medical exemptions for rabies vaccination, in
the immediate past session.

The CFoDC is OPPOSED to CA AB 272. We formally requested to be listed
in official opposition to this bill back in March, but were never
included on the list of opponents. Now we are contacting each and every
assemblymember to urge your "NO" vote on this proposal.

This bill would lower the age for puppies to receive their required
rabies vaccination to three months old. Vaccination of puppies at an
early age flies in the face of science and is counter to the advice of
the medical community. Early-age vaccination is often ineffective due
to the interference of maternal antibodies. This would mean that a
large percentage of young dogs in the community would be presumed
immune to rabies after an ineffective early-age vaccination, when in
fact they are not immune and could acquire and transfer rabies to
humans.

It is false to claim that California is the only state setting the age
of four months for dog rabies vaccination. Only twelve out of fifty
states require rabies vaccination at age three months, and several
states have set that age as high as SIX months. California has only
seen three (3) cases of rabies in dogs in the past six years despite
1128 confirmed cases of rabies in bats and skunks in that same time
period. One of those cases was a dog who was recently imported into Los
Angeles from Mexico.

The current law requiring puppies to be vaccinated at 4 months of age
is and has been effective at controlling rabies in California's canine
population. There is no epidemiological or scientific rationale for
changing this law. Please reject AB 272.

Sincerely yours,

Geneva Coats, R.N.
Secretary, California Federation of Dog Clubs

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Riverside County Considers MSN for "Pit Bulls"

Riverside County, CA considering pit bull ordinance

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors is considering an ordinance that would regulate the ownership of "pit bulls," requiring the dogs to be spayed or neutered. County officials say the action is being taken because the "breed threatens public safety and fills animal shelters."

Details of the proposed ordinance are not available. but in a staff report to supervisors, animal services officials said the goal is to "mandate the sterilization of all Pit Bull type dogs."

The report from the Department of Animal Services specifically states:

Pit bull and pit bull mixes significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and pets. The media is constantly reporting incidents of death and human injury from attacks of this type of canine. Additionally, this breed of dog makes up 20% of the dogs impounded by the Department has historically very low redemption or adoption rates.

California state law prohibits the passage of breed specific ordinances with the exception of ordinances pertaining only to spay and neuter programs and breeding regulations of specific breeds.

Regardless of your position on spaying and neutering of pets, it is important to remember that any law that applies to one breed or grouping of dogs involves the practice of breed profiling and is breed specific legislation. Breed specific MSN is fraught with the many problems associated with BSL, and opens the door for future additional breed restrictions.

Please send your polite, respectful and informative opposition to breed specific legislation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors listed below.

Talking points related to breed specific MSN can be found here.

The county Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., to consider whether animal services officials and county lawyers should begin working on a pit-bull-sterilization ordinance.

Riverside County Board of Supervisors
(Block copy & paste e-mail)
district1@rcbos.org,District2@rcbos.org,district4@rcbos.org,
district3@rcbos.org, district5@rcbos.org

Jay Orr
County Executive Officer
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street – 4th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1110
ceo@rceo.org

As a side note, the city of Pasadena, California is also considering a similar ordinance which needs our continued attention.
http://blessthebullys.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/riverside-county-ca-considering-pit-bull-ordinance/

Monday, April 1, 2013

AB 272 - rabies vaccination at age three months

California State Assembly

Committee on Appropriations

State Capitol, Room 2114

Sacramento, CA 95814

916-319-2181

March 18, 2013

Re: CA AB 272: Rabies: vaccinations (Gomez) : OPPOSE

REQUEST TO BE LISTED IN OFFICIAL OPPOSITION IN BILL ANALYSIS

Dear Chairman Gatto 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 who are 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 that is beneficial to society and to animal welfare. AB 272, however, would be detrimental to health and welfare.

The CFoDC is OPPOSED to CA AB 272. This bill would lower the age for puppies to receive their required rabies vaccination to three months old. Vaccination of puppies at an early age flies in the face of science and is counter to the advice of the medical community. Early-age vaccination is often ineffective due to the interference of maternal antibodies. This would mean that a large percentage of young dogs in the community would be presumed immune to rabies after an ineffective early-age vaccination, when in fact they are not immune and could acquire and transfer rabies to humans. Owners with a false sense of security may fail to become concerned if their presumed-immune yet actually NOT immune dog has contact with a rabid animal and might fail to report the incident. This policy could result in an increased risk of potential rabies exposure cases. Each case of possible human rabies exposure costs our state thousands of dollars in investigation, tracking and treatment costs.

It is false to claim that California is the only state setting the age of four months for dog rabies vaccination. Several states have set that age as high as SIX months. California has only seen three (3) cases of rabies in dogs in the past six years despite 1128 confirmed cases of rabies in bats and skunks in that same time period. One of those cases was a dog who was recently imported into Los Angeles from Mexico. The current law requiring canine rabies vaccination at four months of age is perfectly effective. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Please reject AB 272.

Sincerely yours,

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary, California Federation of Dog Clubs

cc: Mike Gatto, Diane Harkey, Franklin Bigelow, Raul Bocanegra, Steven Bradford, Ian Calderon, Nora Campos, Tim Donnelly, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Jimmy Gomez, Isadore Hall III, Chris Holden, Eric Linder, Richard Pan, Bill Quirk, Donald Wagner, Shirley Weber, Geoff Long, Lisa Murawski, Julie Salley-Gray

CA AB 339 - animal sales in public places

California State Assembly

Public Safety Committee

1020 N. Street (LOB) Room 111

Sacramento, CA 95814

916-319-3745 fax

Re: CA AB 339: Malicious mischief: live animals (Dickinson): OPPOSE

REQUEST TO BE LISTED IN OFFICIAL OPPOSITION IN BILL ANALYSIS

Dear Chairman Ammiano and committee members,

The CFoDC is OPPOSED to CA AB 339.

Although a similar measure passed the state legislature last year, the sales of animals in public venues is not an inherently cruel or immoral activity. The fact that certain "exemptions" can be proposed tells us that the act of selling animals in public is not a reprehensible act worthy of legal prohibition. In fact, animals have been sold in public venues since time immemorial. It is important to note that, despite the picture painted by bill proponents, dogs and cats are not often sold in swap meets or flea markets. Many other animals such as pet birds, reptiles, chickens, and livestock are commonly sold in public venues without any detriment to public safety.

Please reject AB 339.