Chula Vista considering MSN proposal

Mayor and City Council Members

City of Chula Vista

276 Fourth Avenue

Chula Vista, CA 91910

(619) 476-5379 Fax

 

Dear Mayor Cox and City Council Members,

 

The California Federation of Dog Clubs, founded in 1990, represents thousands of dog owners across our state. We are dedicated to the promotion of responsible dog ownership and to protecting the rights of responsible dog owners. Among our current projects are implementation of a breed identification workshop for shelter workers, distribution of a dog care and training brochure for new owners who adopt from a shelter, and establishment of 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. We are active in support of animal legislation that provides positive benefits to society, such as CA SB 390 (LaMalfa) and CA AB 258  "Molly's Bill" (medical exemptions for rabies vaccination), for which we are a co-sponsor.

 

It has come to our attention that the city of Chula Vista is considering a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance. From your city's website: 

 

The Chula Vista Animal Care Facility encourages owners to always spay and neuter their pets. There is a serious pet overpopulation problem in San Diego County that has resulted in thousands of euthanizations each year.

 

The fact is that euthanizations in San Diego County are down significantly. In 1998, 15,474 dogs were killed in San Diego County shelters. By 2010, that number has dropped by nearly 70%, down to 4862. In 2009, there were only 371 dogs euthanized for the year in the entire county of San Diego. Remember, some of these euthanized animals were severely injured, sick, aggressive, or otherwise not savable. Clearly, great progress is being made in the reduction of euthanization of adoptable animals, and success has been possible without the use of coercive legislation.

 

"A serious pet overpopulation problem in San Diego County"? There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. There are over 3 million residents in San Diego County. Let's put the figures into perspective. Last year, one animal entered a shelter for every 63 residents. One dog was killed for every 637 residents. One cat was killed for every 327 residents.   

 

When animals are killed in shelters, it cannot be reasonably blamed on "overpopulation." In fact, the US Border patrol estimates at least 10,000 puppies are smuggled into San Diego County each year from Mexico.* More than DOUBLE the numbers that are killed in shelters. There is a market for pets in San Diego and spaying/neutering all the local dogs and cats will remove the best sources for healthy, well-bred and well-socialized animals. People won't own less pets; they'll just get them from somewhere else. Your mandatory spay/neuter proposal would only serve to increase the black market demand and to promote the breeding of dogs in foreign puppy mills.

  

While the goal of reducing deaths in animal shelters is laudable, mandatory spay-neuter laws don't help. In fact, the opposite is true. Every locale that has enacted a mandatory spay/neuter law has seen a RISE in shelter admissions and killings.

 

San Mateo County's Peninsula Humane Society, which spearheaded the nation's first "breeding ban" in the name of reducing shelter deaths, did not have the expected success with that approach. In the areas of the county where the ordinance was implemented, dog deaths increased by 126 percent, while cat deaths went up by 86 percent. Licensing dropped by 35 percent.

 

 Fort Worth, Texas repealed their mandatory spay and neuter law as licensing and compliance plummeted, and cases of rabies increased.

 

Memphis passed a mandatory spay and neuter law last year. Since then, shelter intakes have risen 8% in that city.

 

Los Angeles is another case in point. After decades of steadily declining shelter numbers, LA reversed the good trend in one fell swoop with enactment of a mandatory spay and neuter law. Intakes and deaths immediately rose by over 30% and continue in an upward spiral.

 

No mainstream animal welfare organization supports mandatory spay and neuter. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes it. So does Best Friends Animal Society, American Humane Association, Maddie's Fund, Alley Cat Allies, the American Kennel Club and the No Kill Advocacy Center. The ASPCA also opposes mandatory spay neuter, saying: 

 

"The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law."

 

Mandatory spay and neuter does not work because it does not address the reasons that animals enter shelters. Those reasons are varied, but they have nothing to do with births. Animals enter shelters due to social problems like loss of a job, home foreclosure, or divorce or death of the owner. Mandatory spay/neuter does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. Ownerless cats make up a large portion of shelter intakes and spay-neuter laws won't reduce the numbers of feral cats. Trap-neuter-release programs are proven methods for feral cat population control.

 

Sometimes there are behavioral issues for which training programs might provide a useful solution. To help get more animals adopted, shelters could implement more proactive ideas like extended hours, foster programs and off-site adoptions. Advertising campaigns can help educate prospective pet owners to consider a shelter animal when they are thinking of getting their next pet.

 

Besides, a recent national pet population survey reveals that 78% of owned dogs and 88% of owned cats are already sterilized. The public is cooperating with voluntary spay and neuter...in droves!  Voluntary, low-cost sterilization clinics have been very successful. We believe that voluntary, collaborative, supportive and science-based programs always outperform programs that are punitive and coercive. We urge you to reject any mandatory spay/neuter law. Such ordinances are not in the best interests of pets or their owners. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of any further assistance. 

 

Sincerely yours, 

 

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

 

CC: Cheryl Cox, Patricia Aguilar, Pamela Bensoussan, Steve Castaneda, Rudy Ramirez

 

*http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml

 

 

 

 

 

From "Maddie's Fund" website:

 

"Saving all of our healthy and treatable shelter dogs and cats by 2015 is more than possible - we're almost there!"

 

 

 

Irvine ordinance update

The City of Irvine is considering an ordinance to ban the retail sale of pets and to ban circuses and rodeos in the city.

 

To make your voice heard, call or fax the city council.

 

Mayor and City Council Members

City of Irvine

1 Civic Center Plaza

Irvine, CA 92606-5207

 

Phone 949-724-6205

 

FAX 949-724-6188

 

Local residents should plan to attend the meeting tomorrow, October 11, at 4 pm.

 

 

Suggested talking points:

• Exotic animal exhibits provide invaluable educational experiences for adults and children alike
• Banning retail sales of dogs and cats sends an anti-ownership message and does nothing positive to promote animal welfare
• Sales bans create undesirable, unregulated black markets
• Animal exhibitors such as circuses, zoos, carnivals etc. are already federally regulated and licensed through APHIS. Strict animal welfare guidelines must be adhered to.

 

 

Public Hearings are scheduled for a time certain of 4:00 p.m., unless noticed otherwise, or as soon thereafter as possible.  Those wishing to address the City Council during the Public Hearing must complete a form and provide it to the City Clerk prior to the hearing. Notice:  Public Hearings listed for continuance will be continued as noted and posting of this agenda serves as notice of continuation.  Any matter not noted for continuance, will be posted separately.

 

2.1	APPROVAL OF ANIMAL WELFARE ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT RETAIL SALES OF DOGS AND CATS, CIRCUSES FEATURING WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMAL ACTS, AND RODEOS IN THE CITY OF IRVINE

 

	ACTION:
1)	Receive staff report.
2)	Open the public hearing; receive public input.
3)	Close the public hearing.
4)	City Council comments and questions.
5)	Introduce for first reading, and read by title only ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 4-5-506, 4-5-1111, AND 4-5-1112 TO THE IRVINE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 4-5-101, 4-5-501 AND 4-5-515 OF THE IRVINE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF RETAIL SALE OF DOGS AND CATS IN COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS, AND THE PROHIBITION OF CIRCUSES DISPLAYING OR EXHIBITING WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMAL ACTS, RODEOS AND SIMILAR EVENTS

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS (Limited to 3 minutes per speaker) - 6:30 P.M. Public comments will be heard at approximately 6:30 p.m. or prior to adjournment, whichever occurs earlier.

 

 

 

	If you have problems viewing this email click here
	www.asm.ca.gov/Hagman Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov   Governor Jerry Brown Signs Molly's Bill into Law I am pleased to announce that Governor Brown signed AB 258, affectionately known as "Molly's Bill" into law. AB 258 will protect California canines from unintended consequences of regular anti-rabies vaccine.  It will create an exemption from anti-rabies vaccine for dogs a licensed veterinarian determines are likely to have dangerous or lethal reactions to the vaccine. I would like to thank the Governor and all the dog lovers who supported this bill along the way. I could not have done it without you. It has been a long road but is fantastic that man's best friend now enjoys this protection! Thank you for your ongoing support. It is an honor to serve you and the State of California.  Assemblyman Curt Hagman District 60       Welcome I am proud to keep you informed about issues affecting the 60th Assembly District, as well as the California State Legislature.   Section Name   ·         AB 258 - Molly's Bill       DISTRICT OFFICE 13920 City Center Drive, #260 Chino Hills, CA 91709 (909) 627-7021, (909) 627-1841 fax   CAPITOL OFFICE State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 916-319-2060, 916-319-2160 fax        © 2011 Assembly Republican Caucus | Disclaimer

 

 

AB 1117 signed into law

AB 1117 deals with animal asset forfeiture and sets onerous penalties for "abuse".


Governor Brown has signed AB 1117 into law. AB 1117 would extend civil asset forfeiture to include animals. Existing law requires a convicted person to pay for the costs involved with seizing and impounding their animals. AB 1117 would extend the lien on animals based simply upon a correctly issued warrant. This is not only unjust, but onerous and cost-prohibitive to most owners, who would be forced to forfeit their animals even if innocent. The animals would then further add to the financial strain on local shelters, and many would end up being killed.


This bill requires any order prohibiting ownership to also prohibit the person from possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for animals of any kind. This bill creates 5 and 10-year probation periods. This bill creates a new misdemeanor offense for a person found to be in violation of the animal-possession injunction.



Sentencing terms and conditions of probation are best left to the discretion of judges based on each individual case. For instance, a case of neglect may be as minor as leaving an animal without water, yet the offender would be prohibited from owning or residing with family members who have animals for a proscribed period of between five to ten years. This could adversely impact those households with guide dogs or other service animals.


The California Judges Association opposes the elimination of judicial discretion and noted in the May 18, 2011 analysis: "An enjoining order would probably be appropriate in most cases of animal abuse, but exceptional cases can arise". The California Judges Association concludes:


"AB 1117 goes too far."


AB 1117 is unnecessary. Judges already have the discretion to enter an order forbidding persons from caring for animals when warranted.
 
This bill will probably need a challenge in court, which will be very costly to pursue. There is an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the seizing agency, who may jump at the opportunity to abuse their power to grab animals and either kill or sell them, while having the owner pay all the costs.
 
Thank you to everyone who called, faxed and wrote the legislative bodies in opposition, as well as contacted the Governor to request a veto.

Governor Brown bill action

Some good news; Governor Brown signed AB 258; this bill allows medical exemptions from rabies vaccination. California Federation of Dog Clubs was a co-sponsor of AB 258, and, needless to say, we are thrilled that it has now become law.

We are pleased to report that the governor also vetoed AB 1121, the puppy licensing/seller reporting bill. The governor believes this should be a matter for local jurisdictions to decide, and not a statewide mandate. Reporting sales of animals to animal control entities is certainly government over-reach, and downright onerous for rescues and most breeders, so thank goodness this one is gone, at least for now.

Also vetoed was SB 702, which would have required animals released from shelters to be microchipped. Mandated microchipping would increase the costs to adopt, thereby driving down shelter adoption rates, and costing animals their lives; what a relief to see this bill vetoed.

SB 390 was signed, good news for search and rescue teams.

Unfortunately, AB 1117 was signed into law by the Governor, despite an aggressive campaign of opposition by California Federation of Dog Clubs, CARPOC, The Animal Council and many other respected animal groups. We will devoted a separate entry to that subject.

CA:City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:02 pm (PDT)

From: Jana Ransom  ;
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:27 AM
To: Jana Ransom 
Cc: Brian Fisk ; Sharon Landers ; Michelle Grettenberg 
Subject: City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

The City of Irvine City Council will hold a public hearing on OCTOBER 11, 2011 beginning at 4:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers in the Irvine Civic Center. 

The following proposals will be considered:

1) Spay/neutering: no ordinance change will be proposed. Staff will request direction to develop an educational campaign as to the benefits of spaying and neutering animals.

2) Retail sales of dogs and cats: ordinance language will be presented to prohibit the retail sale of dogs and cats from commercial establishments in Irvine. If approved, this ordinance and all referencing sections of the Municipal Code will g o into effect 30 days after 2nd reading of ordinance (scheduled under "Consent calendar" for October 25, 2011). One existing store will be allowed to continue sales through October 31, 2012. 

3) Circuses and Rodeos: ordinance language will be presented to prohibit wild and exotic animal performances in circuses and to prohibit rodeos altogether in Irvine. If approved, this ordinance and all referencing sections of the Municipal Code will go into effect 30 days after 2nd reading of ordinance (scheduled under "Consent calendar" for October 25, 2011). Animal exhibits, petting zoos, pony rides and other exhibitions are currently regulated in the City of Irvine and will still be allowed subject to the conditions of the Municipal Code and permit requirements established by the Irvine Public Safety Department.

A number of alternatives were suggested for Council consideration or were found to be in place in other jurisdic tions. These alternatives are summarized in a chart (attached) or can be found on our webpage located athttp://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cs/animalcare/proposed_animal_welfare_ordinances.asp. 

Ordinance language is being developed for numbers 2 and 3 above. Unless the City Council directs it at their meeting of October 11, 2011, no additional ordinance language will be developed for the alternatives. 

Please note: City Council will receive the proposed ordinance language on October 7, 2011. It will be posted on our website by 5:00 p.m. on that date at this site: http://www.cityofirvine.org/council/agenda/agenda_archive.asp(click on agenda for October 11, 2011). 

As I had indicated that I hoped to have the actual language available for review further in advance, I apologize. However, it will NOT be released prior to the City Council first receiving it in the staff report that goes to Council October 7. 

Thank you all for your interest in these matters.

[Also, please forgive any duplicate emails - we are merging lists and some may have been inadvertently repeated.]

JANA M. RANSOM

COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

CITY OF IRVINE

P.O. BOX 19575

IRVINE, CA 92623-9575

(949) 724-6694

jransom@ci.irvine.ca.us

__._,_.___