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

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___