Hear Ass'y Floor Debate On Pet Responsibility Act (SB 250); Small Number of Ass'y Dems Join Repubs in Defeating The Bill; Supporters Push For Reconsideration By Aug. 31 End of Session
(Aug. 29, 2010) -- As reported Thursday (Aug. 26) by LBReport.com minutes after the vote was tallied, a majority in the CA Assembly declined to pass the Pet Responsibility Act (SB 250). The measure required 41 "yes" votes; it received 33.
A small number of Assembly Dems joined with Repubs in defeating the measure. Unlike 2009, LB-area Ass'ymembers Bonnie Lowenthal and Warren Furutani both voted "yes." (in 2009, Furutani voted "no" and Bonnie Lowenthal didn't vote despite being present).
Supporters of the bill say efforts are underway to bring SB250 up for one more vote before the end of the Assembly session on August 31.
LBReport.com provides extended audio of the Aug. 26 Assembly floor debate below.
SB 250 would require owners of unlicensed dogs to spay/neuter their canine if impounded, and forbids owners of cats from letting their unsterilized felines roam. The Aug. 26 Assembly floor debate included details of the euthanasia procedure, spoken by Assemblymembers Kevin DeLeon (D, Los Angeles) [begins at 7:40] and Pedro Nava (D., Santa Barbara) [begins at 11:39].
On hearing Assemblyman Nava's statements, an opponent of the bill moved to rule his words "inappropriate;" the objection was overruled and Ass'yman Nava continued.
To hear the Assembly debate, click here. Audio begins with Ass'yman Bob Blumenfield (D., SFV), who carried the Senate measure (authored by Sen. Dean Florez) on today's Assembly vote.
When "yes" votes fell short, Assemblyman Blumenfield moved a "call," a procedure allowing him to resume the vote count later in the meeting. This occurred at least three times, with the measure falling eight votes short of the number needed for passage.
After the measure failed, Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D., Oakland) -- who didn't vote on the measure despite its multiple calls -- was recorded as voting "yes," making the final "official" tally 34-40. Below is the Assembly clerk's final tally:
UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: SB 250
AUTHOR: Florez
TOPIC: Dogs and cats: spaying and neutering.
DATE: 08/26/2010
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: SB 250 Florez Senate Third Reading By BLUMENFIELD
(AYES 34. NOES 40.) (FAIL)
AYES
****
Ammiano Arambula Bass Beall
Blumenfield Bradford Brownley Carter
Davis De La Torre De Leon Eng
Feuer Fong Fuentes Furutani
Gatto Hall Hayashi Hernandez
Hill Huffman Jones Lieu
Bonnie Lowenthal Mendoza Nava Portantino
Ruskin Saldana Skinner Solorio
Torlakson John A. Perez
NOES
****
Adams Anderson Bill Berryhill Tom Berryhill
Block Buchanan Caballero Charles Calderon
Chesbro Conway Coto DeVore
Evans Fletcher Fuller Gaines
Garrick Gilmore Hagman Harkey
Huber Jeffries Knight Logue
Miller Nestande Niello Nielsen
Norby V. Manuel Perez Salas Silva
Smyth Audra Strickland Swanson Torres
Torrico Tran Villines Yamada
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************
Cook Galgiani Ma Monning
Vacancy Vacancy
In a mass emailing on Sunday (Aug. 29), SB250 proponent Judy Mancuso, President of Social Compassion in Legislation, urged supporters of the measure to telephone all Dem members who didn't vote to support the bill to do so if/when it comes up for another vote in the coming days. In her email, Ms. Mancuso writes in pertinent part:
There are many jurisdictions in our state that spend more money on animal control then on veteran's affairs or libraries. This is just wrong. This is government waste at its worst. I’m sure all of you can imagine better places to put this money than into housing and killing pets! It’s simply a disgrace.
We bring nearly 1,000,000 dogs and cats into our shelters and kill over half of them, which costs our state over a quarter of a billion dollars per year. I know these numbers are huge, and maybe hard to grasp and really understand... but please try to reflect for one moment how enormous this is and how cruel and wasteful... and we, California taxpayers are flipping the bill.
Here is how SB 250 will help reduce this out-of-control problem:
1. Prevent unwanted litters -- SB 250 does this by requiring stray dogs to be spayed or neutered (An unlicensed, unaltered, roaming dog is considered a stray).
2. Helps dogs get back home -- SB 250 does this by promoting dog licensing – if you want to keep your dog unaltered, all you need to do is license it... which dog owners should be doing already; dog licensing has been state law since 1933.
Right now in California only 21% of the dogs are licensed, this is bad for two big reasons:
a. Unlicensed dogs have much less chance of finding their way back home if they are impounded.
b. Licensing generates revenue to run the shelters, and budgets have been slashed to unreasonable amounts.
3. Spay and neuter your household roaming cat. And if you want to keep your cat unaltered, keep it inside or an enclosed outdoor area...
Please, if you care about reducing this tragic situation in our state for innocent dogs and cats and are not satisfied with status quo, please help us now. If we cannot get to the 41 votes the bill will fail, and we will have to start all over again next year. We’ve come too far, please help us get this good piece of legislation to the Governor’s desk, call today, please do not delay, this is our last chance.
A year ago in Aug. 2009, the measure failed on a 28-42 Assembly vote with Ass'yman Furutani voting "no" and Ass'ywoman Lowenthal recorded as "not voting" (although she was present in the Assembly Chamber).
SB 250 passed the Senate with "yes" votes from LB-area Senators Alan Lowenthal (D, LB-Paramount), Jenny Oropeza (D, LB-soutbay) and Rod Wright (D, PV-LB-Inglewood).
Licensed dogs wouldn't have been affected by the measure unless the owner was repeatedly cited for animal control violations. The bill also included exceptions added for specific situations (full bill text below).
SB 250 was supported by a number of animal advocacy groups seeking to reduce euthanasias with spay and neuter programs, including Friends of Long Beach Animals, and by a number of government entities and animal shelter operations, including the City of Long Beach.
Long Beach city management said City Hall was in strong support of SB 250. The Council originally took a position of "support in concept" which allowed "staff to work on some technical issues which have since been resolved," says City of LB Government Affairs Manager Tom Modica. He adds that the City is "continuing to communicate our support for SB 250 in Sacramento."
SB 250 was opposed by the American Kennel Club (position below), breeder interests and dog and cat show aficionados and other animal owners who for various reasons want their animal to remain intact.
To view SB 250's current text as amended, click here.
The most recent Assembly legislative analysis states that SB 250 as amended:
SUMMARY: Restricts the ownership of unsterilized dogs and cats
and requires surgical sterilization of the animal in specified
circumstances. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a dog owner to obtain a license for their dog
pursuant to current law or as required by the local licensing
agency.
2)Prohibits a person from owning, keeping, or harboring an
unsterilized dog in violation of this bill.
3)Requires an owner or custodian of an unsterilized dog to have
the dog sterilized by the age of six months, obtain a
certificate of sterility, or, as provided by an ordinance of
the responsible city, county, or city and county, to obtain an
unaltered dog license in accordance with this bill, as
specified.
4)Exempts from the requirements of this bill any dog with a high
likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious
bodily harm or death if surgically sterilized and the owner or
custodian shall obtain written confirmation of this fact from
a veterinarian licensed in this state. Additionally, if the
dog is able to be sterilized at a later date, that date shall
be stated in the written confirmation; however, if the date is
more than 30 days after the date that the owner or custodian
receives that confirmation, the owner or custodian shall apply
for an unaltered dog license pursuant to any applicable city,
city and county, or county ordinance.
5)Authorizes the licensing agency to utilize its existing
procedures or establish procedures for the denial or
revocation of an unaltered dog license and may deny or revoke
a license for one or more of the following reasons:
a) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
compliance with all of the requirements of this bill;
b) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has
violated a state law, or city, county, or other local
governmental provisions relating to the care and control of
animals;
c) Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been
revoked for violating a state law, or a city, county, or
other local government provisions relating to the care or
control of animals;
d) The license application is discovered to contain a
material misrepresentation or omission of fact; or,
e) If the owner or custodian of a dog with an unaltered dog
license is cited for permitting the dog to roam at large,
the license of the dog shall not be subject to revocation
for a first violation, if at the time the dog roams at
large the dog possess a current license, as specified.
6)Authorizes the licensing agency to utilize its existing
procedures or establish procedures for any appeal of a denial
or revocation of an unaltered dog license, consistent with
current law, as specified.
7)Authorizes the licensing agency to assess a fee for the
procedures related to the issuance, denial, or revocation of
an unaltered dog license consistent with this bill.
8)Requires an owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized dog
for sale, trade, or adoption to notify the licensing agency of
the name and address of the transferee within 10 days after
the transfer, as specified.
9)Specifies that any authorized penalty may be imposed upon an
owner or custodian of an unlicensed, unaltered dog for a
violation of this bill only if the owner or custodian has
concurrently violated one or more of the following:
a) Permitting the subject dog to roam at large;
b) Failure to provide adequate care for the subject dog in
violation of animal cruelty provisions;
c) Rabies quarantine violations of the subject dog;
d) Fighting dog activity in violation of the Penal Code, as
specified;
e) Failure to comply with the local jurisdiction's
requirements for the keeping of a dog that has been
adjudicated by a court or an agency of appropriate
jurisdiction to be potentially dangerous, dangerous, or
vicious; and,
f) Failure to possess an unaltered dog license.
10)Requires any owner or custodian of an unaltered dog who is
found to be subject to certain penalties to surgically
sterilize the unaltered animal in accordance with this bill,
and provide the licensing agency written verification from a
licensed veterinarian that the dog has been sterilized.
Authorizes the owner or custodian of an unaltered dog to
appeal a penalty pursuant to procedures established by the
city or county, as applicable, or the superior court of the
jurisdiction where the violation is alleged to have been
committed, as specified.
11)Authorizes the licensing agency to provide the owner or
custodian information as to the availability of sterilization
services for free or at a reduced cost, at the time a citation
is issued and to waive fines or fees, as specified, if the
owner or custodian qualifies to be placed on a waiting list
for free or low-cost sterilization services.
12)Specifies that if an unlicensed unaltered dog or cat is
impounded pursuant to state or local law, in addition to
satisfying applicable requirements of the release of the
animal, including, but not limited to, payment of impound
fees, the owner or custodian shall:
a) Provide written proof of the dog or cat's prior
sterilization, if conditions cannot or do not make this
assessment obvious to the licensing agency personnel;
b) Have the dog or cat surgically sterilized by a
veterinarian associated with the licensing agency at the
expense of the owner or custodian, which may include
additional fees due to any extraordinary care required;
c) Have the dog or cat surgically sterilized by another
veterinarian licensed in this state; or,
d) Pay a refundable deposit, or sign a statement under
penalty of perjury that the dog or cat will be surgically
sterilized within 10 days of the dog's or cat's release, at
the discretion of the licensing agency, as specified.
13)Authorizes the licensing agency to waive any impoundment fee,
cost, or fine, if upon the first impoundment the owner or
custodian of the unlicensed unaltered dog:
a) Secures a license for the subject dog, as specified;
and,
b) Sterilizes the subject dog in accordance with this bill.
14)Authorizes the licensing agency to impose any existing fine
or penalty, consistent with this bill, against the owner or
custodian of the subject dog for failure to provide any
required sterilization information, including denial of an
unaltered license. Permits the licensing agency to utilize
procedures consistent with current law as they exist on the
effective date of this bill for any appeal of this
requirement.
15)Specifies that the owner or custodian of the unaltered dog or
cat shall be responsible for the established costs of
impoundment, which may include daily board costs, vaccination,
medication, and any other diagnostic or therapeutic
applications as required by this bill.
16)Specifies that any fee imposed pursuant to this bill shall
still be applicable to an owner or custodian who surrenders a
dog subject to this bill.
17)Specifies that all costs and fines collected pursuant to this
bill shall be paid to the licensing agency for the purpose of
defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement of
this bill.
18)Specifies that this bill shall not be construed to prevent
any local governing body from adopting requirements that are
more stringent than those set forth in this bill.
19)Exempts the following from the provisions of this bill,
provided the subject dog is licensed as specified:
a) Any owner or breeder of a dog used in the business of
shepherding, herding, or guarding livestock;
b) Any owner or breeder of a dog used in the business of
cultivating agricultural products;
c) Any owner or breeder of a dog used for hunting or for
purposes of field trials, provided the owner or breeder has
lawfully purchased a hunting license;
d) Any owner or trainer of a guide dog, signal dog, or
service dog; and,
e) Any owner or trainer of a peace officer's or
firefighter's dog.
20)Prohibits any person who owns, keeps, or harbors any
unsterilized cat six months of age or older to allow or permit
that unsterilized cat to roam at large.
21)Requires an owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat who
permits that cat to roam at large to have the animal
sterilized, or obtain a certificate of sterility.
22)Exempts these requirements from a cat with a high likelihood,
due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm or
death if sterilized, if the owner or custodian obtains written
confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed in this
state, as specified.
23)Requires an owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized
cat for sale, trade, or adoption to notify the licensing
agency, if the jurisdiction requires the licensing of cats, of
the name and address of the transferee within 10 days of the
transfer, including microchip or license information, as
specified.
24)Requires the owner or custodian of a subject cat requiring
surgical sterilization under this bill to provided written
verification from a licensed veterinarian that the subject cat
has been sterilized, and authorizes the licensing agency to
impose a penalty not to exceed $100 per day, in addition to
any other existing penalty against the owner or custodian if
the owner or custodian fails to provide the required
sterilization information. Authorizes the licensing agency to
utilize procedures consistent with current law as they exist
on the effective date of this bill for any appeal of this
requirement.
25)Specifies that any fee imposed pursuant to this bill shall
still be applicable to an owner or custodian who surrenders a
cat subject to this bill.
A May 2009 legislative analysis is the most recent listing of supporters and opponents when a Senate committee took up SB250. Below are its listed supporters and opponents as of that date time (caveat, may now have changed or increased somewhat):
Support
Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)
A Dog's Life Rescue
A New Hope Animal Foundation
A Passion for Paws Rescue, Inc.
All Creatures Animal Caring Society
American Tortoise Rescue
Angeldogs Foundation
Animal Advocates Alliance
Animal Alliance
Animal Birth Control Assistance
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Shelter Assistance Program
Animal Shelter Relief Rescue
Animal Welfare Services for Atwater Village
Arf! We Go Pet Care
Bark Avenue Foundation
Basset Hound Rescue
Bay Area Bird Hospital
Bellflower Veterinary Hospital
Beverly Hills Police Department
Bichon Furkids Rescue
California Federation for Animal Legislation
Canine Canyon Ranch
Cat Cause Foundation
Cats at the Studio
Cats in Need
Central Valley Seekers
Chief of Police Richard J. Ehle, Jr., City of Capitola
City Attorney Rockard J. Delgadillo, City of Los Angeles
City of Bell Gardens
City of Fresno
City of Hayward Shelter Volunteers
City of Huntington Park
City of Lathrop, Animal Services Department
City of Long Beach Animal Care Services
City of Palm Desert
City of Richmond Police Department
City of Vallejo
City of Santa Rosa
City of Stockton Animal Control
City of West Hollywood
Community Concern for Cats in Contra Costa County
Contra Costa Animal Services - Volunteer
County of Lake, Department of Animal Care & Control
Delta Paws Animal Rescue
Dog Land Spay and Neuter
Dogs Run Free of Nevada County
Dogsindanger.com
East Bay Animal Advocates
Feral Cat Coalition
Fieldhaven Feline Rescue
Foundation for the Care of Indigent Animals
Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista, Placer County Animal Shelter
Friends of Long Beach Animals
Friends of Madera Animal Shelter
Furry Friends Rescue
Genesis Digital Art Studios
Golden State Humane Society
Happy Critters Guinea Pig Rescue
Happy Tails Pet Sanctuary
Haven of Hope Animal Sanctuary
Hayward Animal Services
Helping out Pets Everyday
Hits Magazine
Home at Last Animal Rescue
Husky Haven of LA
IAG Coffee Franchise, LLC
In Defense of Animals
It's the Pits Rescue
LA Yoga Ayurveda and Health Magazine
Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council
Lancaster Animal Shelter
League of Humane Voters
Long Beach Spay & Neuter Foundation
Madera County Animal Services
Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, City of Los Angeles
Mayor Keith Bohr, City of Huntington Beach
Mayor Maggie Houlihan, City of Encinitas
Muttville
Norcal Boxer Rescue
North Bay Animal Advocates
North Coast Animal Welfare Advocacy Center
Northern California Animal Rescue Friends
OCPoundhounds Small Breed Rescue
Pacific Yoga and Ayurveda
Pact, Inc.
PAL Humane Society
Paw Parent
Pawed
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Pet Rescue Center
Pet Sitters I.N.C.
Pet Welfare Proposition
Pets Lifeline, Inc.
Photo Research
Poinsie Pets
Pomeranian Rescue Group
Pooses & Pups Rescue
Positive Pet Parenting Saves Lives
Producers Guild of America
Propp Productions
Purrfect Partners Cat Adoptions
Re/Max Elite Team
Resqcats, Inc.
Resqpet Dog Rescue
Rosedale Animal Rescue
Safe Cat Foundation
Samson PR
San Diego Animal Support Foundation
San Diego House Rabbit Society
Santa Cruz SPCA
Save a Dog Today
Save Tehachapi's Orphaned Pets
Scooter's Pals
Seal Beach Animal Care Center
Seaside Realty
Second Chance Pet Adoptions
Self, Family and Furry Friends Rescue
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation and Education
Sequoia Humane Society
Shelter Animal Advocacy Fund, LA
Shelter Pet Alliance
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
South County Animal Shelter Coalition
Southern California Golden Retriever Rescue
Southland Collie Rescue
Southwest Homes and Land
Stockton Police Department
Tails of the City
Take Me Home
The Catherine Fund
The Dog Squad Rescue, Inc.
The Pet Care Foundation
The Pet Place
The Reva Foundation
The Uncommon Canine, Inc.
Tooth Fairy Pet Care
UCLA People Animal Connection
United Action For Animals
Village Cat Club of Laguna Woods
Voice For the Animals Foundation
Weil Public Relations
Western University Vets for Spay and Neuter
What Animals Tell Us
Wildcare
Windansea Law
Yogafit Inc.
Opposition
Alaskan Malamute Club of America
American Herding Breed Association
American Saluki Association
American Shih Tzu Club, Inc.
American Sighthound Field Association
Bloodhounds West Breed Rescue, Inc., Northern Chapter
Butte County Kennel Club, Inc.
California Airedale Terrier Club Incorporated
California Animal Control Directors Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
Concerned Dog Owners of California
Dog Judges Association of America
Gold Country English Setter Fanciers
Golden Retriever Club
Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles
Miniature Schnauzer Club of Northern California
Northern California Siberian Husky Club, Inc.
Peninsula Australian Shepherd Association
PetPAC
Poodle Club of Central California
Saluki Club of America
San Angeles Saluki Club, Inc.
Social Compassion League
Southern California Alaskan Malamute Club
Tally Ho Dawg Walkin' Club
The Animal Council
The Roseville Dog Owners' Group
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America
Ventura County Dog Fanciers Association
Vilenzo
West Highland White Terrier Club of California
West Los Angeles Obedience Training Club, Inc.
Yorkshire Terrier Club of America, Inc.
Yosemite Kennel Club
The American Kennel Club remained strongly opposed. In a mass emailing on Aug. 19, 2010 the AKC's Government Relations Office stated in pertinent part:
...Amendments have been adopted, but they only modify the appeals process and do not alter our fundamental opposition to this legislation...
While the AKC strongly encourages all dog owners to abide the animal control laws and to be responsible owners, Senate Bill 250 is unreasonable. Two animal control violations may occur years apart and therefore not accurately reflect the true nature of the dog or the responsibility of the owner. Mandatory sterilization in these cases is an extreme punishment. Furthermore, the owner could be denied from ever owning an intact animal again...
This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs, will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders. Additionally, by placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals, this measure may lead to an increase of animals in shelters. Concentrating animal control efforts on dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community, regardless of their reproductive status, would be a much better use of taxpayer funds.
Disclosure: Friends of LB Animals is an LBReport.com advertiser.
Mike Kowal, Realtor
