California Dog Legislation
by Fran Reisman of Santa Barbara, CA
Each week I receive notices about dog (and other animal) legislation here in California. It seems there is constant battling regarding animal rights and the rights of breeders. The e-mail below was sent by the California Federation of Dog Clubs. I’m copying some of the points and am including my thoughts on them. Please remember, these are my thoughts only. Also keep in mind that any of these proposed laws can, or already have affected animal legislation in your state. We need to learn about the laws that are being presented to State Senates which will affect our dogs, our breeding, and our shows. Check with your all-breed clubs. Ask them to appoint someone who can stay on top of this and report back to the club. When you find something that is adverse to our world, begin writing letters and emails, and start making phone calls. We are a large group of people who feel strongly about our sport and the dogs we breed. We can support good legislation and help to defeat the bad.
The legislative session is in full swing now. There are several bills of concern that the California Federation of Dog Clubs has already taken steps to address. This year we are dealing with the following:
SB 1145 (Emmerson) – Increased fines and penalties for animal fighting. Neutral. We are watching this one at this point. Fines and penalties for animal offenses seem plenty high enough already.
PULEASE… Who’s kidding who?
Here in Santa Barbara we heard this same argument.
There were many of us who were fighting for stronger enforcement to stop dog fighting events. Some wanted the county to make sure that all these dogs were licensed and had been inoculated for rabies, etc., and that they were neutered to restrict how many litters they could produce. This would also affect our dogs as the laws for neutering would be for all dogs in the county.
My question was, “Who would enforce these laws?” Who would go into the neighborhoods where these poor “fighting” dogs are being bred and taught to fight, and tell the owners that they need to be licensed and get yearly rabies shots? Animal control can’t keep up with the dog problems as they are now. Are they really going to put their lives in jeopardy going into these areas? Are we now going to arm animal control officers?
SB 1221 (Lieu/Steinberg) outlaws hunting with hounds. Sponsored by the HSUS. Would prohibit a person from allowing a dog to pursue any big game animal. Allows the capture or killing of such dogs.
I really don’t know what “hounds” are out and about hunting big game animals in California. I must write and find out what this is about.
SB 1229 (Pavley) – Real Property: rentals: animals. Would prohibit a landlord from requiring debarking or declawing as a condition of rental. CFODC is neutral at this time, believing a landlord should be able to set the rules for their property
I really don’t know how I feel about this. I’m not a proponent of debarking, and declawing a cat is just awful. I do know, though, that if I were renting my house, I would certainly want to make sure that my belongings stay in the same condition as when it was first rented. Guess I would have to really check out the people and the way they are with their animals. I would also have to get a very large deposit.
AB 1279 (Fletcher) – Animal Shelter Terminology. Changes, for example, from “pound’ to “shelter” and from “destroy” to “euthanize”.
I don’t see any real problem with this although the word “euthanize” certainly makes destroying animals sound so much more palatable to the general public.
AB 1839 (MA) – Veterinary Assistants – Would require fingerprinting and background checks for vet assistants, presumably for animal abuse offenses. In Assembly Appropriations committee. No hearing date yet. CFODC is watching.
What could I possibly find wrong with this? I also want all people working with children to be fingerprinted and have background checks!
AB 1939 (Pan) Seller reporting of puppy sales and puppy licensing. Sponsored by Concerned Dog Owners of California.
We (CFODC) OPPOSE this bill and have contacted the assembly local government committee with a letter of opposition. The hearing will be Wednesday, April 25th.
I would like CFODC to explain why they are against this bill. Are they opposed because this sounds like “big brother?”
AB 2194 (Pan) – Humane Officers criminal background checks. Neutral. Watching
As I have written above, I’m all for background checks.
AB 2536 (Butler) – Stray Animal, Ownership – establishes a “finders, keepers” rule for lost dogs. Finders must report the stray dog to animal control but may keep in their custody and can obtain ownership after 14 days.
We are OPPOSED. It is difficult enough for owners to reclaim their lost or stray dog without having third parties involved. This bill would encourage animal theft. In Assembly Agriculture and Judiciary at this time.
I certainly feel that the person who finds the stray dog should be allowed to keep the dog if no one shows up to claim it and prove that it belongs to him or her. But, coming from Sighthounds, a dog can be loose for months before the owner finds it. If the owner of the missing dog follows the proper procedures (hanging posters, calling veterinarians, police, shelters, rescue groups, etc.) for finding the dog, he or she should be able to prove that they’ve been searching for it. In this case, whether it’s 2 weeks or 2 months (or even more), the rightful owner should get his or her dog back. The person who has found the dog and given it the care it needed should be refunded whatever expenses were incurred and given a great deal of thanks.
County of Ventura has a Breed-specific mandatory spay neuter proposal for “pit bulls” as does the city of Upland.
And how will the county of Ventura find these “pit bulls”. Or do they actually think that the owners will just bring them in to be neutered? Will the neutering take place before the dog starts his fighting career or after?
And finally, the city of Los Angeles is proposing a ban on the sale of dogs, cats and even rabbits (!) in pet stores. The proposal would only allow sales by licensed “rescues” in pet stores.
Before saying “Hurray”, what are licensed “rescues”?
Whether you agree with me or not, we must not allow legislation to be passed by politicians who are not knowledgeable about responsible breeders and dog/pet owners in general. Check what’s going on in your town, county and state. Stop the anti-dog and anti-breeder people from passing laws that will negatively impact our sport and, most importantly, our dogs.
Francine Reisman
Santa Barbara, CA
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=3161
Posted by admin
on Jul 11 2012. Filed under Current Articles, Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
