Unacceptable Version of AB 1634

[MeSheLL]

Another Unacceptable Version of AB 1634

Take Action!

Still Costly, Still Unfair!



July 15, 2008

In order to bypass the Senate Appropriations Committee and have his ill-conceived bill move directly to the Senate floor, Assembly Member Lloyd Levine has further amended AB 1634. We do not support the amendments, which remove language that would require shelters to report important and revealing operational statistics to the state. The amendments do not address our core concerns about AB 1634 and we remain strongly opposed to the bypass maneuver.

Make no mistake, we are still dealing with a fundamentally flawed, unfair and undeniably expensive bill. Fortunately, the legislature is preparing to adjourn and because AB 1634 has not been scheduled for consideration this week it will be virtually impossible for the bill to be voted on until August. In fact, the senate president announced at the close of business on Monday, July 14th that the next scheduled session will work only on the budget and no other issue will be taken up until the budget is resolved. It's therefore very unlikely that AB 1634 could be advanced before early August.

This is an opportune time for all NAIA supporters in California to call, write -- or better yet VISIT -- their senators if possible. If you prefer to call or visit your senator, click here for a list of Senators' home pages where you can go to find their district office locations and phone numbers. If you are unsure of who your senator is visit this page and enter your zip code to find your senator. Your swift responses to our alerts in the past had huge impact, first in stalling AB 1634 in committee for nearly a year, and more recently in getting the original mandatory spay/neuter provisions removed from the bill.
Take time now to call your senator's district office and schedule an appointment to meet with him or her, or their legislative aide. Use the time wisely, explain the issues carefully and in your exchange, make sure that the facts are understood. You can find more facts and figures in our recent letter to the Appropriations Committee.
Note that despite claims to the contrary by Assembly Member Levine, NAIA and other animal welfare groups suggested reasonable changes to the bill that would address pet population concerns without violating the rights of pet owners. In the end our recommendations were not heeded.

The new AB 1634 has serious flaws and Senators need to be informed about its negative consequences for the state budget, shelters, pet owners and pets.

Please draw from the following talking points when writing or discussing this bill with your senator:

• Amendments to AB 1634 will not resolve major flaws in the bill.

• The increased costs this bill imposes on local governments to enforce the new pet law will create an unfunded mandate. Passage of AB 1634 would increase Hayden Act reimbursements for 2008-2009 by at least $2 million and perhaps as much as $25 to $30 million by adding another major category of offender: millions of California pet owners who own intact dogs and cats.

• This is going to cost the state a lot of money, and therefore should not bypass the Appropriations Committee.

• How do these new costs arise? AB 1634 increases penalties to owners of intact pets, resulting in increased hold times for pets, some pet owners relinquishing their pets when cited, and some additional pets being euthanized. Local governments will seek reimbursement from the state for medical expenses allocated to these pets, and for longer hold times that lead to euthanasia.

• We have major problems with the complaint section of AB 1634, that allows mere allegations (unsubstantiated and un-cited) to serve as a pathway to citing owners of intact dogs and cats.

• As it is currently drafted there is no link between the problems (i.e. unwanted pet births, discarded pets, feral cats) and any solution (raising penalties against all pet infractions, not just infractions that could lead to unwanted pet births, relinquished pets, or uncontrolled feral cat populations. )

• According to author Assembly Member Levine's interpretation of the bill, if a person complains that his neighbor's intact pet left his "calling card" on his lawn, that claim, even if it is never verified or cited can be used as the basis for inquiring about the status of the pet and citing it as a "secondary offense" for being intact.

• If the sponsors truly want to address pet population problems, this bill should focus only on "at large" free roaming pets. Instead, it uses any complaint about a pet (verified or not, upheld or not), on or off the owner's property, as the basis for citing intact pets whose behavior poses no risk of increasing pet populations.

• The only outcome of this bill is to make the keeping of an intact pet an actionable offense. It will have no effect on reducing pet overpopulation, which was its originally espoused goal. If enacted and enforced, AB 1634 will have the unintended consequence of driving up shelter numbers and euthanasia rates.

• This is an unnecessary, irresponsible and costly proposal that at the very least warrants full review by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Thank you for taking action to stop AB 1634!

» Archived Articles

» White Papers

» Headline News Archives

» Editorials and Commentary

» NAIA Newsletter

Copyright © 2007 National Animal Interest Alliance




This email was sent by:

American Dog Breeders Association Inc.
P.O. Box 1771
Salt Lake City, Ut. 84110
(801)-936-7513
www.adba.cc



ADBA is committed to respecting your privacy. For more information, visit our privacy policy or contact us.