** Please Spread the Word **

We attended the Los Angeles City Council meeting on Tuesday (8/14). It's the first time we've ever attended a City Council meeting. After the strict decorum demanded at the Sacramento Committee hearings, we were pleasantly surprised by how much more relaxed and informal the L.A. City Council meeting was. As we've never met most of you (the people we've been emailing re AB1634), we were flying blind. A pro-AB1634 lady actually explained to us how to request to speak and that we didn't have to be city residents. She said she had filed a request to speak, and so did all the other proponents in attendance. That was before we found out that we're on opposite sides of the issue!

Finally, a woman entered the room with a No on AB1634 button! It turned out she was an attorney, and it's the first time she attended a City Council meeting re the proposed ordinance. She wanted to raise objection based on her own situation - dog owner for over 15 years, bred only 1 litter, etc. We asked if she recognized if there were any No on AB1634 folks in attendance. She didn't know any. Judging from past experiences relayed to us, only 2 people on our side attended the previous Council meeting. We were worried that we just might be the only 3 in attendance that day. We had gone to be "warm bodies" for the opposition, and had not planned to speak. However, given the circumstances, we felt compelled to file requests to speak in opposition just so Council members would hear some reasons for opposition. We're told speakers would be given 2 minutes each (maybe 1 minute if they're short on time). Fortunately, the 2 items on the agenda were scheduled close to the end of the queue, so we frantically scribbled our "speeches"!

Happily, when agenda item 43 (mandatory spay/neuter by 4 months) came up, the more restrictive version of AB1634, Councilman Richard Alarcón took to the floor. He said the proposed ordinance needed to be sent back to committee for public hearings because there were a number of unaddressed issues. He specifically raised the issue regarding the discriminatory aspects of the ordinance towards low income pet owners. He also said THERE WILL BE A NEW ANIMAL CONTROL LAW. This is not something that will be swept away.

Council President Eric Garcetti noted the large number of requests to speak on the issue. He said that given the number of people that showed up, it's obvious everyone felt passionately about the issue. He decided to let us "see democracy at work", and would allow about 25 minutes to hear selected speakers from both sides, giving 1 minute per speaker. Speakers were chosen in the order the requests were filed. He alternated between 3 proponents then 3 opponents, and so on. While our side was outnumbered by 3 to 1 in terms of attendance, we were thankful that the importance of the issue drew a number of unaffiliated individuals to attend the meeting and to speak in opposition. In all, 12 people from each side spoke. He then read the names of requesters not selected to speak. There were just 3 of us on the opposition side, and a long list on the support side. Judy Mancuso didn't get to speak either! The informal tally showed we were outnumbered 43 (in favor) to 14 (opposed). We need to generate much stronger showing at future hearings.

The 1 minute time limit was clearly not long enough for many of the speakers, but Garcetti denied a request early on from a speaker who wanted to yield her alloted time to Florence Blecher (CFODC), the preceding speaker, so Florence could complete her speech. Garcetti felt that the public will get the opportunity to voice their opinions more fully when the issue goes back to committee for review and hearing. Another familiar name we recognized was Cathy Turner (CDOC). As best we can recall, Cathy Turner claimed she was not speaking for nor against the issue, but felt they could work with Animal Services to reach some kind of compromise on the issue. A couple of speakers on our side asked the Council what they're going to do about dog fighting (implicitly asking why they're wasting time and resources on MSN). One speaker urged the Council to increase funding for animal control to properly enforce existing laws and to fund educational programs.

Councilman Tony Cardenas then took to the floor. He basically said there're only a small number of responsible breeders in the city. While he could appreciate the breeders' concerns, there're a lot more of "US" who wanted MSN to end animal cruelty! He urged everyone to contact City Council members regarding the issue. He obviously expect AB1634 supporters to vastly outnumber opposers. Cardenas termed out as a State Assemblyman, before job hopping to the L.A. City Council in 2003. He is the "Levine equivalent" on the City Council: .

Councilman Bill Rosendahl then spoke about preserving the "natural state" of animals. Said his family had owned many dogs over the years and never had any accidental breeding. His son-in-law believes in keeping his dog in its "natural state", i.e. unaltered. However, his 6-year old intact female has never been accidentally or indiscriminately bred. It's all about being responsible owners. If memory serves, Rosendahl also noted the dismal compliance rate from the City's dog licensing campaign, which hired teenagers to go door to door to encourage people to license their pets. He questioned how the proposed ordinance would impact licensing compliance.

Councilman Tom LaBonge spoke most eloquently on the issue, drawing applauses from both sides. We thought he was very tactful and subtle in presenting some points for our side of the debate. We found out later that he is Florence Blecher's (CFODC) Councilman. LaBonge said he grew up with many dogs. All the dogs were great pets, except one who ate the couch. His father promptly took the dog to the shelter, and the shelter killed it within 3 days - before he could get there to redeem the dog! LaBonge also said he had heard from many seniors who expressed serious concerns about the impact of the proposed law on their abilities to own or keep their dogs.

With that, discussion ended for agenda item 43. Judy Mancuso and most of the AR activists left, and we were glad to finally talk to Florence Blecher in person. Council President Garcetti skipped item 44 (mandatory microchipping) and proceeded to the next item on the agenda. Apparently, Garcetti presumed that item 44 would be sent back to committee along with item 43, since both items were amendments to the original Council resolution to enact an ordinance mirroring AB1634. Aside from the 2 of us who didn't get to speak on item 43, the 3rd person on our side was Councilman LaBonge's constituent. She expressed a strong desire to him to at least be able to speak on record on item 44. Councilman LaBonge agreed to take request cards from those of us "hard core" attendees, and brought up the issue on the floor. About 6 or 7 of us spoke against mandatory microchipping vs. about 3 or 4 from the AR side who spoke in favor of it. As best we can recall -

Arguments in favor of mandatory microchipping included:
- Protection for the pet in case they get out (easier to reunite pet with owner).
- Allow animal shelters to track pet owners.
- No proof of chip migration or cancer causing effect.

Objections included:
- Lack of universally standardized microchip technology. Scanners can't read chips across brands.
- Unreasonable to inject multiple brands of microchips into each animal.
- Migration of microchip - hence pets could be mistakenly classified as unidentified. A fire fighter also related a personal experience as evidence.
- Scientific reports of microchips causing cancer in some pets.
- Microchips are not readily readable, hence are inferior to tags and tattoos when a stray pet is picked up by a good samaritan.
- Procedure is intrusive, and should be the owner's choice as to whether to tag, tattoo or microchip.

Item 44 ended up being the last item for the meeting session. We were again reminded that THERE WILL BE A NEW ANIMAL CONTROL LAW. This is not something that can be "defeated" or swept away. We came away with clear indications that both sides had better lobby all 15 Council Members ASAP if they want their concerns considered.

For starters, we suggest that ALL of us either mail or call to Thank the following Council members. You don't have to have attended the meeting. You don't even have to be a Californian to write or call them. Just tell them you heard about it from friends in Los Angeles. Be sure to indicate that you have grave concerns about Mandatory Castrations & Hysterectomies in your note so they'll know which side you're on:
- Thank Councilman Richard Alarcón for recognizing the numerous serious unaddressed issues and for his "wisdom" in sending the matter back to committee for public hearing.
- Thank Council President Eric Garcetti for allowing equal time and opportunity for both sides to express some of their major concerns. Also thank him for agreeing to send the matter back to committee for public hearing.
- Thank Councilman Bill Rosendahl for his "wisdom" in recognizing the cause of the shelter problem as one of irresponsible ownership. Thank him also for understanding that various responsible breeders and owners may have personal and legitimate reasons for wanting to keep their pets intact (other than to indiscriminately breed for the "quick bucks".)
- Thank Councilman Tom LaBonge for so eloquently presenting some serious concerns from responsible pet breeders and owners about the proposed ordinance.

Address all elected politicians as The Honorable (name), or as Council Member (name), City Controller (name), Mayor (name). We're attaching the contact information file we sent with our last email to you. The mailing address for the Mayor and all the Council Members are:

The Honorable (name)
City Hall, Room ( # )
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801

The Subject heading should be "Ordinance Re Animal Spay, Neuter And Breeding - file 07-1212". If you're writing about mandatory microchipping, the file reference is 07-2391.

The proposed ordinance(s) will now go to the Public Safety Committee. This is "interesting" since the Public Safety Committee waived consideration of the proposals in the first place, which cleared the way for them to go to the full Council.

Once the Thank-You notes/calls are done, Please dust off and modify the letters you sent re AB1634. Flood All 15 Council Members and the Mayor with letters, emails or faxes, and calls. City residents should write, fax, email and call. More importantly, set up appointments and round up a group and at least visit your Council Member and the Mayor. If possible, visit all the Council Members. The group doesn't have to all be city residents as long as 1 or 2 in the group are.

It is extremely important that Businesses within the city (e.g. Jack Bradshaw) visit the Mayor, City Council Members and the City Controller to impress upon them the gravity of your concerns. Get your local Chamber of Commerce involved in lobbying.

If you are Not a city resident, it's best that you mail your letters. We may generate ill-will if non-city residents overload their fax machines. Emails can be deleted easily by staffers who don't want to bother with printing or compiling them from non-City residents. Letters from non-Los Angeles residents should impress upon the politicians the "cultural significance" of both the city of L.A. and the state of California in "setting the trend" for the rest of the state and the country, respectively. Letters to multiple individuals could be sent together in a large envelope addressed to:

Mayor Villaraigosa and all City Council Members
c/o City Clerk, Room 395
City Hall, 200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801

Be sure to send City Controller Laura Chick all letters that discuss negative financial impacts or operating inefficiencies (e.g. rising shelter expenses over the past 30 years despite substantial reductions in shelter intakes and euthanasias, i.e. gross operating inefficiencies; expensive legal challenges on constitutional grounds; cost of dealing with rabies outbreaks because of excess killing of feral cats; loss of travel or tourism revenues; significant negative impacts on small pet-related businesses; etc.)

Very important - Any letter that involves public safety or financial impacts (e.g. diverts money from Homeland Security) should be sent to members of the Public Safety Committee with ATTN: John White, Legislative Assistant. It may be a good idea to follow-up the letters with an email copy to John White (might make it easier for them to cut and paste?). The following are contact information for the Committee. Clicking on the Council Member's name will launch their websites:

Los Angeles City Council
Public Safety Committee
Meets Mondays - 10:00 a.m. - City Hall, Room 1010
200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801
Chair: Jack Weiss
City Hall Office - Room 440
Phone 213) 473-7005
Fax: 213-978-2250
Email:

Vice Chair: Greig Smith
City Hall Office - Room 405
Phone: 213-473-7012
Fax: 213-473-6925
Email:

Member: Bernard Parks
City Hall Office - Room 460
Phone: 213-473-7008
Fax: 213-485-7683
Email:

Member: Dennis P. Zine
City Hall Office - Room 450
Phone 213) 473-7003
Fax: 213-485-8988
Email:

Member: Ed Reyes
City Hall Office - Room 410
Phone 213) 473-7001
Fax: 213-485-8907
Email:

Mailing Address for Public Safety Committee Legislative Assistant:
City Hall, Room 1010
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801

Legislative Assistant - John White
Phone: 213-978-1072
Email:


We noted a change in the AR extremists' rhetoric and "sales pressure" lines during the Council meeting. Everything is now phrased in terms of "Animal Cruelty", and MSN is the only way to No Kill. Therefore, if a politician declines to enact a new animal control law to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia, he/she will be branded as supporting animal cruelty. We appreciate how difficult it is to muster the time and energy to fight a proposed legislation that doesn't directly impact us. We're not L.A. city residents either. However, we ask all of you to Please help L.A. defeat this horrific Ed Boks proposed ordinance. The City of Los Angeles has replaced Los Angeles Animal Services as an official Sponsor of AB1634. If the City Council decides against MSN, it will go a long way in helping to defeat AB1634 in the State Legislature.

Our task in the city will be more involved. As the City Council admonished - they WILL enact an ordinance to deal with the high shelter intake and euthanasia problem. We must convince the City Council and the Mayor that:
1. AB1634 won't solve the city's shelter problems, and
2. Propose a reasonable and achievable solution that will truly save both lives and costs.

We can choose to actively participate in crafting a reasonable solution or we can do nothing and accept the consequences of being branded as irresponsible greedy underground breeders that cause overpopulation in shelters. So PLEASE, for the sake of protecting the continued existence of dogs and cats as our best friends and loyal companions, Get Actively Involved!

----
Ken & Patti Burton - Kifka Borzoi
E-mail: Kifka@Kifka.com

We need the same help in Texas. San Antonio is trying to pass mandatory S/N and micro-chipping as well.

The RPOA in Texas is trying to get the help of all breed clubs and breeders to stop this.

We have defeated this many times both in San Antonio and Austin, but people are getting tired of the fight and I'm afraid that it is that very attitude that will help the AR's get their way.

Darlene