FURTHER HELP UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF THE NEW AB1634
I am forwarding a series of emails responding to questions and comments
that some of you may still have about the meaning of the new version of
AB1634.

Perhaps the language of one of these explanations will clarify the issues
for you. This is not an easy piece of legislation to explain. Laura
Sanborn and Joan Greene have been involved with this bill from the
beginning. Both have approached the legislation with open minds. Both are
respected for their honesty and integrity. Both have researched the words
and intent of the legislation thoroughly.

ORIGINAL COMMENTS POSTED TO AN OPPOSITION AB1634 FORUM-some of you may
have similar thoughts, read Joan and Laura's responses that follow.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:41 AM, [name removed]> wrote:
I have read and reread the new bill and I don't see anything that says
being intact is illegal-------
As it is it is very nothing.
[name removed]

MY COMMENTS (Tonya)

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:01 AM
Subject: RE: [ab1634] AB1634 Question

Thanks Joan and Laura for your replies. I think folks are having a hard
time getting their hands around what this new version AB1634 is doing.
If not aware of what was said in the hearing, and when not seeing the words
"mandatory spay/neuter" written in the bill they are inclined to breath a
sigh of relief when reviewing the legislation. This new version is
extremely objectionable because it opens up actions that could become
even more invasive than the original bill. It is a bill that does more by
what it
doesn't say than what it does. And getting the intent recorded during the
hearing by testifying under oath was just one more slippery maneuver by
Levine. It is tricky-dickey politics at its best!

I think it is important for people to realize that the shelters and AC
agencies are MUCHO short on cash, citations and licenses will be a major source of
revenue for these groups. State mandated funds do not have to be paid in
the year they are claimed. The state is currently behind by millions of
dollars in payment of claims submitted by shelters with no known time frame for
fulfilling these obligations. Monies to support them will come from local
sources, fund-raisers, donations, higher license fees, and citations! If the
state isn't forking over the cash to benefit their operations, it will fall to
local governments to fill in the gap. If this
bill becomes law ALL state shelter systems will loose Maddie's funds. The
s- -t just gets deeper and deeper. The once nice AC officer may be more
inclined and quick to site in order to preserve his/her own agency's agenda and
financial stability.
And why higher license fees for intact animals-they certainly DO NOT bite
any harder than a sterilized animal, nor do they commit any other offense any
more often? Higher license fees for intact animals is just a money making
excuse and gouges the owners of these animals to fortify the tills of AC and the
shelters. Shouldn't all animals be licensed at an equal rate?
If agencies want improved licensing compliance they need to eliminate limit
laws and then go to work to regain the public trust. Most of the dog owners
I know do not have licensed animals. I'm the only one I know that has
licensed their cats. They are GREAT dog/cat people. Most of them have more than
the allowed number of pets but can and do provide for those pets without
imposing on their neighbors. The fear of having their animals confiscated and the
fact that they no longer see value in what AC provides keeps dollars that
could go to AC in their pockets.

I for one give money and supplies as often as I can to those that rescue
animals, but I no longer give even a single penny or an old towel to public
agencies.

Even if one has no opinion on AB1634 one way or the other, they need to
realize that their constitutional rights are being denied by this bill!

I spent all yesterday afternoon researching fiscal issues and composing a
very long 10-page letter to Senator Simitian. Senator Simitian is the Senator
from my district. I will be sure it gets to his local office
today. I hope he will read it or at least a legislative aide assigned to
AB1634 will relay its content. I will also send the letter to his Sacramento
office, Bob Franzoia-Staff Director of the Appropriations Committee, and
Senator Torlakson, Committee Chairman.
Tonya


COMMENTS FROM JOAN GREENE

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: AB1634 Question
Hi [name removed]-
When a bill is heard in Committee, the author talks about its' purpose and
exactly how it is supposed to be implemented. He or she makes these
statements under oath. Later, should the bill become law, the author's
intentions are referred to when decisions are made as to how a law is
enforced.

On June 25, 2008 everyone at the Sacramento hearing listened to Assy. Lloyd
Levine say at least twice that whether or not a valid reason was used to
bring Animal Control to someone's door, once that reason was discussed the next
question from the AC Officer *would* be: is your cat or dog sterilized? If
the owner says 'no' ... according to Levine, the very next thing the AC
officer must do is give the owner a citation for owning an intact animal.

Levine stated that the original citation (bogus or otherwise) and the second
one (for owning an intact animal) were two different issues.
Under California law, a person is given a citation for doing or possessing
something ILLEGAL or ILLEGAL TO POSSESS. When Levine stated that AC can give a
citation merely for the possession of a non-sterilized cat or dog, whether
or not AC was at the house regarding a legitimate complaint, he was saying
UNDER OATH that if AB1634 passes, it will be ILLEGAL to own or possess/feed an
intact cat or dog. Kind of like failing to buckle up in a car (Levine's
analogy) but with far more serious consequences.
The people who will be hurt by this new AB1634 include pet owners, feral cat
caretakers, other rescue groups which are not 501(c)3 non-profits, and
potentially even veterinarians and boarding facilities caring for and feeding
intact pets overnight. Pregnant dogs and cats are not excluded or exempted even
temporarily; there are NO exemptions or exclusions, even though Levine knows
perfectly well the types of exemptions that were cobbled together last time.
Police dogs, search and rescue dogs, guide dog breeding animals and other
service dogs WILL also be hit by this bill WHEN someone malicious decide to call
in false complaints.
Even people who only have spayed or castrated cats and dogs will be hurt by
this bill. Think about human nature. Think about people who like to call
the police on their neighbors for no good reason. Think about the animal
rights 'true believers' who hate everyone who breeds or owns purebred dogs or
pedigreed cats. How many false complaints will be made against owners of
spayed/neutered pets "just because" AB1634 makes a way for Animal Control to get
more cash in their coffers - all those fines? This is going to affect
everyone.
Consider this. For cats, it's now actually a one strike bill. The first
real or unreal complaint counts as 'one.' If the AC Officers asks and finds
out the cat is intact, that's 'two' (both given at the first ACO visit),
and the cat MUST then be spayed or castrated per law. For dogs, it's a
also one strike bill spread over a two week period. Citations one and two are
given at the first call, as with cats. Dogs are allowed 14 days to comply
with spaying/castration - then, since Levine said citations will be issued for
intact pets whether or not the original complaint was false, if the dog is
still not sterilized: citation #3 is automatically generated and the dog must be
neutered.
These two short clips from last Wednesday's Local Government hearing show
exactly what Assy. Levine believes AB1634 will allow. It also shows Los
Angeles Animal Services' Ed Boks telling the Senators that Los Angeles will expect
California to pay for all extra enforcement costs due to this bill (the city
already cannot pay for the MSN law it passed a few months ago). Senator Dave
Cox does the grilling on both videos:
_http://youtube_ (http://youtube) .
_http://youtube.com/watch?v=ognpUoPu_Vs>com/watch?v=ognpUoPu_Vs_
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=ognpUoPu_Vs>com/watch?v=ognpUoPu_Vs)

_http://youtube_ (http://youtube) .
_http://youtube.com/watch?v=STovs6Z0x3o>com/watch?v=STovs6Z0x3o_
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=STovs6Z0x3o>com/watch?v=STovs6Z0x3o)
The next link will take you to the full 1 hour and 4 minute recording of
the hearing - click on 'watch' next to the Local Government Committee:
_http://www.calchann_ (http://www.calchann) _http://www.calchann/_
(http://www.calchann/)
_http://www.calchannel.com/search.php?date=062508_
(http://www.calchannel.com/search.php?date=06250
_http://www.calchannel.com/search.php?date=062508&source=senate&type=committ&s
ource=senate&type=committee&title=&Search=Sub_
(http://www.calchannel.com/search.php?date=062508&source=senate&type=committ&source=senate&type=committee&tit
le=&Search=Sub)

Please watch and listen to all three of these links, and send them to
everyone you know. You will be shocked, especially if you know anything about what
has been happening in Los Angeles and elsewhere to pet owners where
mandatory spay/neuter laws have passed. We *MUST* stop this bill in the Senate
Appropriations Committee, its' next stop. It *cannot* be amended to make it work.
We cannot negotiate with people who want to sterilize our pets out of
existence in California - every small concession they gain
will come back to haunt us later.
Levine's own testimony shows that those of us who thought last year's AB1634
was ultimately about exterminating every cat and dog were spot on: this new
bill as law would truly be a universal cat and dog sterilization bill for the
entire state. Even paying for an intact license or breeding permit would be
worthless, as state law (illegal to own an intact dog/cat) always trumps
local law (permits available to own/breed intact pets). Indeed, anyone who
owns such a permit would have a huge target painted on their house if AB1634
becomes law.
Joan


NO on AB1634 - The Pet Vigilante Bill
"We have only just begun to fight." - Franklin D. Roosevelt Campaign
address at Madison Square Garden, New York City, NY - October 31, 1936

LAURA SANBORN'S RESPONSE

The triggering complaint doesn't have to be valid or upheld. As Levine
explained in his testimony, AB1634 creates a secondary offense, separate from the
primary (triggering) offense. As others have explained, a completely bogus
fraudulent complaint to AC against an intact dog or cat that is dismissed by AC
"may" trigger the AB1634 penalties, at the discretion of local government.
Your vindictive ex- spouse or nasty
neighbor could call in a complaint to AC. PETA wackos at a dog show or trial
could call in a complaint to AC. Even if the complaint is dismissed by AC,
the mere fact the complaint occurred can trigger AB1634 penalties. The
secondary offense is owning an intact dog or cat.
AB1634 is a state-sanctioned invitation to harassment.

Impoundment could happen if your dog or cat gets loose due to a nasty
neighbor, a forgetful child, a utility worker or contractor, you are in a bad car
accident, natural disaster, etc. This impoundment triggers AB1634 penalties
against the owners of intact dogs and cats even if the owners can successfully
prove to AC that they were not at fault. Local government has no choice but
to trigger AB1634 penalties if intact dogs or cats are impounded.

Laura Sanborn