Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOppose AB 1634 - Councilmember Jill Hardy, Chair of the Inte FOSCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor & City Council Members From: Jill Hardy, City Council Member and Chair of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee Date: August 12, 2008 Subject: C-Item, August 18 Meeting—AB 1634 (Levine) -Action Taken by the Mayor and Chair of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee It recently came to my attention that AB 1634 (Levine) - "Dogs and Cats: Nonspayed or Unneutered: Civil Penalties." has been amended several times since the City Council took its support position in June of last year. Because the bill has been amended substantially since that time, and because it is once again moving through the legislature, with the Mayor's concurrence a letter was sent to the author of the bill. The letter requested that the City of Huntington Beach be removed from the list of those in support of the bill until the City Council could review the current language to determine its current position. A copy of the letter sent to Assemblyman Levine is attached along with a copy of the current version of the bill. At this time, I would welcome direction from the Council as to whether they would prefer to sent AB 1634 back to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee for further review or take action on the bill this evening. Attachment: 1. Letter dated August 12 to Assemblyman Lloyd Levine 2. AB 1634 as Amended on August 5, 2008 Xc City Clerk Interim City Administrator ff // r/0 r MAYOR City 1 1jjgt0jj ]34eaey, Debbie Cook 4 -- P.®. sox 190 z000 MAIN STREET 8 CALIFORNIA 92648 leithBohr COUNCIL MEMBERS Joe Carchio Gil Coerper August 12, 2008 Cathy green Don Hansen Jill Hardy The Honorable Lloyd Levine California State Assembly Post Office Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0400 Dear Assemblyman Levine: In June of last year, the Huntington Beach City Council took a position in support of AB 1634. Since that time,AB 1634 has been amended several times. Nonetheless, in the most recent analysis, the City of Huntington Beach is still shown as being in support of the bill. We would respectfully request that the City of Huntington Beach be removed from the list of supporters until such time as we can review the current language and make a decision on our position. Your prompt attention on this is appreciated. Yours truly, A,Lt� dt4'� Debbie Cook Xc: Senate Appropriations Committee Senator Tom Harman Assemblyman Jim Silva City Council City Administrator Chuck Cole, Advocation, Inc. TELEPHONE (714) 536-5553 V aitakere. New Zealand FAX(714)536-5233 Anjo,Japan AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 1 of 4 BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 5, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 18, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 3, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2007 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine (Principal coauthors: Senators Negrete McLeod and Padilla) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Nava and Solorio) FEBRUARY 23, 2007 An act to amend Sections 30804 .7 and 31751.7 of, and to add Sections 30804.8 and 31751.8 to, the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to animals. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1634, as amended, Levine. Dogs and cats : nonspayed or unneutered: civil penalties. Existing law regulates spay, neuter, and breeding programs for animals. Existing law requires the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat that is impounded by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society to be fined $35 on the first occurrence, $50 on the 2nd occurrence, and $100 for the 3rd or subsequent occurrence. This bill would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered dog to $50 for the first occurrence, $100 for the 2nd occurrence, and would require spaying or neutering of the dog at the owner' s expense on the 3rd occurrence. The bill would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered cat to $50 on the first occurrence and would require spaying or neutering of the cat at the owner' s expense on the 2nd occurrence. This bill would also provide that the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat that is the subject of a complaint to a local animal control agency, as specified, may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 days. It would require a local animal control agency to waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the pet' s owner presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat was spayed or neutered. By increasing the enforcement responsibility of local agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. e�a�® ma-dat;ed e�arerams ass Ja4 I I te -ire-vees�vey r�"'ee a Fflp.r�6� �iL��� 6'6�'�el���e1�3�6 6 G 9�3��A� ,•}, t� The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634 bill_20080805_amended_sen v89.html 8/11/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 4 This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 30804.7 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 30804.7. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is impounded once by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society, shall be fined fifty dollars ($50) on the first occurrence and one hundred dollars ($100) on the second occurrence. On the third occurrence, the dog shall be spayed or neutered, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. These fines are for nonspayed or unneutered impounded animals only, and are not in lieu of any fines or impound fees imposed by any individual city, county, public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. (b) An animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code may write citations with a civil penalty stated in an amount corresponding to the violation as provided in subdivision (a) . The fines shall be paid to the local municipality or public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. Any funds collected under this section shall be expended for the purpose of humane education, programs for low-cost spaying and neutering of dogs, and any additional costs incurred by the public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group in the administration of the requirements of this division. (c) This section applies to each county and cities within each county, regardless of population. (d) No city or county, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society is subject to any civil action by the owner of a dog that is spayed or neutered in accordance with this section. SEC. 2 . Section 30804 .8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read: 30804 . 8. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance. (b) At the time that the citation is issued, the local animal control agency shall provide the owner of the dog with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services. (c) The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered. (d) The civil penalties shall be as follows: (1) On the first occurrence, fifty dollars ($50) . (2) On the second occurrence for the same dog, one hundred dollars ($100) . (3) On the third occurrence for the same dog, the spaying or neutering of the dog by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. (e) As used in this section, the following terms apply: http://info.sen,ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080805_amended_sen v89.html 8/11/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 4 (1) "Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking. (2) "Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances. (3) "Spay" and "neuter" mean any procedure performed by a duly licensed veterinarian that permanently sterilizes a dog and makes it incapable of reproduction. (f) This section shall not preclude any city or county from adopting a local ordinance that is more restrictive or imposes higher civil penalties. SEC. 3 . Section 31751.7 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 31751.7. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered cat that is impounded once by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society, shall be fined fifty dollars ($50) on the first occurrence. On the second occurrence, the cat shall be spayed or neutered, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. These fines are for nonspayed or unneutered impounded animals only, and are not in lieu of any fines or impound fees imposed by any individual city, county, public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. (b) An animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code may write citations with a civil penalty stated in an amount corresponding to the violation as provided in subdivision (a) . The fines shall be paid to the local municipality or public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. Any funds collected under this section shall be expended for the purpose of humane education, programs for low-cost spaying and neutering of cats, and any additional costs incurred by the animal shelter in the administration of the requirements of this division. (c) Local ordinances concerning the adoption or placement procedures of any public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group shall be at least as restrictive as this division. (d) This section applies to each county and cities within each county, regardless of population. (e) No city or county, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society is subject to any civil action by the owner of a cat that is spayed or neutered in accordance with this section. SEC. 4. Section 31751. 8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read: 31751.8. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered cat that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance. (b) At the time that the citation is issued, the local animal control agency shall provide the owner of the cat with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services. (c) The owner of the cat shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080805_amended_sen v89.html 81/11/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 4 of 4 local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the cat presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the cat was spayed or neutered. (d) The civil penalties shall be as follows: (1) On the first occurrence, fifty dollars ($50) . (2) On the second occurrence for the same cat, the spaying or neutering of the cat by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. (e) As used in this section, the following terms apply: (1) "Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the cat or the owner of the cat has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a cat or the owner of a cat that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise. (2) "Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances. (3) "Spay" and "neuter" mean any procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian that permanently sterilizes a cat and makes it incapable of reproduction. (f) This section shall not preclude any city or county from adopting a local ordinance that is more restrictive or imposes higher civil penalties. T- o F'ea.TTr�rt'_P41;S a;;4 tQ ;a@Aat (,,..FF4A@;;re'A9 W 4 GE; n i v s i 1} e Q 8 441e 9-e; A-A-m-@R G48, 4e eZ i"e"aI aJ-, ,l>_-G ;Fa2 rah 1 tea-r�i� rl�e-fie a 3��res�la T •7 i-1, L, ,.. , 1 ••,c r�i•-, •qie;'-•'F�le6 9 —Faaa�, —(-^r� 9f; 6tt�'dE�'TS�6F3 2 4+^eb Imo,e :7 6;E tl;_e br�hrs seerse�,-fie by toe �rerT 6 ee eels a �e e��6 t -r9r F.erZ--rrr�v� F16 �6 � eFA QI;4F4e"' 7F93 P9 41;e c+--,+-„ro _1 00o ;;U4 299 6, SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080805_amended_sen_v89.html 8/11/2008 CITY OF HUNTINGTON o Office Of-the City Administrator fQ I), To: Honorable Mayor& City Council Members From: Patricia Dapkus, Department Analyst, Sr. Date: August 18, 2008 Subject: Late Communication Regarding the Council Committee R port on AB 1634 After submitting this report, AB 1634 was once again amended. The August 12, amended version of AB 1634 is attached for your information. There are two notable changes from the previous version of the bill. Existing law requires dog and cat licence tags be issued forl/2 or less of the fee normally required if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered. This bill would instead require those tags to be issued for: (1) 3/4 or less of the fee if a dog or cat has been implanted with a microchip to positively identify the animal, its owner, and the owner s contact information, (2) 112 or less of the fee if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered, and (3) 1/4 or less of the fee if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered and has been implanted with a microchip that may be used to positively identify the dog or cat, its owner, and the owners contact information. Exiting law requires the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat that is impounded by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals , or humane society to be finded $35 on the first occurrence, $50 on the 2"d occurrence, and $100 on the 3rd or subsequent occurrence. This bill would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is impounded as described above to $50 for the first occurrence, $100 and microchipping of the dog at the owner's expense for the 2"d occurrence, and would require spaying or neutering of the dog,at the owner's expense on the 3rd occurrence. It would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered cat to $50 and microchipping of the cat at the owner's expense on the first occurrence, and would require spaying or neutering of the cat at the owner's expense on the 2"d occurrence. It would also require written information about the availability of spaying and neutering services, and the civil penalties, to be provided to the dog or cat owner at the time a citation is issued. Xc: Paul Emery, Interim City Administrator Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator y Joan Flynn, City Clerk AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 1 of 8 BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 12, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 5, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JUKE 18, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 3, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2007 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine (Principal coauthors: Senators Negrete McLeod and Padilla) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Nava and Solorio) FEBRUARY 23, 2007 An act to amend Sections 30804.5, 30804. 7, 31751.5, and 31751.7 of, and to add Sections 30804 .8 and 31751. 8 to, the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to animals. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1634, as amended, Levine. Dogs and cats : nonspayed or unneutered: civil penalties. Existing law requires dog and cat license tags to be issued for 1/2 or less of the fee required for a dog or cat if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered. This bill would instead require those tags to be issued for: (1) 3/4 or less of the fee if a dog or cat has been implanted with a microchip to positively identify the animal, its owner, and the owner' s contact information, (2) 1/2 or less of the fee if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered, and (3) 1/4 or less of the fee if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered and has been implanted with a microchip that may be used to positively identify the dog or cat, its owner, and the owner's contact information. Existing law regulates spay, neuter, and breeding programs for animals. Existing law requires the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat that is impounded by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society to be fined $35 on the first occurrence, $50 on the 2nd occurrence, and $100 for the 3rd or subsequent occurrence. This bill would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered dog to $50 for the first occurrence, $100 and microchipping of the dog at the owner's expense for the 2nd occurrence, and would require spaying or neutering of the dog at the owner' s expense on the 3rd occurrence. The bill would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered cat to $50 and microchipping of the cat at the owner's expense on the first occurrence I and would require spaying or neutering of the cat at the owner' s expense on the 2nd occurrence. The bill would also require written information about the availability of spaying and neutering services, and the civil penalties, to be provided to the dog or cat's owner at the time a citation is issued. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080812_amended_sen v88... 8/13/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 8 This bill would also provide that the ew ere:E a t_e a J"gal aP;mal aq@;1g . a person who owns or possesses either an unlicensed, or an intact but licensed, dog or cat within California , as specified, may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 days . The dog or cat would be subject to microchipping, for a dog on the 2nd occurrence, and for a cat on the first occurrence, at the owner's expense. By increasing the enforcement responsibility of local government agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require a local animal control agency to waive the civil penalty if, within 14 J@4,RiPRwR calendar days of the citation, the pet's owner presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat was spayed or neutered. The bill would create specified exemptions from these provisions for dogs and cats that are in poor health or are in California temporarily. By increasing the enforcement responsibility of local agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Responsible Pet Ownership Act. SEC. 2. Section 30804.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 30804.5. Whenever dog license tags are issued pursuant to this division, any such tag shall be issued gar QN_@-1Qa19 er less 4;,14e deb-has lee;; 6paTeG1 eLZ as follows: (a) For three-fourths or less of the fee required for a dog, if the dog has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the dog, its owner, and the owner's contact information. (b) For one-half or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered. (c) For one-fourth or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered, and the dog has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the dog, its owner, and the owner's contact information. 2RC:=:Q4i SEC. 3. Section 30804.7 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 30804.7. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is impounded once by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society, shall be fined fifty dollars ($50) on the first - o ,a QP.R 14 .7,--0d Gla l ($ n n) G14 t14& R&QQNd 0 0_ occurrence. On the second occurrence, the owner shall be fined one hundred dollars ($100) and the dog shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. On the third occurrence, the dog shall be spayed or neutered, with the owner http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080812_amended_sen v88... 8/13/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 8 paying the cost of the procedure. These fines are for nonspayed or unneutered impounded animals only, and are not in lieu of any fines or impound fees imposed by any individual city, county, public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. (b) An animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code may write citations with a civil penalty stated in an amount corresponding to the violation as provided in subdivision (a) . At the time that a citation is issued, the animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code shall provide the owner of the dog with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services, as well as written notification of the civil penalty for a second citation for the same dog, including microchipping of the dog with the owner paying the cost of the procedure, and the civil penalty for a third citation for the same dog, including the spaying or neutering of the dog with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. The fines shall be paid to the local municipality or public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. Any funds collected under this section shall be expended for the purpose of humane education, programs for low-cost spaying and neutering of dogs, and any additional costs incurred by the public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group in the administration of the requirements of this division. The city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 calendar days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered. (c) This section applies to each county and cities within each county, regardless of population. (d) No city or county, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society is subject to any civil action by the owner of a dog that is spayed or neutered in accordance with this section. (e) If an owner found in violation of subdivision (a) voluntarily elects to have the nonspayed or unneutered dog microchipped, a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society shall waive no less than thirty dollars ($30) and may waive all of the corresponding fifty dollar ($50) fine. (f) Any dog owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful reason. (g) A dog shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely microchipped. (h) A dog shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if ,its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian' s license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the http://wwwleginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634 bill 20080812_amended_sen v88... 8/13/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 4 of 8 condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely spayed or neutered. tom- , SEC. 4. Section 30804.8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read: 30804 . 8 . (a) -1;e Qw;;Qr e ^G ^ '' ' ,a g }��* ' ;^^'- ^{ ^1, n*- A person who owns or possesses within the state any dog that is not licensed or is improperly licensed, as required by law, and that has not been spayed or neutered may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. A person who owns or possesses within the state any intact dog that is properly licensed, as required by law, but whose dog is at large may be cited, and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance. (b) At the time that the citation is issued, the local animal control agency shall provide the owner of the dog with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services as well as written notification of the civil penalty for a second citation for the same dog, including microchipping of the dog with the owner paying the cost of the procedure, and a civil penalty for the third citation for the same dog, including the spaying or neutering of the dog by order of the local ani mal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure . (c) The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 b4isipeos calendar days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 calendar days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered. (d) The civil penalties shall be as follows: (1) On the first occurrence, fifty dollars ($50) . (2) On the second occurrence for the same dog, one hundred dollars ($100) and the dog shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure . (3) On the third occurrence for the same dog, the spaying or neutering of the dog by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. (e) As used in this section, the following terms apply: erarn~ eei ^lGgi4tiagl aqei4gy 4 iat. al 16 e6 414at 441e 4@9 � E�6;.-ig6; 99—t�6 rarer^ 's^sa}66� 4-44-4--6 al4y Gt 3eag';3L'9*-krj k4 Q;9 otat e , t44. l t a.7 ,Q l , , n n re^evice^ a^v ^v9e^^� ^vi—a ^a a^""'a G9��"B 9'����a�Ce erl ^a"e the A1QRRr Lai'9;; 1;y ai-emFl ogee eY egreey e9 a ,^ al ; @ g j er,., ac9g,,qF-51 eg sae a3 e�jara Qje9er �;;Je a 1-Q--Q9 a agg + �� . ^ t-ti , ,a, @414eRpjai;G"I 4 9 4 f ^4__--_4 a law t w a t i 6 �^v exeg6, ^vz azeeara:xs^'arG9 IIeeFflJglali44 11 R;CI; -ir;r (1) "Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances. (2) "Spay" and "neuter" mean any procedure performed by a duly licensed veterinarian that permanently sterilizes a dog and makes it incapable of reproduction. (f) If an owner found in violation of subdivision (a) voluntarily elects to have the nonspayed or unneutered dog microchipped, a local animal control agency shall waive no less than thirty dollars ($30) and may waive all of the corresponding fifty dollar ($50) fine. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634 bill_20080812_amended_sen_v88... 8/13/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 5 of 8 (g) Any dog owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful reason. (h) A dog shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely microchipped. (i) A dog shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a licensed California veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian' s license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely spayed or neutered. r f)---ter (j) This section shall not preclude any city or county from adopting a local ordinance that is more restrictive or imposes higher civil penalties. SEC. S. Section 31751.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 31751.5. Whenever a city or county requires cat license tags, any such tag shall be issued ;�Q�z eP.e-�;QIZ Qaz le�X: 11—g €a- -� -- 9^r a ^a€ 1€ a ;s presented—dam a , ; Qd *e;p p@;p I a € a€ €fie sat- 4as beei4 sFaTed G — d-r as follows: (a) For three-fourths or less of the fee required for a cat, if the cat has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the cat, its owner, and the owner's contact information. (b) For one-half or less of the fee required for a cat, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the cat has been spayed or neutered. (c) For one-fourth or less of the fee required for a cat, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the cat has been spayed or neutered, and the cat has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the cat, its owner, and the owner's contact information. —2ZQ_ -3_ SEC. 6. Section 31751.7 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 31751.7. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered cat that is impounded once by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society, shall be fined fifty dollars ($50) on the first occurrence , and the cat shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure . On the second occurrence, the cat shall be spayed or neutered, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. These fines are for nonspayed or unneutered impounded animals only, and are not in lieu of any fines or impound fees imposed by any individual city, county, public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. (b) An animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code may write citations with a civil penalty stated in an amount corresponding to the violation as provided in subdivision (a) . At the time that the citation is issued, the animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080812_amended_sen_v8 8... 8/13/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 6 of 8 authorized to enforce the Penal Code shall provide the owner of the cat with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services, as well as written notification that the civil penalty for the second citation for the same cat shall be the spaying or neutering of the cat by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. The fines shall be paid to the local municipality or public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. Any funds collected under this section shall be expended for the purpose of humane education, programs for low-cost spaying and neutering of cats, and any additional costs incurred by the animal shelter in the administration of the requirements of this division. The city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 calendar days of the citation, the owner of the cat presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the cat was spayed or neutered. (c) Local ordinances concerning the adoption or placement procedures of any public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group shall be at least as restrictive as this division. (d) This section applies to each county and cities within each county, regardless of population. (e) No city or county, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society is subject to any civil action by the owner of a cat that is spayed or neutered in accordance with this section. (f) Any cat owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful reason. (g) A cat shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely microchipped. (h) A cat shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian' s license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely spayed or neutered. -999—4— SEC. 7. Section 31751.8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read: 31751.8. (a) rr_e Tri;.ai° e9 a er e-6 ti a 4148 ^{ a A person who owns or possesses within the state any cat that is not licensed as required by law and that has not been spayed or neutered may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. A person who owns or possesses within the state any intact cat that is properly licensed, as required by law, but whose cat is at large may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance. (b) At the time that the citation is issued, the local animal http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080812_amended_sen v88... 8/13/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill -AMENDED Page 7 of 8 control agency shall provide the owner of the cat with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services , as well as written notification that the civil penalty for the second citation for the same cat shall be the spaying or neutering of the cat by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure . (c) The owner of the cat shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 ,s calendar days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 - � calendar days of the citation, the owner of the cat presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the cat was spayed or neutered. (d) The civil penalties shall be as follows: (1) On the first occurrence, fifty dollars ($50) and the cat shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure (2) On the second occurrence for the same cat, the spaying or neutering of the cat by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. (e) As used in this section, the following terms apply: ( ') "Gvvva epees "l;" ev^ee'„xr-eiaerrlx s 0a"^ ai4 0"'al 04' wi;ltten t0e a3 6�,'Q v^rFa l Gvitr x a^00 that that th6 Ba4 0-- 4-h6 ba � a-A4-Q Ia�ed. �14-e -Se aiy Q a r_Q I@4;QQ 4 Q ^ats, Qr_ a Beal animal QQI;t;Z0� a4SQ-�Q@_Pe=1 ^ e'^se =a e by an employee ere€f�ee;I� e€ iR l^ ,l A-4R441 VGi:""t'"el algQi4cTGE jaeka3=40r- by a eat e-- tho e. .,vr „f _ a,-._,- @46 .;_ieatee �h-i-S d-i3er.--,--, a-retha�' e;E @t to law 44" "-later. t 4.. steal l ei ;gel i she a al lergat i Qp 0f e o 0 0 (1) "Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances. (2) "Spay" and "neuter" mean any procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian that permanently sterilizes a cat and makes it incapable of reproduction. (f) Any cat owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful reason. (g) A cat shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely microchipped or spayed or neutered. (h) A cat shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian' s license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if the information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely spayed or neutered. (i) This section shall not preclude any city or county from adopting a local ordinance that is more restrictive or imposes http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080812_amended sen v88... 8/13/2008 AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 8 of 8 higher civil penalties. SEC. 8. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080812_amended_sen v88... 8/13/2008 A E 0 D o R COUPtC6 MEETlt . CI CL RK OFFICE ,BAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Do you know the goal of,The Humane Society of the United States? "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS,former board member of PETA-Animal People News 1993 "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US(HSUS),formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals- Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990. "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US,formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-riews, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996. Things you may not know about the HSUS and how they use donations taken in by the public. 1. The HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any shelter. Buried deep within HSUS website is a disclaimer noting that the group "is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies." * See notation at the end of this report regarding update to this paragraph.* 2. Since its inception, HSUS has worked hard to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, hunting, fishing, fur trapping and medical research. 3. HSUS raises enough money to help finance animal shelters in every single state with money to spare, yet it doesn't operate a single one anywhere. Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone,just keeping its multi-national agenda going. 4. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable name by capitalizing on the public notion its very name evokes. 5. The current president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, is a fonner officer of PETA. 6. HSUS is currently under investigation by the Attorney General of Louisiana in regards to the disposition of Katrina funds. HSUS has been under investigation by the FBI for their links to domestic terrorist organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). One of their current officers, John P. Goodwin is a foriner member of ALF and a convicted felon for acts of terrorism related to animals. 7. HSUS consistently jumps on the bandwagon of any animal issue to raise funds even if they are not directly involved. Most recently they used the Michael Vick case as a major fund raiser, even though HSUS had nothing to do with the investigation or care of the Vick dogs.After raising funds from the public, HSUS advised the rescue facilities housing the Vick dogs to euthanize all the animals. Fortunately for the dogs, the shelters have been working with breed rescues to rehabilitate and home the dogs, but with no help from funds collected for the dogs by the HSUS. Sources: www.consumerfreedom.com www.pet-law. com www.naiaonline.org - The HSUS uses public donations to pay for lobbyists to help pass bills that are detrimental to pet owners, farmers, fisherman, hunters, trappers, and research centers. Their goal is total animal liberation and a vegan society. No pets of any kind, no meat, no fish, no eggs, cheese, milk, or any other type of animal products. The HSUS is no different than PETA in it's goals, but only in the way they sugar-coat the delivery of their agenda under the guise of animal welfare. It is an organization of extreme activists who are working diligently to take away your constitutional right to own pets you love. The HSUS uses your donations for bills being passed into law for mandatory spay and neuter of pets to control animal population. Most cities passing the law are requiring pets be neutered long before reaching puberty, which is proven by research to be the cause of many health problems due to lack of needed growth hormones. It is the equivalent of sterilizing a child at the age of 3. When needed growth hormones are removed before maturity, bones don't grow right, growth plates don't close, osteo arthritis can set in, cancers can become more frequent. Those are only a few of a long list of health problems caused by prepubescent neutering and spaying. HSUS uses your donations for bills to limit the number of pets anyone can own. They are backing bills to limit breeders to 6 dogs or less, that require breeders to pay licensing up to as much as $500 per breeding dog per year(Dallas TX has already passed this one) for the "privilege" of owning them and being able to breed. Who is going to feel the effects of this law besides the breeders? The people who would like to own a puppy and can't afford one. HSUS uses your donations for bills to outlaw purebred and cross-bred dogs, also referred to as "designer dogs" that have become popular in the last few years. How are they doing this? By requiring breeders to meet specific requirements to be approved for their breeding permits. They have to: 1. Breed only purebred dogs, who are not on a list banned as vicious in their municipality. 2. They have to belong to an approved registry club (There are NO registry clubs who meet all the criteria being written into the bills for approval purposes). 3. They have to be actively showing their dogs. (That also will remove hunting dogs from the breeding pool as hunting dogs are a sporting group). HSUS uses your donations to back bills for breed specific legislation. Many, many cities have already passed laws outlawing Bully breeds, German Shepherds, Rottweillers, Doberman Pinschers, Boxers, etc.. and include any cross breed dogs who carry those breeds or resemble those breeds. Some have also now added Great Danes, Irish Wolfhounds, St Bernards, etc. because they weigh in excess of 100 pounds, not because they are on a dangerous dog list. The problem with that law is that any dog of any breed can bite, from teacup to giant. Instead of enforcing dangerous dog laws already in existence and punishing the deed, entire breeds are being banished for the acts of only a few dogs. Many innocent . dogs and owners are being punished for the irresponsibility of a few owners. HSUS uses your donations to back laws to ban the way livestock and chickens,are raised for market, and how they are slaughtered. If these laws come to pass, it is the consumer who is going to pay dearly to be able to eat. The United States has the strictest standards in the world for humane treatment of animals bred and slaughtered for food. The way they are housed is done for the safety of the animals, and more importantly, to assure the food you are getting is safe to eat. In order to control disease in the animals, certain types of housing are required. HSUS uses your donations to back bills to ban the use of animals in medical research. The next time you or a loved one receives medicine or surgery that saved their or your life, or improved your quality of life, remember that if it weren't for animals used in research to give you that medicine or surgery, you would not be here reading this information. Remember it when you or a loved one gets insulin, penicillin, cancer surgery, and a myriad of other medicines and miracles, that an animal saved your life. HSUS uses your donations to back bills to ban zoos, trained animals from circuses, rodeos, aquariums. They make it sound like all these animals are abused and exploited, when in fact the animals are well fed and well treated. They are invaluable learning tools for children and adults alike. Many of the animals who are part of any of the facilities or events above are animals many people would only see in pictures. Seeing them in "real life" has served to spark the interest of people who go on to become biologists, researchers, doctors, animal trainers, etc. It's because the excitement and beauty of living, breathing beings with the intelligence and ability to work together fluidly with humans does so much more to incite the desire for more knowledge than a picture on a page. Rodeos bring history to life. To see a whale swimming in a large aquarium brings the reality of the size of these creatures to those who can only imagine it otherwise. Here are some of some of the people (and animals)who will be out of work should everyone sit back and allow the HSUS, PETA, and their affiliates be allowed to banish our constitutional right to own animals, which are considered to be personal property. 1. Ranchers 2. Veterinarians (no pets, no livestock, no zoos, no circuses, no rodeos, no aquariums) 3. Pet and livestock feed companies. 4. Furriers 5. Slaughter houses 6. Zoo keepers 7. Animal trainers 8. Farriers 9. Pet Breeders (no dogs, cats, fish, snakes, birds, etc.) 10.Animal control 11. Rodeo Companies (Our only living link to our western heritage) 12. Horse stables 13. Pet boarding facilities/doggy day care 14. Pet groomers 15. Pet./animal transporters 16. Pet/livestock supply manufacturers 17. Fish hatcheries 18. Animal sanctuaries 19. Animal researchers 20. Seeing eye dogs, service dogs, therapy dogs, drug sniffing dogs, search and rescue dogs, guard dogs, dogs for the hearing impaired. (I include these because they are part of the animal industry who will no longer have jobs if the no animal contact agenda is fulfilled.) Learn the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. All animals, whether pets, livestock, or service animals, deserve humane treatment in our care (that's welfare), but they also serve a purpose in our lives and in our society. Fight for enforcement of existing laws that already cover humane treatment and tell our politicians to vote NO to all of the above laws that will do harm to animals and humans alike and are an infringement of our constitutional rights. The quotes below sum up animal rights very well. "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved." Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends," The Animals'Agenda, January/February 1992,pp. 40-4Z. "...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction.An elephant is no more or less important than a cow,just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses."Barbara Biel, The Animals'Agenda, Vol 15#3. "It's not about loving animals. It's about fighting injustice. My whole goal is for humans to have as little contact as possible with animals." Gary Yourofsky,founder ofAnimals Deserve Adequate Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), now employed as PeTA's national lecturer "We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us [Peter Singer and Ingrid Newkirk] had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer,Animal Liberation:A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface,p. ii. PETA and HSUS have the same agenda, so I will end this with quotes from PETA members and some of their supporters. Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA: "Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt ... we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's president and founder, USA Today, September 3, 1991 "Pet ownership is and absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." - Harpers, August 1, 1988 "In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether." Newsday, February 21, 1988 "There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what's this with all these refonns -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation." "Animal Rights 2002" Convention, June 30, 2002 "I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic hann only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment." -ABC News interview (April 2, 2001) "The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind," (PeTA),Animals, May/June 1993 Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it.-Vogue (September 1, 1989) One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV. The Chicago Daily Herald (March 1, 1990) Alex Pacheco Co-Founder "We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others." - The New York Times (January 14, 1989) " The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."--John Bryant, *Fettered Kingdoms* (PeTA, 1982) p15 "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."-- John Bryant Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic,p 15 "Liberating our language by eliminating the word'pet' is the first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets."' New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets?NO!" Good Dog! February 1991,p. 20. "Sometimes I think the only effective method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur fart:. Then people would be awakened from their soporific states and finally understand the horror that is inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal! Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that fathers accidentally shoot their sons on hunting excursions,while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly. "Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers.And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice vivisection." Gary YourofskY _ PeTA Humane Education Lecturer, quoted in the University of Southern Indiana Student Newspaper, The Shield, January 24, 2008 "I do not believe that it could never be justifiable to experiment on a brain-damaged human. There could conceivably be circumstances in which an experiment on an animal stands to reduce suffering so much that it would be permissible to carry it out even if it involved hann to the animal... [even ifl the animal were a human being.""Peter Singer,Animal Liberation:A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York:New York Review of Books, 1990),p. 85 * It was recently brought to the attention of the author of this report that the HSUS now is in partnership with Armory Black Beauty Ranch, in TX and a couple of wildlife centers in southern California and Cape Cod, Mass. The author was unable to find when the partnership mergers took place, only that they now exist since pet owners have begun to fight back against harmful animal bills now being pushed in many cities, counties, and states, as well as at the federal level. The author, after reading for several hours at the HSUS site and the partner sites, was not able to find any infonnation showing them to be "hands-on" with their care of the animals, other than those comments made by the HSUS themselves. The disclaimer on their site for years, about not being a parent of or affiliated with local humane societies, is now gone and they state instead they are advocates of those shelters, but still are not listing themselves specifically as parents or affiliates of them. It is the author's understanding from reading that the HSUS broke away from the original AHS (American Humane Society) because the HSUS does not condone animals sent for use in research.Again, the author thanks the animals who have helped in research who are directly or indirectly responsible for my husband's life and that of my sister's, both of whom are still here because of that research.