Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntroduce Ordinance No. 3798 (NOT ADOPTED) Amending Chapter Council/Agency Meeting Held: o? D D to: aSunrccrF o lfiN 2-rrJoT7oA "�Approved Conditionally Approve Denied Ci ler 's Si ture —D-/ Council Meeting Date: 2/4/2008 Department ID Number: PD-08-001 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable. Mayor and City Council Me e SUBMITTED BY: Paul Emery, Interim City Administrato PREPARED BY: Kenneth W. Small, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Ordinance to Increase License Fees for Unaltered and Unmicrochipped Dogs and Cats Statement of Issue,Funding Source, Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On November 5, 2007, the City Council considered the adoption of an ordinance that established a mandatory spay, neuter, and microchip program for dogs and cats in Huntington Beach. After discussion, the City Council directed staff to draft an incentive- based licensing ordinance that would encourage dog and cat owners to spay, neuter, and microchip their animals by increasing license fees for unaltered and unmicrochipped animals. The attached ordinance amends Chapter 7.08 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code to reflect the changes that were discussed at the City Council Meeting. Funding Source: N/A Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve and Adopt Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution N02008-5establishing an incentive- based licensing ordinance that encourages dog and cat owners to spay, neuter, and microchip their animals. Alternative Action(s): Deny Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No. 2008-5 and direct staff accordingly. 7� Ord. No. 3798 7.08.110 License--Vaccination certificate. Every person applying for a dog or cat license must exhibit a certificate issued by a person licensed by the state to practice veterinary medicine, which certificate shall show that the dog or cat for which the license shall be; ssued, either has been vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance of the county of Orange, or should not be so vaccinated by reason of age, infirmity or other disability. Such exemption shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year. A license for any dog or cat shall not be issued unless and until such certificate is exhibited. (Urg. Ord_ 641-2/56, 885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg_ Ord. 2034-1176) SECTION 11. Sections 7.08.121 and 7.08.122 are hereby added to Chapter 7.08, said sections to read as follows: 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats. No person may owrt keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pays an unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats. The purpose of requiring microchipping is to provide a reliable method of identifying pets for a successful owner reunification process. No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. The owner or custodian of a dog or cat must provide appropriate documentation of microchipping upon the request the City or its designee. Exceptions will be considered when there exists a signed letter from a veterinarian verifying and providing medical support for claims that implanting a microchip would put the animal at significant physical risk. SECTION 12. This ordinance shall become. effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day'of , 200 NP­ Of NX ' Mayor _ ATTEST: 4 � INITIATED AND APPROVED: i City Clerk Chief of Police REVIE E ND A PROVED: 7* APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adrdmis for "CityMtom'ey 17848 4 Ordinance No. 3 7 9 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Chapter 7.08 LICENSING PROVISIONS (324-5/29, 509-4/47, 522-6/48, Urg. Ord. 641-2/56, 885-1/62, 1088-9/64, 1279-1167, 15/5-2/70, 57-2/70, 1815-2/73, 1872-11/73, 189-2/18,1905-3/74, 1907-5/74, 1910-6/74, Urg. Ord.20 -1/76, Urg. Ord. 2084-6/76,2246-1/78, 2281-5/78,2406-2/80,2435-7/80,2475-5/81, 3 51-11/06) Sections: 7.08.010 License and registration required 7.08.020 License--Transferability 7.08.030 o 7.08.040 License--Tags, certificates issued 7.08.050 License--Owner duty to obtain0 90' N 7.08.060 License--Penalty fees A ." T1 7.08.070 License--Exempted animals 7.08.075 Proof of Exemption. 7.08.080 License--Shown to license inspector TA K E N 7.08.090 Removal of tags and collars / 7.08.100 Counterfeiting tags 7.08.110 License--Vaccination certificate 7.08.120 Guard dog registration 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of gs and cats 7.08.122 Microchip identificati n of dogs and cats 7.08.130 (Deleted—Ord. No. 3751- l/06) 7.08.140 Repealed, Ord. 2246-1/7 7.08.010 License and re istration re ired. No person owning, having an interest in, or having control, custody or possession of a dog or cat shall fail,neglect or refuse to license and register such dog or cat if over six (6) months of age in compliance with the terms of this chapter. A violation of this ction is an INFRACTION, and upon a conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to e ceed one hundred dollars ($100). (189-2/18, 509-4/47, 885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1555-3/70, 1815-3/73, 1 5-3/74, 1907-5/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76) Any person advertisin to the public the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. The license number shall also be provided to any pe son adopting or purchasing any dog or cat that is bred in the City of Huntington Beach. 7.08.020 License--Transferability. No dog or cat license is transferable, except in the following circumstances: (a) Upon payment of a two dollar($2) fee, a new license may be issued to a new owner of a dog or cat that was previously licensed by the city when said license is still current. (b) Upon payment of a two dollar($2) fee, a new resident of the city may be issued a new license for his dog Or cat in the following circumstances: (i) The doge was previously licensed in another jurisdiction and said license is current and valid through June 30 following the date of application; (ii) Said previous license is presented for cancellation; and Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 1 of 5 07-1251/16002 (iii)The owner presents a valid rabies inoculation certificate which is effective through June 30 following the date of application. Any new license issued pursuant to this section shall be renewed p rsuant to section 7.08.050 of this code. (885-1/62, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76,2281-5/78) and tags as fflay be suffieiei4 for-use dttfing ffi&-year-, Said ee ftifie,tes and tags sha4 expire ittly i of-the fell ,.,,;„n off, �� 9rd. 2934-117611 i 7.08.040 License--Tags, certificates issued. TA' K E Iq (a) A metallic tag or other means of permanent identification, such as tattooing, and license certificate with corresponding numbers shall be furnished by the City Animal License Inspector or one of his authorized agents,to,any person required by this chapter to obtain a license upon payment of the appropriate fee prescribed in this chapter. Said person shall bear the cost of the permanent identification ifpother than a metallic tag is chosen by said person. (b) The City Animal License Inspector shall keep a record of the name, address and telephone number of the owner of the dog or cat, or person making payment of the license fee, and to whom a certificate and tag shall have'been issued, and the number and date of such certificate. Such metal tag issued fo' the current license year shall be securely fastened to the collar or harness of the dog, and shall be worn by such dog at all times other than those periods when confined to the owner's house, enclosed yard or pen. A duplicate of a lost license tag may be procured from the City Animal License Inspector upon proof of loss and payment of two dollars ($2). (1279-2/67, 1905-4/74, 1907-5/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76) 7.08.050 License--Owner duty to obtain. Any owner, with the exceptions herein provided, of a dog or cat over the age of feuf'(4)six (6) months in the city shall, and at the option of the owner-of obtain a license and pay an original or renewal license fee of t-we ve a„a 5011 00ths dolma,-( 1 2.5D) as/set forth by resolution of the City Council on or before the effective date of this section and July 1 of each year thereafter. The license fee for a spayed or altered dog or cat shall be six and 25/1 nnffis dollars ($6 25) as set forth by resolution of the City Council. The owner has the burden of proof to show the dog or cat has been spayed or altered. Except that the license fee shall be one-half(1/2)the regular fee for the following: (a) Any owner of a dd g or cat establishing residence in the city after December 31 of any year; (b) Any owner of a dog or cat acquired after December 31 of any year; (c) Any owner of a/1dog or cat which had not reached the age of fettf(4)six (6) months by December 31 of a year. i Original license feces shall be due and payable within thirty(30) days after any dog or cat is acquired and comes into the care, custody and control of any person in the city. (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1555-2/70, 1872-11/73, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76,2246-1/78,2406-2/80, 2435-7/80) 7.08.060 License--Penalty fees. Any person who fails to pay the required dog or cat license fee prior to August 1, 1976, and prior-to ^,,,., each year* shall pay, in addition to the license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent of the original or renewal license fee. Any person who fails to obtain an original license within thirty(30) days after his/her owning any dog or cat or any dog or cat coming into his/her care, custody and control in this city shall pay Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 2 of 5 07-1251/16002 in addition to the original license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent(5001(),of the original license fee. (1907-5/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76, Urg. Ord.2084-6/76) / � 7.08.070 License--Exempted animals. No license fee shall be req ui f d for the following: (a) Seeing eye Service dogs, including therapy dogs; ;f (b) Dogs honorably discharged from the armed forces of the United States; (c) Dogs or cats in the care, custody and control of nonresidents who are traveling through the city, or temporarily staying in the city for a period not exceeding thirty(30) days, or dogs or cats temporarily brought into the city for the exclusive purpose of being entered in a bench show or dog or cat exhibition,provided such dogs or cats are so entered and not kept elsewhere in the city; >penheense their-deg(s) fegafdless of the 1 -e fee e"Kefaf6en, and they sha4l be obligated te pay afty fees f r late lieensing f�L,o;« 7.08.075 Proof of Exemption. When/licensing a dog or cat that has not been altered, a Huntington Beach resident shall provide proof of an exemption. The following documents will be considered as support to a waiver of the requirement to alter a pet: ; (a) A signed letter from a veterinarian verifying and providing medical support for claims tha, altering would put the animal at significant physical risk; (b) Verification of law enforcement status from the law enforcement unit employing the animal; (c) A certification from a qualified training organization verifying that the animal has been`trained and is employed as a service animal; �t F (d) Proof of participation in a sanctioned dog or cat show or sporting competition 1 (e.g., receipt for entry fee, certificate indicating participation, proof of title earned as a result of competition, etcJ; (e) Proof of the owner's membership in an OCACS-approved purebred dog or cat/club representing the breed of the dog or cat to be licensed. i 7.08.080 License-,`Shown to license inspector. No person shall fail or refuse to show to the City Animal License Inspector or any police officer,the license and the tag for any duly registered dog or cat kept or remaining in any home or upon any enclosed premises under his immediate control. A violation of this section is an INFRACTION, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (885-1/62, 1279 2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. "MONOrd. 2034-1/76) �. Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 3 of 5 07-1251/16002 t: N 7.08.090 Removal of tags and collars. No unauthorized person shall re ove from any dog or cat any collar, harness, or other device to which is attached a registration t g for the current year or to remove such tag therefrom. A violation of this section is an INF CTION, and upon a conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hu dred dollars ($100). (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) / 7.08.100 Counterfeiting tags. No person shall imitate or counterfeit the tags in this chapter provided for, or shall use any imitation or counterfeit of such tagt (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76) f 7.08.110 License--Vaccination certificate. Every person applying for a dog or cat license must exhibit a certificate issued by a person licensed by the state to practice veterinary medicine, which certificate shall show that the dog or cat for which the license shall be issued, either has been vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance of the county of Orange, or should not be so vaccinated by reason of age, infirmity or other disability. Such exemption shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year. A license for any dog or cat shall not be issued unless and until such certificate is exhibited. (Urg. Ord. 6,41-2/56, 885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) r' / 7.08.120 Guard dog registration. (a) No person owning, having custody, charge,control or possession of a dog bred or trained formally to attack shall fail to register such animal as a guard dog by so indicating in the space provided on the animal license form. (b) No person owning, having custody, charge, control or possession of a guard dog on nonresidential property shall fail to post signs of sufficient size and design on his premises giving adequate notice and warning to the public of the presence of such guard dog. (c) Any person owning, having custody, charge, control or possession of a guard dog who fails or refuses to comply with any provision of this section, and who causes,permits or allows such guard dog to harm or injure any city employee while acting within the scope of his official duties, shall be guilty of a MISDEMEANOR, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of$500 or six (6) months in the county jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day or portion thereof such person fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this section shall be deemed a separate offense, and shall be punishable as provided herein. (324-5/29, 522-6/48, 885-1/62, 1088`-9/64, 1279-1/67, 1557-2/70, 1815-2/73, 1905-3/74, 1910-6/74,2406-2/80, 2475-5/81) 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats. No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats. The purpose of requiring a microchipping is to provide a reliable method of identifying pets for a successful owner reunification process. No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. The owner or custodian of a dog or cat must provide appropriate documentation of microchipping upon the request the City or its designee. Exceptions will be considered when there sexists wsig�a ki f o a Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 4 of 5 07-1251/16002 " a veterinarian verifying and providing iii edical support for claims that implanting a microchip would put the animal at significant physical risk. ft ,Off;t �' EN Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 5 of 5 07-1251/16002 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 l vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121.spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08_.1.22,Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08_010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads "for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales, ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: any and all public advertisements for the availability ,- 1 °� 9006-E96-LOL-1 - � � ewaABQ uer eO0 :11 So bo SaA of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement, " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectf M , �t 1 i SOSE-E96-LOL-I ewa�gRQ uer el0 : ii 80 *,0 qaj 02/04/2008 13:57 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 02 February 3,2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2005-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter.,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it, The dratted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise Icense fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neuterin o dogs and_cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of'the City Council or qualbries for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Micracliig identification of dogm and --- The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states. "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.10-10.License and registration re 'red Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the We of puppies/dogs and kittensteats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ctc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." _7050 License—Owner duty to obtain The flee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent.most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthaoiixed due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation_ I urge You to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax Payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, r �`.__ 200E-02-041153 >> 95365233 Pill February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance Mo_3798 and Resolution Alo 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2005-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject IL The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007, The coluncil agree d to drop the ordinance and raise license gees instead. The current voluntary licensing stratus for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License flies would be increased,using a bored scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,anndllor microchips. Advertisements for clogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.0 .1 1 Soav and neutering gf dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the councirs agreement to drop the mandatory Spar and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and Cats over six months of age. The draft states: °Ado perm may own,keep,or harbor a dog or cat over ilia We of six months in violation of this saction unless such parson pan unaltered animal sloe as set forth by resolution of the Grtyy Councd or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7,08.070 of this chapter.' 7,00,122 Microchip identification of tags and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the councirs agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "Ado person may own,keep,or harbor a dog or cat over the We of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 010 L In u' Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to Include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppiesldogs and klltenslcats. I oppose this requirement has it is discriminatory. If a business license Is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads°for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,eat. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: I...any and a#public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption.sale,barter or Other tranAr must prominently display the business lioensh9 nurrrbur in the a $anua/ht.A As you are dwWO,statics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanited due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. f firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordnance. Fwthermwe,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tau payer doaa wasted oft unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Jacks Forkel 2299 N.Batavia SL Orange,CA 92866 02/04/2008 14:31 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 05 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemengy oppose the draft resolution.No 2008-5 for the pmposed Spay,NeLftr,and Wicrccbip(SNAG}Ordinance No.3799 and vMe the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resekdon is not what was agreed on by the cmwwg can November 5, 2007. Ilse council agmed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees imsterA The current voluntary licensing for cab would change to become required licensing for cats. Laeense fees would be irwmasesl,um%a bared scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, =Nor nucrochipa. Aidvextisernents for dogs and cats in,the Wave were also discussed. 7,08.121 Saaav and neutering,of dog and go Tlae drafted moh don contradicts the counci l's agrc=nent to drop the mandawy Spay and Newer proposed ordinsom The dmft continum to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months ofage. The draft states: "No person oasay own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section lidless such person pan antlered anioW fee as set forth by resohWon of the City Coundi or qual&x for an cwmpglon under Section 7.08.070 of Blois c8apw.•, 7.0 122 rfwrchinidettti, anon of dots and cats ne dndW resolution co is the counad's agmcmeM to drop One numdalory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft to mandeft micrecldps. The draft states. "No person may own,Jeep, or harbor a dog or cat over the qV of six rtmwhy that does not have a ndcroehlp ldeaatfficauon device. 7 08 01m Licaense and nro;_• mAw r+eauired Cmudhmn Iota suggested an addition to the rmludo0 to include the rmpsirement for a business lice 66r newspaper edvertiaenmts in the rave for the sale ofpuppies/dogs and latteus/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is dimimbmtory. If a business license is Mquir+ed for advamisesneots in the Wavtt,loci it shovald apply to all ads-fbr sale"posted in the Warne,sacs as mcrebandisr,SwW sales,eto. Als%the molufion does not specify ads in the Wave,but instnd suggests. "...any and all public adverfte for the availability of may dog or cat for adoptiom safe,,barter or odw transfer mwipmm wwndy display the busbma license nwober in the a&eri&vwnt." 109-05-01gicam—OnagLdutX fjobtain TIM get schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent ntast mwmers from liceaft at all. Statistics for kla Wnigton Mach dogs eathanixed due to shag overt mwding do not support the wed for a®andated ordinance- I firmly oppose any mmilated spay,neuter, or rr icmchip adhwce. Fwftnmm,I oppose any my legisladon. I urge you to raft the dmfked resolmon,and yak to your agmenwa. Too mwh bane aril tax payer dollars have been w+astod on this unnecessary proposal already. 02/04/2008 11:37 2563507911 THE SHIPPING STORE PAGE 02 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: AE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution.No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. T'he council agreed to drop the ordinances and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Mierochig identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution,contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. 7.08.010 License and reg Strad n required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppiesidogs and kittensleats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in.the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat far adoption sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7.08.050 License—Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all.. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or,microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, February 4,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE., Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 As a resident and dog owner of Huntington Beach,I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Shand neutering of dog and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. 7"he draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months in violation ofthis section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08_070 ofthis chapter." 7.09.122 Microchip identification of does and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: 'Wo person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs l'd 6Z£6-996-b1L WOW 9419H eueinin el9 80 90 t0 qed and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc,. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: ".._any and all public advertisements for the availability ofany dog or cat for adoption,sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 4&-- Viviana Hetherington 7'd 67,f 1-99�i-bl/ uol6uue41eH eueinin eZ9:90 8o po qe:j Feb 04 08 10,33a 408-379-5129 p.1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE. Ordinance,'Vo. 3798 and Resolution Aro 2008-5 I STRONGLY oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and implore the Mayor and all Council Members to reject it. The drafted resolution that was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007: The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead_The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become REQUIRED licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using atiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips.Advertisements far dogs and eats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and eaxs The drafted resolution CONTRADICTS the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft CONTINUES to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months in violation of this section unless such person pays an unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section .'.OS 070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution CONTRADICTS the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance_The draft CONTINUES to mandate microchips. The draft states.- "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats.I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory.If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support ANY mandated ordinance.I STRONGLY oppose ANY mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any DISCRIMINATORY legislation. I URGE you to reject the drafted resolution,and FOLLOW THROUGH with what you agreed to do.There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/04/2008 09:31 9516826345 ILMANEN LAW OFFICES PAGE 01/01 The Law Offices of L -- GARY R. ILMANEN 4129 Main Street, Suite 208B Riverside, California 92501-3678 ��� i .. tl" _ �"�`'s"1� §? WI� e5.t .}� "` ."��•i—^�LtF_��73^^I"[I:'°Y.—"`s�",,., -:� "YL.fi-�� A -^'fit � is February 4, 2008 To: i i Mayor and City Council Members - - - -----..-.._------_. City of Huntington Beach RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 Ladies and Gentlemen, I am shocked and dismayed that you would pass a regulation with such an impermissible intrusive effect on your citizen's rights to control their private property. There is no overriding governmental purpose that I can see here. I understand that you may be re-considering your action today. Please reject the ill-conceived legislation that Levine et. al. provided for you. Sincerely, Ga . Ilmanen €'_m,- ;gig -.. r#rrt ^... .,. r Nz FEB 03 '08 18:57 _______ Page i of 1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE. Ordinance No.3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 i vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter,and Microchip(SNM) Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. 7`08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cab. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"far sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. As you all are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Don't we have more pressing needs for your valuable time than creating unnecessary legislation,when enforcement options are already in place. I feel like we are getting beaten to death will all these laws in our State,our County and now our precious City suffocating our private property rights. Respectfully, racy U Huntin ton Beach,California To:Huntington Beach Mayor and Council Page 2 of 3 2008-02-04 18:36:29(GMT) 13109430484 From:George Joseph Q. THE GOLDEN RETRIEVER CLUB OF GREATER February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 The Golden Retriever club of Greater Los Angeles, representing 130 members, vehemently opposes the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: `No person may own keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: `No person may own, keep or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip i&ntifrcation device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sales,etc. Also, the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any m d'all public advertisements for the availability of anry dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter To Huntington Beach Mayor and Council Page 3 of 3 2008-02-04 18:36:29(GMT) 13109430484 From:George Joseph or other tramfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " 7.08.050 License—Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, George Joseph President Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles Wildwestgoldens@aol.com 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KINKOS PAGE 03 / ^� February 3,200$ V Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordin nee No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution i. Ahat was agreed on by the council on November 5.2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise License fees instead. The current voluntary.licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License.fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.09.1.21 Spay and neuterina of dogs and cats The drafted resolution.contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and.Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person mqy own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of.six months in violation of this section unless,such person pan unaltered animal fee as ser,forth by resolution of the City Council or gualif es_for an exemption under Section, 7.08.070 of this chapter. 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs anal cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7,08.01.0 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave-for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, theta.it:should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as inerchandise, garage sales, ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements,for the availability of any dog or cat,far adoption, .sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. i firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,T oppose any discriminatory legislation. l urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax, payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KINK05 PAGE 04 February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vebeinently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Otdin��ce No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. Tlie drafted resolution ins/v M was agreed on.by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status-for cats would change to become required licensing-for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or. microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinnance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The d.ra.ft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation ofthis section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies,for an exemption under.section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft.states:. "No person may owm keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identrfeeation device." 7.08.010 License and registration.required Councilman.Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to.include the requirement for a business license for. ewspaper advertisements in the Wave-for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such.as merchandise, garage sales, ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements fitr the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. i firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. i urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. "there has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectliilly, Monday; FebruaryU4,2UU6 1U:2U AM Garole`Kelly 942-17U9 p.U1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Oi-diliiiii e\jo. "9t'�aiid Resohitiora -ATo 2OQc4-? I vehementiv oppose the draft resolution.No 2008-5 fir the proposed Spay, Neater,and Microchip{SNRI} Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mays-W and all council members to rzject it. The drafted.resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinwice and raise license fees instead. The current voluntafV licensing status for cats Nvould change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions fir spay,neuter,and or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats.in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spav and neutgjgg of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and.Neuter proposed ordinance. The drift continues to innandate spay and neutering for all dogs and Cats over six months of age. The draft states: "l\ro person ina1'oim,deep, of harbor a clog or cat over the age qfsix niontlis in violation Of this section unless such person pan n))altered anneal tee as settOrth bi, resohitlon Of the CityCouncil of gaalif es for an.el'enlption under Section .thti.0 770 Of this chapter. 7.68.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatoiN microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person inn'oirn, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age pf six months that does not have a microchip idengfr'cation device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councitnian Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper:advertisements in the Wave for:the sale of puppies'dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the`Nave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sales, ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not:specifj-advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: ani,and all public a tiverti,seinents tor.'the availability ofaiay dog or cent for adoption, stile, hurter of other transfer nnistprontinenth-display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly-oppose and-mandated spay-,neuter.or mierrxlup ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose-my discriminatory, legislation. I urge you to.rzject the drafted resolution,and stick-to what you weed to do. There has been too much time and tax parer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfiffly. Carole hello 44215 Galion Ave Lancaster,CA 93536 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The cotmcil agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a clog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7,08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also, the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " 7.08.050 License—Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington:Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, S�I'd MS92s:01 9b22i7LLSL -rMWI?1:WMH 10:2T 8002-t?-83d FEB 04 200B 14:27 FR TO 95365233 P.01 Patrese Knox 19811 Ranger Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 714-742-1553 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor Cook and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No.3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 am a Huntington Beach residence and I strongly oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips 7.09.121 SpU and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months,of age.The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section. Unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth. By resolution of the City Council or qu al ifaes for an Exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter_" 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. I he draft continues to mandate microchips.The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat. Over the age of six months that does not have a Microchip identification device." 7.09.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittensfeats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs eudmized due to shelter overcrowding do NOT support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stay with what you originally agreed to do.Remember that the people who are law abiding citizens and who will act in accordance to this change are not the people who cause any negative impact reference pets.This rule change will only punish those who are law abiding. Respectfully, 1 ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** V/,j oc February 4,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resohdion No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 SM and neutgdAg of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over. six months of age. The draft states: "No person may owm keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of xix months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sic months that doer not have a microchip identification device." 7.08 010 License and registration mguired Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully 9499553681 SOUTH COAST APT A 18.47.52 02-04-2008 112 J-n� February 3, 2008 ��c 1- ✓7l Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise Iicense fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 may and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation ofthis section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of-six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs t a 9499553681 SOUTH COAST APT A 18.48.03 02-04-2008 212 and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests; "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat fur adoption, sale, barter or other lranafer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, fudith A. Legan (-, 4912 Kron Drive Irvine CA 92604 FROM PHONE NO. Feb. 04 2008 08:14AM P2 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November S, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.8.121 _5.My and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states ".No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchiu identif cation of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and relgistratiork required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave fox the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat,for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Mach for dogs euthani7,ed due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the dratted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Keith Le7.atte FROM PHONE NO. Feb. 04 200B 08:0AM P1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2009-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it, The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007_ The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7,8.l21 Span and neutering of dopes and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance, The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may awr4 keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sir months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identi fication of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7,08.010 License and registration EgggiEW Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sates,ect_ Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "._.arty and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Sue Lezatte FROM :HOUSE OF REALTY FAX NO. :8188419427 Feb. 04 2008 02:22PM P1 February 4, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees insteact. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of¢ogj Ed cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over Six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Cmmeil or gualifaes for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Mic Mfft identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sir months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7,08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution.-to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave 1'iir the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats, I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,eel. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements,for the availability of any dog or cat fior adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. i firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the dratted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Elizabeth Mcfl/J�jnennon l Feb 04 08 01:36p MESMER 727-461-5730 p.1 Februay 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members. RE.• ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead.. T'he current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.0$.121 Spa,and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person m4V own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sir months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qua/lies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.09.010 License and relation required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppiesidogs Feb 04 08 01:36p MESMER 727-461-b730 p.2 and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: .,...any and all public advertisementsfor the availability of any dog or cat.for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too march time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, S vvi to 5 vt,t.ems,-- a G 4o o 02/04/2008 14:31 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 04 February 3,2008 Honombic Mayor and City Coumil Memnbe rs- AE.- Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed$pay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council meambem to reject it. The drafted reswlntion is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats- License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or.rmc rod ips. Advertisements for dogs and cats k the Wave were also discusscd. 7.08.12) Spy and vein of does and The dndW resolution contradicts the c ouncil's agreement to drop time mmdatmy Spay and Neuter proposed ondir anc e. The draft continues to roandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: 'No person[tray owr; keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sfir months in violation of this Section wdess such person pan unaltered avm mM fee as set forth by rrsolwion r f the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.0$070 of this chapter." 7,08 122 M mmbjgid_ fificaioo of doss and cats The drafted resolution contradicts time councii's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordvaanm lie craft continues to mandate microchips. Tame draft states: "No parson[nary own keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsimr months that does not have a microchip ialenl Ovation devise." 7�09,010 Lice—and re¢istra w reauired Couacilrnan Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include ttme aegtur mment for a business license for newspaper advatisernents in the Wave for the sale ofpuppleedogs and ldttens/cats. I oppose this requirenmeW as it is discriminatory. If a business lic mw is required for advertisements in the Wave,therm it should apply to all ads"for sate"posted in the'Wavle,surer as,rrtetalrandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify . acts in.the Wave,but img tW suggests: "...any and atl public adkrtisements for the Wailab&ly of stay dog or carat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must pronmmewty d opfay the bus'ittess Wen se rm under in the adbertisemernt" 7.08.00 License—Owner duty to obtain The fee saboUr.is unrealistic and will Wi*prevent most owners from licensing at all. StWSUcs for Hunbogton Beach dogs eudmniaed due to sheher overcrowding do not Support the need for a maimed or&m=ce. I A mly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Fuhherrnore,I oppose any discrimi�ory legislation. I urge You to reject the shafted resolution,and stack to your agreemett, Too much tir me and tax Payer dollars have been wasted on ttvs unnecessary proposal already. 'ltespeetfu#ly, FROM :PARADISE GREAT DANES FAX NO. :707 762 3763 Feb. 04 2006 11:52AM P1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members; RK, Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council.members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November, 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would tie increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121. Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The drab continues to mandate spay mud neutering for Lill dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person mnv own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age gf'six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set,forth by resolution of the City Council or 9ualif es,for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dolts and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement it)drop the maandatoiT microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No parson may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration recdui,.rcd Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and.kittens/cats. I oppo,.:e this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchtandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all I.niblic advertisements .1br the availability of arty dog or cut for adoption. sale, barter or other iran►fer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7 0.050 License—Owner duty to obtain The 1,ce schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory.legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already, Respectfully, rl F Feb 04 08 08:26a David Munrau 818-982-8933 p.2 HUNTI1NGTO N BEACH LETTERL page 1 of 2 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008_5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for clogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device" 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business Iicense for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability http://www.edoca.org/HBLETTIER.btml 2/4/2008 Feb 04 08 08:25a David Murrau 818-982-8933 P, 1 U NTTNGTGN BEACH LETTER Page 2 of 2 of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the draped resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Re y, f , http://www.cdoca.org/HBLETTER,htni 2/4/2008 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RR: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The t,uuutil 4Wcetl to aiup the utLluuun,e aria raise liuelise fees iiestcad. '1"lte current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 SnaY and neuteringo_f d.Qgy and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.Q8.122 Microchip identification of dW wd,M The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7,08.010 License and registration rewired Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. 1 oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"tor sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements,for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. l firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, �' VIT T0 'd ZT919va bTL NOOHH 5noa W" OZ: TT 89®Z-ve-933 Feb..03 08 04:00p Bob Patenaude 619-255-5538 p.1 7l 1,2r February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, C RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I want to go on record to the City Council and Mayor's office ofabsolutly opposing the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM) Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mWr and all council members to reject it The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to became required licensing for cats_ License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council"s agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance_ The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states-. "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person part unaltered antmal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption tender Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.03.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business Iicense for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs e , Feb 03 08 04:01 p Bob Patenaude 619-255-5538 p.2 J 1 1Lf and kittens/cats. 1 oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. As a California citizen for over 10 years,this goes against,not only the core of our national beliefs,but the spirit of true California freedom and right to be a responsible pet owner and breeder. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale'posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales, ect. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisdments in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...wry and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adopaoM sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. ectfull , obert J enaude 619-255-5536 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008 S 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 200E-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November S,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees'instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tierod scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of des and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifiwfor an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.4&122 Microchip identification of dogs and The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The daft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip Identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the stave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittenslcats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of arty dog or cat for adoptlot% sale, barter or other transfer roust prominently display the business license number in the adverdsement" Azd e - As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach fo�uthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, V =WOU U20:b0 800a-b-833 02/04/2006 14:19 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 01 February 3, 2008 Honorable,Mayor and City Council Members.- RE, Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008--5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead_ The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Snax a nd negteriggof dons and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states; "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat m;er the age of sir months in violation of this section unless such person part unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualrftes for at exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Micro-hip identification of doh and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may owm keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sir months that does not have a microchip idendfication deirice_" 7.08-01.0 License and r istrationo required Councilman.Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats, I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements.in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale" posted in,the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sates,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other tranrfer trust prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " 7.08.050 License -Owner du to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all,. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No,3798 and Resolution No 2008-S 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM) Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering;of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cal over the age of s ix months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualtfles for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance_ The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states.- "No person may own, keep,or harbor a dog or cat over the age of s ix months that does not have a microchip ident f ication device." 7.08,010 License and Mg�tstration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. 1 oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Resp tfully, 1 . Christine S.Phillips «, Concerned Dos Owner Registered California Voter TO/TO 3E)dd AdVd NVI13-10OW 6660OP9 bE:60 80OZ/VO/Z0 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: RPolkow@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 11:51 AM To: Green, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL; City Attorney; City Clerk's Office Subject: Opposition to ordinance 3798 (Pet ordinance) I am opposed to this ordinance for the same reasons as many other pet owners. When my small Pom was 4 weeks old I approached our vet to microchip her and he said she was to small at that time, and I have since learned of the many problems associated with this procedure and do not feel I must have this done to my pet, just to avoid paying a higher fee. It is my opinion that the people who do not care for their pets will not change and this only discriminates against and raises fees for current law abiding citizen I feel this is just another way for the city to obtain money from the public. Jean Polkow 714 962-4810 Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 2/4/2008 — `� February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 1 Spay and neutering of dogs and,cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a clog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such persona pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of-this chapter." 7,08.122 Microchip identifiadio of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.0j.0 10 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the We of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertise►►tent. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanixed due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, f�:T Z•• T0 'd ZTSL968 bTL NOOHH nnou WA 901Z1 800Z-b0-H3d February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,an. Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November S, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 bray and neutering of dogL and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of'the City Council or qualifiesfor an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08,122 Microchip identification of dop and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identifflcatlon device." 7.08.010 License and registration Lqguired Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittoWcats. l oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Rave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,l oppose any discriminatory legislation. l urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, ;�f { ,f;�, . f Cam;• ,tX.,.�'� � T0 'd ZTS�968 bTL Nnn"a nnna WA 80-ZT SAOZ-b0-g3d February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it, The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by-the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Snag and neuteri m of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dug or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7 08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats, 1 oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements fur the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." ' A. .,... ...�...:,..«.. �.M..wL. C YL._.._.. ,f..._J_.__ -.I_-.--A J... - ._L.._t..___ FEB-04-2008 11 :55 RM DOUG BQGON 714 e467512 P. 01 February 3,2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE.xOrrdinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently\Qppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The dra' resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The counc4greed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. T e current value-testy tice�sitig status for cats would change to become required li�nsing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reduction,(for spay, neuter,and/or rrsicrochips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave re also discussed. 7 08 121 Stray and neuterina of dQs and cats The drafted resolution con s the council's agreement to drop a mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. he draft continues to mandate ay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months o age. The draft states: "No person may own keep, or harbor a do or cat over the age of six wont •in violation of A- section unless such person pan u leered animal a as set forth by resolution of the City t'o cil or qu afies'for an exemption under Section 7.08. 70 of it chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchin identification of dags and The drafted resolution contradicts the counci ' ag ent to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft ntinues to date microchips. The draft states: "No person may own. keep, or harbor R or cat over the age of six months that does not hav microchip identi cat n device. 7.08.010 License and mg-istratio required Councilman Bohr suggested#addition to the resolution to include a requirement for a business license for newspa advertisements in the Wave for the sal of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppos is requirement as it is discriminatory. If a b iness license is required for advertisem is in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads" sale"posted in the Wave,such as erchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the reso tion does not specify advertisem .s in the rave,but instead suggests: y and all public advertisements for the availability o ny dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer ust prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated AHnrf�P..axw.f�.icr..rimina4ntR1 o� `Altnt3��sa�J Jusodosd Xnssa9auan s a cro isenl sxa o ia,Cud �Cppeall� .q 1 JJ p xei pue atup gonw ooi uaaq Seq a,aq,f 'op of paatft noA 1mlm o3 3pps pue-uo►tnlosac pa xp ayx;aalal oa noiC aSxn 1 uocasJs aJ r�ol8uccu�osip due asoddo I`atoraratprrtd •ao wulpao d aoaatw so`aalttov`Atds polepurm Atm asoddo Xpwg I -aaumgpro patt;ptreur 4 ' iroddns tou oP BtrYpmoa-Mano 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KIWOS PAGE 02 J , February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE': Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SN.M.)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution What was agreed on by the council on November 5.2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased.using a tiered scale with fee reductions for. spay,neuter, and/or, microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 St)av and neutering of dogs and cats The d.rafted..resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the.mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to.mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age_ The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ref six months in violation of this section unless.such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies.for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7,08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohn suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper ad.verti.semenxs in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. 1 oppose this requireaxtent as it is d.iscrintinatory. 1f a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resohtion does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...an),and all public advertisemenrsfor the availability ofanv dog or cat.for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Reach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowdilig do not support any mandated ordinance. 1 firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore. I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the dratted resolution, and stick.to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfu ly, 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KINKOS PAGE 09 February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution.No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip (SNM)0Tdm4nce No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution i., hat was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.1.21 Suav and neutering of dolls and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the..mandatmy Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all doss and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of.six months in violation of'this section unless.such person pan unaltered animal.fee as set.forth by resolution of the City(council or qualifies,fnr an exemption under�Section 7.0$.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Mieroehiu identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the counci.l's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sax months that does not have a microchip identafrcation device. " 7.08.01,0 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for.newspaper advertiseynenrts in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, them it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sales,ect. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat.for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistic`for Huntington.Beach for dogs cuthanixed due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. 1 urge you to,reject the draped resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KIWOS PAGE 01 February 3,zoos 4 0 Honorable )Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft.resolution.No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM) Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution That was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the counci.l's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keen. or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation gfthis section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set.forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The dram continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration reguircd Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for ncwspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose thiis requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements fior the availability of'anv dog or cat for adoption, .sale, barter or other transfer musi prominently display the business licen,e number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. i fixmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, i oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary propo 1 already. Respectfully, Feb 03 08 08:11p THE ROGERS: FAMILY 949-380-2606 PA February 3,2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2009-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the counciil's agreement to droll the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofs&months in violation of this section unless suds person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinnance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration Muired Councilman Holm suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale'posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer arrest prominently display the business license number an the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I op*se any discrimmatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Feb 03 08 08:11p THE ROGERS' FAMILY 949-380-2606 p.2 ]February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering_of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of seat months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies fop an exemption under Section 7.08 070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of does and cats ']Glee drafted resolution contradicts the couincil's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification elevate." 7.09.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: 11 any and all public advertisements for the availability of airy dog or cat for adoption,sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KINKOS PAGE 06 February 3, 2008 *J Honorable Mayor and City Couiacil Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and.Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft.resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordin4nce No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution istwhat was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The coLmcii agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fce reductions for spay,ncutet, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.1.21. Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set.forth by resolution of*the City Council or qualifaee or an exemption under Section 7,08.070 of this chapter. 7,09.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted.resolution contradicts the council.'s agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and reg_i.strati,on,required Councilman Bolu suggested an,addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, they it should,apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sates,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements.for the availability of any dog or cat fijr adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthaoized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I-firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,i oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and taxpayer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 40 6 C-/- ... 02/04/2008 14:31 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 01 Febmmy 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE., Ordinance No. 3798 and Resohrtion No 2008-5 r vebemeofly oppm the draft msalutiona No 2WX-5 for the proposed Spay,Neater,and Mictcochip(SW Otdiaw=No.3798 and urge the mayor and aU council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007- The council l apeed to dmp the ordinance and raise license fees instead. Ile e current voluntary licensing for deft wanald change to become regunred lieu for cats. License fees would be increased,using a derced scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, andlor microchips. A.dvettisemen s for dogs and cats m the Wow were also dis+cusmd. 7.08.121 Spat►and uba of da_ sad can The d mfWd resolu doo omits the eourtcil's agreeament to drop the awadatary Spay sad NeuW proposed ordinance. The draft continues to matte spay and neutering for all dogs and cm over six months of age. The draft states: "No person rimy ou-m keep,or harbor a dog or cat over the aV of site iv awks in violation of this.section wdess such person pan unaWred antmal fee as Bet forth by resohetion of tke City Council or qualifier for an exenspdon under Section 7.08.070 of#*chapter.., 7 091222 hffigNSW2 identificarhion of�gj!and The drafted m olution contradicts the oauncil's agreement to dap the mandatory microchip proposed ordinatic& ne dealt cot*nuaes to mandate mimuchips. Tl a draft states: "No person may 0%,4 I rep, or harbor a dog or cat over d w ague of six jambs t"times not Awvve a nnicrochip adentoiicarfon device." 7 08 0I0 LijLe=Bad wired Councilman Bohr snggested an addition to the resolution to inchWe the wqdremmt far a business license Ox newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppiesldogs and katt eudcats. I oppose this a quaement as it is discr ry. If a business license is required for advicetas -ae i iu the Weave,ttm it should apply to all ads.-for sale"posted in tbo'W4Ve,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resohmon doer,nit specify ads is the Wave,but instead suggests: --any and all public adverfisemews for the aradability of'any dog or cw fir adop don,sale,Barter or Other transfer inwt prromimndy display tote busfrwss Iketnse number in the advertisement." 7.0$050 License—Qmer dM to obtain The fee schedule is ariteafistic and will likely prevent most owners from liceaW ag at all. Statistics IbF HwMington Be wh digs a tbaaized due to shelter over mvi ding do not supgort the need for a mandated ordinavice. 15mgy oppose any noDdded spay,Re OW, or w1ccroc*ordinance. FUWICIImote,I oppose Bay discxiMinatory legislUtion. I urge You to miect the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much ring and I= payer dollars have been waste@ on this utnasce proposal already. espeactfiatly �C� — 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KIWOS PAGE 05 February 3, 2008 6� Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE.- Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordira�t ee No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution i 1W at was agreed on by the council on.November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and.raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing.for. cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal.fee as set forth by resolution gfthe City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microeluo identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states; "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a ,microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. 1.oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but.instead suggests: "...any and all Public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption. sale, .barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. ,i.frm.l.y oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,T oppose any discriminatory legislation. 1 urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, ,S,w 1-1-",--f_ REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED-08-001 Analysis: ` In April, 2007 the City Council passed an "H-Item" directing staff to research the costs and other issues associated with adopting a mandatory spay, neuter, and microchip ordinance similar to the one in Los Angeles County. On September 4, 2007, following a staff report, the City Council directed staff to draft a Spay, Neuter, and Microchip Identification Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance was to reduce uncontrolled breeding of dogs and cats in the City of Huntington Beach. On November 5, 2007, after discussing the proposed ordinance, the City Council determined that an incentive-based license fee program would be a preferred method of addressing the problem, and they directed staff to draft the ordinance. The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 7.08 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to licensing provisions for dogs and cats. If the City Council adopts this ordinance, it will be necessary to establish a license fee for dogs and cats. A Resolution establishing the license fees is also included on this Council Agenda. The proposed ordinance and resolution establish an incentive-based license fee program in an effort to encourage dog and cat owners to spay, neuter, and microchip their animals. The ordinance and resolution: • Require dogs and cats to be licensed and registered if over six months old. Previously, there was no provision that required cats to be licensed and registered. • Require owners of unaltered dogs and cats six months of age or older to pay an "unaltered animal fee" as set forth in the resolution unless the animal qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of the HBMC. Exemptions to the requirement for dogs and cats to be altered are provided when: • A veterinarian determines the surgery is unsafe for the animal due to age or condition of the animal. • The dog is used by a law enforcement agency for law enforcement purposes. • The dog is used as a service animal to assist the disabled. • The dog or cat has participated in a sanctioned show or sporting competition. • Proof that the owner is a member of an OCACS approved purebred dog or cat club. Establish a microchip identification program for dogs and cats 6 months of age or older unless implanting a microchip would put the animal at significant physical risk, and establish a license fee for unmicrochipped animals. • Require any person advertising to the public the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter, or other transfer to display a business license number in the advertisement. -2- 1/24/2008 9:00 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/4/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PD-08-001 Strategic Plan Goal: The proposed ordinance supports the following City of Huntington Beach Strategic Plan Goals: EngAgin_g the Community Education of the community regarding opportunities to become involved in reducing pet overpopulation. City Services The proposed program would improve the level of service provided to the City of . Huntington Beach by reducing the number of adoptable pets euthanized and the number of pets picked up as strays by OCACS. In addition, positive identification of animals through microchipping will help to ensure that more pets are returned to their owners. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(s): . 0 Uffib6f ion Ordinance No. 3798 2 Resolution No. 2 0 0 8-0 5 -3- 1/24/2008 9:00 AM February 4, 2008 — Council/Agency Agenda— Page 9 G-2a. (City Council) Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 3797 Amending Ordinance No. 3661 Which Established the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District(BID); Adopt Resolution No. 2008-04 Designating the Downtown Business Improvement District as the Downtown BID Advisory Board Communication submitted by the Director of Economic Development transmitting the following Statement of Issue: On September 7, 2004, City Council approved Ordinance 3661 establishing the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District (BID.) As required by state law, City Council appointed a "BID" Advisory Group" to provide recommendations to City Council regarding BID annual assessments. In order to better assess the needs of the Downtown BID, it is necessary to amend Ordinance 3661 to provide City Council the ability to appoint a BID Advisory Board by resolution. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. After City Clerk reads by title, Approve Introduction of Ordinance No.3797, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Ordinance No. 3661 Which Established the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District', by roll call vote and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-04, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the Downtown Business Improvement District as the Downtown BID Advisory Board" Approved 7-0 G-2b. (City Council) Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 3798 Amending Chapter 7.08 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Relating to Licensing Provisions for Dogs and Cats; Adopt Resolution No. 2008-05 Setting a License Fee for Dogs and Cats and Establishing an Incentive-Based Fee Program that Encourages Dog and Cat Owners to Spay, Neuter, and Microchip Their Animals Communication submitted by the Chief of Police transmitting the following Statement of Issue: On November 5, 2007, the City Council considered the adoption of an ordinance that established a mandatory spay, neuter, and microchip program for dogs and cats in Huntington Beach. After discussion, the City Council directed staff to draft an incentive-based licensing ordinance that would encourage dog and at owners to spay, neuter, and microchip their animals by increasing license fees for unaltered and unmicrochipped animals. The attached ordinance amends Chapter 7.08 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code to reflect the changes that were discussed at the City Council meeting. Funding Source: Not applicable February 4, 2008 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 10 Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. AfteF Gity reads by�i�4nnroVo lRtFe lUGtiGR of OrdiRanre No. 4�wf °4p QFdinanGe of the Gif a of Huntington BeaGh Angending ly by F011 Gall vote. M Cats" a d 2. Adopt Resolution a -�c�f� n of the City Go1inoil of tie . 28A8-06;�1 �,�,����t-lie Substitute motion to direct City Attorney to return to Council with an ordinance that revises the current language in Chapter 7.08 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to include: "any person advertising to the public the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter, or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. The license number shall also be provided to any person adopting or purchasing any dog or cat that is bred in the City of Huntington Beach"and to update rates consistent with current Orange County Animal Control fees. 6-0-1 (Bohr abstain) Council Comments-(Not Agendized) Councilmember Carchio announced the Edison High School Silent Auction on February 23, 2008 to benefit female student injured in ski accident. Councilmember Coerper thanked Mayor Cook for her support of the marathon. Mayor Cook thanked the 3'd grade class at St. Bonaventure school for their handmade cards. At this time Councilmembers may report on items not specifically described on the agenda which are of interest to the community. No action or discussion may be taken except to provide staff direction to report back or to place the item on a future agenda. Council/Agency Adjournment at 12:12 a.m. to Tuesday, February 19, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. CounciUA'gencyAgendas and Minutes are Available,at No Charge to the Public at-fhe Ci#y Clerk's`"Office, on',the City's Website, Via?Email; and Through Paid: Subscription. Complete Agenda Packetsare Ayailable*at the Central Library and Library Branches on Friday Pnor' to Meetings. Videotapes of Council Meetings are Available for Checkout-at the"Central; Library�at`No Charge.Videos�tof City Council Meetings from December 19; 2005 to present; are°available to view atxno cost on the City,'s Website�;. http://www surFcit =hb.or / overnment/agendas&minutes ` Y 9 9 n. ;.. JOAN L. FLYNN, CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Second Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 COMPUTER INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA WITH STAFF REPORTS IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS http.,Ilwww.surfcity-hb.org ATTACHMENT # 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3798 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 7.08 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LICENSING PROVISIONS FOR DOGS AND CATS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 7.08.010 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.010 License and registration required. No person owning, having an interest in, or having control, custody or possession of any dog or cat shall fail, neglect or refuse to license and register such dog or cat if over six (6) months of age in compliance with the terms of this chapter. A violation of this section is an INFRACTION, and upon,a conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (18, -2/18, 509-4147, 885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1555-3/70, 1815-3/73, 1905-3/74, 1907-5174, Urg.Ord.2034-1/76) Any person advertising to the public the availability'of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. The license number shall also be provided to any person adopting or purchasing any dog or cat that is bred in the City of Huntington Beach. SECTION 2. Section 7.08.020 of: the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.020 License--Transferability. No,dog or cat license is transferable, except in the following circumstances: (a) Upon payment of a two dollar($2) fee, a new license may be issued to a new owner of a dog or cat that was previously licensed by the city when said license is still current. (b) Upon payment of a two dollar ($2) fee, a new resident of the city may be issued a new license for his dog or cat in the following circumstances: (i) The dog was previously licensed in another jurisdiction and said license is current and valid through June 30 following the date of application; (ii) Said previous license is presented for cancellation; and (iii)The owner presents a valid rabies inoculation certificate which is effective through June 30 following the date of application. Any new license issued pursuant to this section shall be renewed pursuant to section 7.08.050 of this code. (885-1162, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76, 2281-5/78) SECTION 3. Section 7.08.030 of the Huntington Beach Munici al e ke by deleted in its entirety. NO A s` ,. T A „.l 3' N! 17848 1 .^�.�'� Ord. No. 3798 i SECTION 4. Subsection (b) of Section 7.08.040 is hereby amended to include reference to cat, as follows: (b) The City Animal License Inspector shall keep a record of the name, address and telephone number of the owner of the dog or cat, or person making payment of the license fee, and to whom a certificate and tag shall have been issued, and the number and date of such certificate. Such metal tag issued for the current license year shall be securely fastened to the collar or harness of the dog, and shall be worn by such dog at all times other than those periods when confined to the owner's house, enclosed yard or pen. :A duplicate of a lost license tag may be procured from the City Animal License Inspector upon proof of loss and payment of two dollars ($2). (1279-2/67, 1905-4/74, 1907-5/74,Urg. Ord.20134-1/76) SECTION 5. Section 7.08.050 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.050 License--Owner duty to obtain. Any owner, with the .exceptions herein provided, of a dog or cat over the age of six (6) months in the city shall obtain a license and pay an original or renewal license fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council on or before the effective date of this section and July 1 of each year thereafter. The license fee for a spayed or altered dog or cat shall be as set forth by resolution of the City Council. The owner has the burden of proof to show the dog or cat has been spayed or altered. Except that the license fee shall be one-half(1/2) the.regular fee for the following: (a) Any owner of a dog or cat establishing residence in the city after December 31 of any year; (b) Any owner of a dog or cat acquired after December 31 of any year; (c) Any owner of a dog or cat which had not reached the age of six (6) months by December 31 of a year. Original license fees shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days after any dog or cat is acquired and comes into the care, custody and control of any person in the city. (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1555-2/70, 1872-11173, Urg. 00.2034-1/76,2246-1178,2406-2/80, 2435-7/80) SECTION 6. Section T O8.060 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.060 License--Penalty fees. Any person who fails to pay the required dog or cat license fee prior to August 1 each year shall pay, in addition to the license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent of the original or renewal license fee. Any person who fails to obtain an original license within thirty (30) days after his/her owning any dog or cat or any dog or cat coming into his/her care, custody and control in this city shall pay in addition to the original license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent (50%) of the original license fee. (1907-5/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76, Urg. Ord. 2084-6/76) SECTION 7. Section 7.08.070 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: T � :0 2 _ i 7s4s M Ord. No. 3798 7.08.070 License--Exempted animals. No license fee shall be required for the following: (a) Service dogs, including therapy dogs; I (b) Dogs honorably discharged from the armed forces of the United States; ` r` (c) Dogs or cats in the care, custody and control of nonresidents who are traveling through the city, or temporarily staying in the city for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days, or dogs or cats temporarily brought into the city for the exclusive purpose of being entered in a bench show or dog or cat exhibition, provided such dogs or cats are so 'entered and not kept elsewhere in the city; SECTION 8. Section 7.08.075 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby added to Chapter 7.08, said section to read as follows: 7.08.075 Proof of Exemption. When licensing a dog or cats`that has not been altered, a Huntington Beach resident shall provide proof of an exemption:' The following documents will be considered as support to a waiver of the requirement to alter/ii pet: (a) A signed letter from a veterinarian verifying and providing medical support for claims that altering would put the animal at significant physical risk; (b) Verification of law enforcement status from:the law enforcement unit employing the animal; (c) A certification from a qualified training organization verifying that the animal has been trained and is employed as a service animal; (d) Proof of participation in a sanctioned dog or cat show or sporting competition (e.g., receipt for entry fee, certificate indicating participation, proof of title earned as a result of competition, etc.); (e) Proof of the owner's membership in an OCACS-approved purebred dog or cat club representing the breed of the dog or cat to be licensed. SECTION 9. Section 7.08.080 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.080 License--Shown to license inspector. No person shall fail or refuse to show to the City Animal License Inspector or any police officer, the license and the tag for any duly registered dog or cat kept or remaining in any home or upon any enclosed premises under his immediate control. A violation of-this section is an INFRACTION, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) SECTION 10. Section 7.08.110 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended read as follows: 4�j 17848 3 ATTAC H M E N T #2 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: POLICE SUBJECT: Ordinance to Increase License Fees for Unaltered and Unmicrochipped Dogs and Cats COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2008 -, -RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS . Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATICO FOR-WSSNG AVACHWEENT _ REVIEWED RETURNIE®` FO `DE® Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Deputy City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN! OF ITEM:: RCA Author: Lt.Tom Donnelly, Police Department CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � Interdepartmental Communication TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorney DATE: February 4, 2008 SUBJECT: Late Communication February 4, 2008 Agenda Item G-2b ,33-98 Revisions were necessary to Ordinance No. 2,R� and the legislative draft accompanying the ordinance. Please replace the legislative draft of Chapter 7.08 and Ordinance No. A40&-05, with the attached revised versions of both of these documents. �� JENNIFER McGRATH City Attorney Attachments as above /K c: Joan Flynn, City Clerk Paul Emery, Acting City Administrator i rCX7�64J U 18641 NO ACTION ORDINANCE NO. 3-198 TAKEN AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 7.08 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LICENSING PROVISIONS FOR DOGS AND CATS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain follows: SECTION 1. Section 7.08.010 of the Huntington Beach Mur i' is pal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: l 7.08.010 License and registration required. No person owning, having an interest in, or having control, custody or possession of any dog or cat shall fail, neglect or refuse to license and register such dog or cat if over six (6) months of age in compliance with the terms of this chapter. A violation of this section is an INFRACTION, and upon a conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (189-2/1811509-4/47, 885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1555-3/70, 1815-3/73, 1905-3/74, 1907-5/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76) Any person advertising to the public the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. The license number shall also be provided to any person,adopting or purchasing any dog or cat that is bred in the City of Huntington Beach. SECTION 2. Section 7.08.020 of thq°'Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.020 License--Transferability. No deg or cat license is transferable, except in the following circumstances: ' (a) Upon payment of a two dollar fee, a new license may be issued to a new owner of a dog or cat that was previously licelr'sed by the city when said license is still current. (b) Upon payment of a two dollar ($2) fee, a new resident of the city may be issued a new license for his dog or cat,fn the following circumstances: r (i) The dog was previously licensed in another jurisdiction and said license is current and valid through June 30 following the date of application; l' (ii) Said previous license is presented for cancellation; and (iii)The owner presents a valid rabies inoculation certificate which is effective through June 30 following the date of application. Any new license issued pursuant to this section shall be renewed pursuant to section 7.08.050 of this code. ,(885-1/62, Urg.Ord.2034-1/76, 2281-5/78) SECTION 3. Section 7.08.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. 17848 1 SECTION 4. Subsection (b) of Section 7.08.040 is hereby amended to include reference to cat, as follows: (b) The City Animal License Inspector shall keep a record of the name, add ss and telephone number of the owner of the dog or cat, or person making payment of th license fee, and to whom a certificate and tag shall have been issued, and the numb and date of such certificate. Such metal tag issued for the current license year shall be sl�`curely fastened to the collar or harness of the dog, and shall be worn by such dog at all/times other than those periods when confined to the owner's house, enclosed yard or pert'.' A duplicate of a lost license tag may be procured from the City Animal License Inspec�ar upon proof of loss and payment of two dollars ($2). (1279-2/67, 1905-4/74, 1907-5/74,Urg.Ord°2034-1/76) SECTION 5. Section 7.08.050 of the Huntington Beach' Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.050 License--Owner duty to obtain. Any owner, with the exceptions herein provided, of a dog or cat over the age of six (6) months in the city shall obtain a license and pay an original or renewal license fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council on or before the effective date of this section and July 1 of each year thereafter. r' The license fee for a dog or cat shall be as set forth by reesolution of the City Council. The owner has the burden of proof to show the dog or cat has been spayed, altered and/or microchipped. Except that the license fee shall be one-half(1/2) the regular fee for the following: 1 (a) Any owner of a dog or cat establishing residence in the city after December 31 of any year; (b) Any owner of a dog or cat acquired after December 31 of any year; (c) Any owner of a dog or cat which had riot reached the age of six (6) months by December 31 of a year. Original license fees shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days after any dog or cat is acquired and comes into the care, custody and control of any person in the city. (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1555-2/70, 1872-11/73, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76,2246-1/78,2406-2/80,2435-7/80) SECTION 6. Section 7,08.060 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.060 License--Penalty fees. Any person who fails to pay the required dog or cat license fee prior to August 1 each year/ shall pay, in addition to the license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent of the original or renewal license fee. f' Any person who failsfto obtain an original license within thirty (30) days after his/her owning any dog or cat or any dog or cat coming into his/her care, custody and control in this city shall pay in addition to,,l'the original license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent (50%) of the original license fee. (1907-5/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76, Urg. Ord. 2084-6/76) SECTION 7. Section 7.08.070 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: NO AC _rl I ION 17848 2 TAKEN 7.08.070 License--Exempted animals. No license fee shall be required for the follring: (a) Service dogs, including therapy dogs; (b) Dogs honorably discharged from the armed forces of the United States; (c) Dogs or cats in the care, custody and control of nonresidents who are ty'aveling through the city, or temporarily staying in the city for a period not exceeding thirty(30) days, or dogs or cats temporarily brought into the city for the exclusive purpose of being entered in a bench show or dog or cat exhibition, provided such dogs or cats are so/Ientered and not kept elsewhere in the city; SECTION 8. Section 7.08.075 of the Huntington Beach /Municipal Code is hereby added to Chapter 7.08, said section to read as follows: 7.08.075 Proof of Exemption. When licensing a dog or eat that has not been altered, a Huntington Beach resident shall provide proof of an exemption. The following documents will be considered as support to a waiver of the requirement to alter a pet: (a) A signed letter from a veterinarian verifying and providing medical support for claims that altering would put the animal at significant physical risk; (b) Verification of law enforcement status from the law enforcement unit employing the animal; (c) A certification from a qualified training organization verifying that the animal has been trained and is employed as a service animal; (d) Proof of participation in a sanctioned dog or cat show or sporting competition (e.g.., receipt for entry fee, certificate indicating participation, proof of title earned as a result of competition,etc_); (e) Proof of the owner's membership in an OCACS-approved purebred dog or cat club representing the breed.of the dog or cat to be licensed. SECTION 9. Section 7.08.080 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.08.080 License--Shown to license inspector. No person shall fail or refuse to show to the City Animal License Inspector or any police officer, the license and the tag for any duly registered dog or cat kept or remaining in any home or upon any enclosed premises under his immediate control. A violation 'of this section is an INFRACTION, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine-not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76) SECTION 10. Section 7.08.110 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended read as follows: A N 0 17848 3 TAKEN 7.08.110 License--Vaccination certificate. Every person applying for a dog or cat license must exhibit a certificate issued by a person licensed by the state to practice veterinary/medicine, which certificate shall show that the dog or cat for which the license shall be issued'; either has been vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance of the county of Orange, or should not be so vaccinated by reason of age, infirmity or other disability. Such exemption shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year. A license for any dog or cat shglll not be issued unless and until such certificate is exhibited. (Urg. Ord. 641-2156, 885-1/62, 1279-2167, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) ' r s SECTION 11. Sections 7.08.121 and 7.08.122 are hereby added/to Chapter 7.08, said sections to read as follows: rr 7.08.121 Microchip identification of does and cats. The purpose of requiring microchipping is to provide a reliable method of identifying pets for a successful owiier reunification process. The owner or custodian of a dog or cat must provide appropriate,documentation of microchipping upon the request of the City or its designee. Exceptions will be considered when there exists a signed letter from a veterinarian verifying and providing medical support for claims that implanting a microchip would put the animal at signi ficant physical risk. l 7.08.122 Microchippingay and neutering of dogf and cats. No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pays the appropriate fee as set forth by resolution of the"City Council or qualifies for an exemption. SECTION 12. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a 1 regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200_— Mayor ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED: I City Clerk Chief of Police REVIEW A APPROVED: D AS TO FORM: City Admini ator r City Attorney 2 4 flK5 NU N TAKEN 17848 4 i RESOLUTION NO. 2008-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIJ/Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SETTING A LICENSE YEEE FOR DOGS AND CATS '' r' WHEREAS, Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 708 authorizes the City to set a fee for dog and cat licenses for owners who live in Huntington each; and The City Council wishes to revise the fees in Sectiop'17.08050 and has determined that the fees set forth in this resolution are fair and reasonable, F NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the/City of Huntington does hereby adopt the fees set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached her¢fo and by this reference made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Citouncil of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20 Mayor REVIEW AP ROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator ,P Chi Poli �_�8_pg APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ai y Attorne 31 x � ; ail 07-1 25 1/1 6021 Resolution No. 2008-05 PET LICENSING FEE SCHEDULE License Cost Sterilized, microchipped Dog $23.00 ' Dog (Senior owner $11.50 65 years and up, one discount per household) r Cat $5.00 Sterilized, not microchipped Dog $48.00 Dog (Senior owner $36.50 65 years and up, one discount per household) Cat $30.00/ Unaltered, not microchipped Dog Spay(female) ,$213.00 Neuter(male) '$193.00 Oft x Do Senior owner 65 years and up, one � Discount per household) � 2 Spay (female) $201.50 Ti � '; 1 Neuter(male) $181.50 t° Cat Spay (female) $125.00 Neuter(male) $105.00 Unaltered, microchipped Dog Spay(female) $188.00 Neuter(male) $168.00 Dog (Senior owner 65 years and up, one: Discount per household) Spay (female) $176.50 Neuter(male) $156.50 Cat Spay (female) $100.00 Neuter(male) $80.00 07-1 25 1/1 602 1 EXHIBIT A 2 Ordinance No LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Chapter 7.08 LICENSING PROVISIONS (324-5/29, 509-4147, 522-6/48, Urg. Ord.641-2/56, 885-1/62, 1088-9/64, 1279-1/67, 1555-2/ 0, 1557-2/70, 1815-2/73, 1872-11/73, 189-2/18,1905-3/74, 1907-5/74, 1910-6/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/ 6, Urg. Ord. 2084-6/76,2246-1/78,2281-5/78, 2406-2/80,2435-7/80,2475-5/81, 3751- 1/06) Sections: 7.08.010 License and registration required r 7.08.020 License--Transferability / 7.08.040 License--Tags, certificates issued 7.08.050 License--Owner duty to obtain / 7.08.060 License--Penalty fees NU ACTION 7.08.070 License--Exempted animals 7.08.075 Proof of Exemption. 7.08.080 License--Shown to license inspector 7.08.090 Removal of tags and collars TAKEN 7.08.100 Counterfeiting tags ` 7.08.110 License--Vaccination certificate 7.08.120 Guard dog registration 7.08.121 Microchip identification dogs and cats 7.08.122 Microchipping, spay ano neutering of dogs and cats 7.08.130 (Deleted—Ord. No. 3751-11 06) 7.08.140 Repealed, Ord. 2246-1/78/ 7.08.010 License and registration required. No person owning, having an interest in, or having control, custody or possession of any dog or cat shall fail, neglect or refuse to license and register such dog or cat if over f (4)six (6) months of age in compliance with the terms of this chapter. A violation of this seytion is an INFRACTION, and upon a conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (189-2/18, 509-4/47, 885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1555-3/70, 1815-3/73, 190W3174, 1907-5/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) Any parson advertisin to the public the availability of any do or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the/advertisement. The license number shall also be provided to any person adopting or purchasing any dog or cat that is bred in the City of Huntington Beach. 7.08.020 License--Transferability. No dog or cat license is transferable, except in the following circumstafices: r' (a) Upon payment of a two dollar($2) fee, a new license may be issued to a new owner of a dog or cat that,was previously licensed by the city when said license is still current. (b) Upon payment of a two dollar($2) fee, a new resident of the city may be issued a new license for his dog or cat in the following circumstances: f (i) The dog was previously licensed in another jurisdiction and said license is current and valid through June 30 following the date of application; (ii) Said previous license is presented for cancellation; and Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 1 of 4 07-1251/16002 (iii)The owner presents a valid rabies inoculation certificate which is effective through June 30 following the date of application. Any new license issued pursuant to this section shall be renewed pursuant to section 7.08.050 of this code. (885-1/62, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76, 2281-5/78) 1 ' 7.08.040 License--Tags, certificates issued. (a) A metallic tag or other means of permanent identification, such as tattooing, and license certificate with corresponding numbers shall be furnished by the City Animal License Inspector or one of his authorized agents, to any person required by this chapter to obtain a license upon payment of the appropriate fee prescribed in this chapter. Said person shall bear the cost of the permanent identification if other°than a metallic tag is chosen by said person. 11 (b) The City Animal License Inspector shall keep a record of the name, address and telephone number of the owner of the dog or cat, or person making payment of the license fee, and to whom a certificate and tag shall have been issued, and the number and date of such certificate. Such metal tag issued for the current license year shall be securely fastened to the collar or harness of the dog, and shall be worn by such dog at all times other than those periods when confined to the owner'.Aouse, enclosed yard or pen. A duplicate of a lost license tag may be procured from the City Animal License Inspector upon proof of loss and payment of two dollars ($2). (1279-2/67, 1905-4/74, 1907-5/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76) 7.08.050 License--Owner duty to.obtain. Any owner, with the exceptions herein provided, of a dog or cat over the age of fe�{4)six (6) months in the city shall, and eAthe eptien of the ev,,nef of a eat , obtain a license and pay an original or renewal license fee of twelve and- 50/100ths dell fs (Q'50)as/set forth by resolution of the City Council on or before the effective date of this section and July 1 of each year thereafter. The license fee for a­ ,- ,,•a'*ert dog or cat shall be as set forth by resoluti n of the City Council. The owner has the burden of proof to show the dog or cat has been payed,er altered and/or nnicrochipped. Except that the licens e fee shall be one-half(1/2)the regular fee for the following: (a) Any owner of or cat establishing residence in the city after December 31 of any year; (b) Any owner of a dog or cat acquired after December 31 of any year; (c) Any owner of a dog or cat which had not reached the age of feu(4)six (6) months by December 31 of a year. Original license fees shall be due and payable within thirty(30) days after any dog or cat is acquired and comes into the care, custody and control of any person in the city. (885-1/62, 1279-2/67s. 1555-2/70, 1872-11/73, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76,2246-1/78, 2406-2/80,2435-7/80) 7.08.060 License--Penalty. Any person who fails to pay the required dog or cat license fee prior to August 1, 1976, and„r of to Aug each year thereafter shall pay, in addition to the license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent of the original or renewal license fee. Any person who fails to obtain an original license within thirty(30) days after his/her owning any dog or cat or any dog or cat coming into his/her care, custody and control in this city shall pay Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 2 of 4 07-1251/16002 in addition to the original license fee, a penalty fee of 50 percent (50%) of the original license fee. (1907-5/74, Urg. Ord.2034-1/76, Urg. Ord.2084-6/76) 7.08.070 License--Exempted animals. No license fee shall be required for the following: (a) Seeing eye Service dogs, including therapy dogs; (b) Dogs honorably discharged from the armed forces of the United States; (c) Dogs or cats in the care, custody and control of nonresidents who are/traveling through the city, or temporarily staying in the city for a period not exceeding thi4"(30) days, or dogs or cats temporarily brought into the city for the exclusive purpose of 6eing entered in a bench show or dog or cat exhibition, provided such dogs or cats are so entered and not kept elsewhere in the city;(d) Dogs undef the ear-e, eustedy or-eefitfel of-, of owned by setiier-eitizeiis r-emain obligated te `f r heeiise their-deg(s)regardless ef the heense fee exemptiefl., - shall e obligated te pay r penalty fees f li r late es l.ofte:.. aleg(S). (8866 1/62, 12 9 2/ 7 1656 2170 1905 4/74 1907 6,74 a J� 7.08.075 Proof of Exemption. When licensing a dog or cat that has not been altered, a Huntington Beach resident sha l4rovide proof of an exemption. The following documents will be considered as support to a waiver of the requirement to alter a pet: (a) A signed letter from a veterinarian verifying and providing medical support for claims that alteping would put the animal at significant physical risk; ; (b) Verification of law enforcement status from the law enforcement unit employing the animal; FS� (c) A certification froniva qualified training organization verifying that the animal has been trr'lned and is employed as a service animal; (d) Proof of participation in a sanctioned dog or cat show or sporting competition (e.g.s receipt for entry fee, certificate indicating participation proof of title earned as a result of competition, etc); (e) Proof of the owner's membership in an ®CACS-approved purebred dog or cat'club representing the breed of the dog or cat to be licensed. 7.08.080 License.' Shown to license inspector. No person shall fail or refuse to show to the City Animal License Inspector or any police officer,the license and the tag for any duly registered dog or cat kept or remaining in any home or upon any enclosed premises under his immediate control. A violation of this section is an INFRACTION, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) RIO ACTION Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 3 of 4 07-1251/16002 TAKEN 7.08.090 Removal of tags and collars. No unauthorized person shall remove from any dog or cat any collar, harness, or other device to which is attached a registration tag for the current year or to remove such tag therefrom. A violation of this section is an INFRACTION, and upon a conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) 7.08.100 Counterfeiting tags. No person shall imitate or counterfeit the tags in this chapter provided for, or shall use any imitation or counterfeit of such tag. (885-1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) r n 7.08.110 License--Vaccination certificate. Every person applying for a dog`®r cat license must exhibit a certificate issued by a person licensed by the state to practice veterinary medicine, which certificate shall show that the dog or cat for which the license shall be issued, either has been vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance of the county of Orange, or should not be so vaccinated by reason of age, infirmity or other disability. Such exemption shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1)year. A license for any dog or cat shall not be issued unless and until such certificate is exhibited. (Urg. Ord.641-2/56, 885t1/62, 1279-2/67, 1905-3/74, Urg. Ord. 2034-1/76) y" 7.08.120 Guard dog registration. °} (a) No person owning, having custody, charge, control orV&ssession of a dog bred or trained formally to attack shall fail to register such animal as'a guard dog by so indicating in the space provided on the animal license form. (b) No person owning, having custody, charge, control or possession of a guard dog on nonresidential property shall fail to post signs of sufficient size and design on his premises giving adequate notice and warning to the public of the presence of such guard dog. (c) Any person owning, having custody, charge, control or possession of a guard dog who fails or refuses to comply with any provision ofYfhis section, and who causes, permits or allows such guard dog to harm or injure any city employee while acting within the scope of his official duties, shall be guilty of a MISDEMEANOR, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of$500 or six (6)monthsin the county jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day or portion thereof such person fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this section shall be deemed a separate offense, and shall be punishable as provided herein. (324-5/29, 522-6/48, 885-1/62, 1088Z9/64, 1279-1/67, 1557-2/70, 1815-2/73, 1905-3/74, 1910-6/74, 2406-2/80, 2475-5/81) y� F l 7.08.121 Microchip identification of dogs and cats. The purpose of requiring microchipping is to�,rprovide a reliable method of identifying pets for a successful owner reunification process. The owner or custodian of a dog or cat must provide appropriate documentation of microchipping upon the request of the Ci, or its designee. Exceptions will be considered when there exists a signed Metter from a veterinarian verifying and providing medical support for claims that implanting a microchip would put the animal at significant physical risk. 7.08.122 Microchip ping, spay and neutering of dogs and cats. No person may own, keep, ,or harbor a dog or cat over the age ®f six months in violation of this section' unless such person pays the appropriate fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exem3ption. NU ACTMN Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.08 Page 4 of 4 07-1251/16002 TAKEN Citizen Communications Spay, Neuter and Microchip Program 02/04/200� Council Meeting US- 9 6 Foxliall Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646i _ ti December 12,2007 Iluntington'Beach Crty;C©uIIcil` . 2600 Main Street Hizritington Beach;:CA,9264b Dear 1Vlayor Cook and City Council Members,, I am writing to support the upcommg:pay/Neuter City.Ordinance As the Vice- President of Catnip and Carrots Animal Bunch,which was founded ui Huntirton,Beach, , of-dic-need orspay g zneutenuag `ftr -'=� of animals are destined to die due to,overpopulation and taus is a very sad state of affairs. You have watered down-the:orig�a] ordutance that.was°presented in the past;please don't'water it down any-further 'If you had just spent one or twaweekends volunteering for a re$cue soup who is trying to place"throw-away'animals,.then you w7 .ould really understand the plight of these helpless creatures: Please,please,don't cave to the money driven breeders who proclaim they do what they d, to preserve a certain breed:"If they didn't get paid for their animal's affspnng,.they wouldn't breed there! And-ttlats-a fact! I beg of you to give the"green light"to this ordinance and stem the tide of animal overpopulation that leads-:to countless'animals"being condemned-to death. Do the right thin t g ` Thank:you„for your consideration Sincerely; Charlean E. Allen Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:19 AM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Concerning the proposed spay, neuter and microchip program for dogs and cats Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Victoria Anderson [mailto:victand78@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Concerning the proposed spay, neuter and microchip program for dogs and cats Concerning: the proposed spay, neuter and microchip program for dogs and cats. As a citizen of Huntington Beach and a pet owner, one of the objections I have concerning the proposal is forced microchipping. It has recently come to light that the microchip could cause cancer. This has been proven in animal studies. Furthermore, none of these microchip companies will guarantee that their product does not cause illness. For example, one of the microchips Huntington Beach vets use is the Avid Animal Identification System. The frequently asked questions section of the Avid web site does not even address the risk. A number of animal studies were done which showed rapidly growing sarcomas germinating around microchips implanted in mice. The studies were only recently exposed by the Associated Press. Some of the known tests were: A study conducted by toxicologic pathologist Keith Johnson at the Dow Chemical Company. Johnson said in a phone interview with AP "the transponders were the cause of the tumors". A study conducted in Germany in 1997 that found 1 per cent of over 4,000 RFID chipped mice had cancer which the authors concluded were "clearly due to the implanted microchips". A study conducted in France in 2006 where tumors were detected in 4.1 per cent of mice with microchip implants. The scientists were not looking for cancer induced by microchips when they started the study. A study conducted in Ridgefield, Connecticut, in 1998, on 177 mice that suggested the incidence of cancer was raised by just over 10 percent. As in the France 2006 study, the scientists stumbled across the findings while researching something else. The Ridgefield scientist concluded the anchor which holds the microchip in place was the cancer causing 11/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 irritant. The anchoring barb became a necessary component of the microchip when it was discovered that a large percentage of non-barbed implanted chips were uncontrollably relocating. The AP had the studies reviewed by pre-eminent cancer institutions. The AP said the reaction of Dr Robert Benezra,head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was an example of the overall reactions by the reviewing scientists. Dr. Benezra said "There's no way in the world, having read this information,that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members." Our pets are a member of our family. If removal of the chip became critical, such as if cancer was present, we pet owners would be unable to act. Once implanted in our pets, the microchip cannot be removed. Not even surgically. This is a direct quote from the Avid website: "Once implanted, the identity tag is virtually impossible to retrieve. Surgical removal, using the most advanced radiograph techniques available, is extremely difficult." hftp://mai1.avidid.com/web/technology/index.htmi. In light of these recent publically exposed dangers associated with microchips, I ask the City Counsel to delete the microchip portion of the proposed spay/neuter ordinance. Victoria Anderson Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. 11/30/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: BeansOnWindfall@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:32 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Dog Neutering I am writing to you to ask you to vote no on making it mandatory to have dogs neutered and chipped. It is very clear that because you have in the proposal an 'opt out' by paying a fee that this is nothing more than a way to get more of the citizens money to spend. It is not about animal protection. If it was truly about animal protection it would be a proposal that included city funding to help defray the cost to dog owners to have their pets fixed and chipped. This proposal is nothing more than a money grab cloaked in animal protection. It is an irresponsible proposal that will do nothing for the real issue. Responsible pet owners take care of their pets, irresponsible pet owners do not. Irresponsible pet owners will always be that and nothing you vote on will change it. Do you think that all the irresponsible pet owners will just all of a sudden jump up and pay to get their pets fixed because you passed this intrusive mandation? If you answer yes to that question, you have no business being on the city council because you live in a dream world, not the real world. We need responsible people running our city, not those living in a dream world, and we do not need ones that are adding more financial burden to responsible pet owners with this very intrusive proposal. Janet Bean See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 11/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Leah Buckler[leahblash@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 3:23 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Pet Law Dear City Council Members, My husband and I are very much against this law. The city does not have a right to interfere with the personal lives and responsibilities of its citizens. We are pet owners. We buy licenses for our pets (which are very expensive), we obey leash laws, and do not allow our dogs to bark excessively. We also don't let our dogs wander the neighborhood. Why should we be penalized for others who do not do what we do? If we choose to breed our animals, we will do so responsibly. We should not be penalized $150 for not wanting to comply with this so called law. We already pay enough in city tax. Does the city council have anything better to do with its time and our tax dollars?Please reconsider when you vote and remember the people of this great city who you represent! Sincerely, Greg and Leah Buckler Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 11/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:35 AM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Mandatory spay & neuter Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Karen Chambers [mailto:oceanskaren@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 5:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Against mandatory spay and neuter, Congress voted no, we ask you to vote no We respectfully ask that you vote no on the mandatory spay and neuter. It is a proven fact that this does not work in reducing unwanted pets or making people more responsible pet owners. It is also a proven fact that mandatory spay and neuter does increase the number of pets that are killed every year by the humane society and the cost to the city and tax payers is outrageous. Congress even voted against this same measure as it has been proven not to solve the problem of unwanted pets. Mandatory spay and neuter is wrong, it does not solve the problem of unwanted pets and the biggest issue is that it is taking our rights away as American Citizens. As American citizens we should have the right to decide weather we spay or neuter our own pets. Please vote no on mandatory spay and neuter. Thank you, Karen Chambers 12/10/2007 ANIMAL ISSUES MOVEMENT 420 N. Bonnie Brae Street Los Angeles, CA 90026-4925 (2I3)413-6428/413-SPAY(PH/FAXQ All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke !November 7,2007 Mayor Gil Coerper City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Honorable Mayor and Council: SPAY/NEUTER ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION(MEETING OF NOV.5,2007) As a former resident of Huntington Beach and Director of an animal-welfare organization originating in Orange County,I am in total support of your efforts toward a strong spay/neuter-incentive program and enforceable ordinance to reduce pet overpopulation. I take exception to a comment regarding the City of Los Angeles made by Mr.Bill Hamby of PetPac(breeders`org.)at the 11/5 hearing. Mr.Hemby stated that he had met"all day today(11/5)with members of the City Attorneys office in Los Angeles...°and'...1 pretty much assure you that that ordnance will not contain a mandatory spay/neuter program after my meeting with their animal rights groups and the others I met with.' I was present at this small,unofficial,discussion group in which Mr.Hemby participated on 11/5 for 2-1/2 hours and which included only one Deputy City Attorney,myself and one LAAS Commissioner. The meeting was requested by a local breeder and the purpose was to provide focus on the causes of pet overpopulation and sheltering problems in Los Angeles. Mr.Hamby and two breeders attended to provide input and suggest possible solutions. There was no official discussion regarding particulars of any pending spay/neuter ordnance for L.A.City,and it was made very clear by the representative of the City Attorneys office that at this time there are a number of drafts and approaches being considered and no specific language has been developed. White I spoke against including the word'mandatory",that was merely a personal opinion,not the consensus of those present. I sincerely hope that it was not Mr.Hemby's intention to imply that he had influenced the outcome of any Council action on this matter as a result of this casual and informal discussion session.While he is certainly entitled to a personal opinion,any projection that the City of Los Angeles has made a decision on its approach to its spay/neuter ordnance is premature and unfounded at this time and certainly should not be projected in an attempt to discourage or influence the passage of a suitable and workable measure for Huntington Beach. What has already helped in the City of Los Angeles is the licensing differential which provides a financial incentive to spay/neuter because an altered pet can be licensed annually for$15,while an unaltered license is$100. This was not a punitive nor arbitrary amount..,it was designed to provide an incentive that would cover most—if not all—af the cost of altering an animal as a one-time expense,versus the higher annual license fee. This immediately brought and has continued to bring the desired results—lower impounds and a higher percentage of altered pets. An unaltered animal is much more likely to roam in search of a mate and cause traffic hazards,engage in fighting over a potential breeding opportunity,and create a public nuisance in terms of sanitation,pubic health and safety, It is therefore not discriminatory to ask that the owner pay for the potential expense of the higher risk,much in the way that insurance premiums are based upon actuarial tables and potential increased costs,not just individual history. I hope that you will also consider including in your final ordinance the provisions that anyone involved in breeding and selling animals or importing and selling animals in your city must have a business license,city tax permit and a Seller's Permit issued by the CA Board of Equalization. It is only fair that those who profit should pay their fair share to support the impact on the municipality and the environment and should abide by the same laws as other business enterprises. As one who has spent many years in animal-protection work,I can assure you that reducing the tragedy of pet overpopulation cannot be accomplished merely by education and increased sheltering.Those who continue to breed irresponsibly and add to the surplus animals which overburden animal shelters and taxpayers are not swayed by pleas to act with consideration of the impact and suffering. S' ly, lis M.Daugherty,Di for Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: diane@oco.net Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:27 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Some discounts applied to pet licensing (would be great if the county would do this county wide) Please read below: I particularly like#1, because to pass that test you must show that your dog has a reasonable degree of manners in public. And anyone who goes to the trouble of training at dog to have basic manners is more likely to be bonded enough to that animal to never allow him to become a problem to society. And the owner will have gained a degree of understanding of what behavior or level of respect to the public they must endeavor to maintain with their dog. It is not a difficult test compared to competition tests. (this was copied from a set of rules from another community). D] Dog license fees will be set by the jurisdiction and will be discounted in recognition of practices that demonstrate responsible ownership. In no case will a discount bring the cost of the license below a base established by the jurisdiction. Discounts will be applied for the following practices: 1. completion of an AKC Canine Good Citizen course and test; 2. proof of an obedience title awarded by a nationally respected organization such as the American Kennel Club; 3. permanent identification of the dog by microchip or tattoo; 4. confinement of the dog behind a secure fence; 5. membership in an obedience club, kennel club, or other dog organization that promotes responsible ownership; 6. active participation in dog sports, search and rescue activities,therapy dog visits; or 7. participation in a dog rescue program certified by the jurisdiction. 11/8/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparta, Patty From: Maranto [gooddog53@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Proposed Dog Legislation Thank you for hearing the concerns of responsible dog owners of Huntington Beach. If mandatory spay/neuter and microchipping was the answer, I would support it. But it is not. Passing laws on residents who are not the problem does nothing but violate our freedoms. What's more American than owning a dog. Also, the statistics don't support this perceived problem. Everyone I know that has a pet dog spays or neuters their dogs. My dog friends who compete with their dogs do not spay or neuter for part of the dog's life. Once the dog is finished competing, then the dog is usually spayed or neutered. Many of these dogs are never bred; but if they are it's after careful consideration and tons of genetic testing so the breed becomes better. Don't punish us good guys. We're the ones who go to work, pay our taxes, and are model citizens. We're the ones who donate to many animal shelters and volunteer our time. Sincerely, Susan Diersing 11/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: advisory board Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Cyndi Farrington [mailto:cyndi@csulb.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:28 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: advisory board I was just looking at your different advisory boards and noticed that you do not have on for animal welfare. Is that something that the city has ever considered? I was interested as the city is looking to implement a new ordinance regarding spaying, neutering and micro chipping of pets. Cyndi Farrington 19312 Salmon Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 11/8/2007 Esparza, Patty From: robert hafen [In rhafen@g mail.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 3:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: BAD LAW !!!!!!!!! mandatory spay/neutering (Big Brother) To whom it may concern: My name is Robert Hafen. My family and I lived in Huntington Beach for 7 years (2 years on Belfast Lane and 5 years on Plymouth Lane) before I was transferred to Virginia. I have been home sick ever since.. We have the opportunity to return to the area and are thrilled. Huntington Beach is home. But when I was told, by a friend, about your 'new law' making the spay/neutering and micro chipping of all dogs and cats in the city's boundaries, I was ticked. That any government agency should have this power is clearly over reaching? What of my other choices will you take away? OUr family has a dog. She is fixed. She was licensed while we lived in Huntington Beach. It is what a responsible pet owner should do. But to tell me that I HAVE to alter her and chip her, is wrong! We are looking into the possibility of getting a show quality puppy. Are these exempt from the spay/neuter portion of this law? How can you pick which breeds and when? Some breeds do not show their traits until they are close to a year. Huntington Beach is a great place to live, which we have found out the hard way here in Virginia. Until this, We were excited to return to the community. We now are reconsidering our decision. We will soon start our house hunting efforts. Should this law pass, we will go from HB being our only choice to creating a new list of Costa Mesa, RossMoore, or Seal Beach, instead. Please reconsider this issue. I understand the licensing of animals as being mandatory; but forcing spaying/neutering is over stepping your bounds. Sincerely, Robert Hafen 1 �' v Dear Councilman Hansen; Enclosed are two items.The first is a copy of a letter from Senator Harman sent to me stating his opinion against spay or neuter of pet's.Second is a copy from the Orange County Register Editorials—Keeping government hands off pets.Please pass this information onto other members of the council.1 am one who is strongly against any such law.I have spent a lot of time and money over the years having my dogs trained and I will not destroy a dogs ability by having it neutered.I will be very glad to help any group that wants to bring legal action against the city . Thank you for your support against this issue. Si rely. Thomas P. Haley 5751 Grimsby Drive Huntington Beach Calif.92649 its . Wet r STATE CAPITOL - - COMMITTEES ROOM .C CA QLA f arni X tatr ��atr HUMAN SERVICES 'S�jACRAMENTOA 95814 - TEL(91 61 651-4035 - _ _ VICE CHAIR FAX(916)445-9263 - - - JUDICIARY. SENATOR VICE CHAIR DISTRICT OFFICE - - - - BUSINESS,PROFESSIONS - 950 SOUTH COAST DRIVE TOM HARMAN - AND ECONOMIC SUITE 240 DEVELOPMENT COSTA MESA.CA 92626 THIRTY-FIFTH SENATE DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT TEL.(714)957-4555 - - - FAX(714)957-4560 - REVENUE&TAXATION d� TRANSPORTATION a &HOUSING November 7, 2007 Mr. Thomas P. Haley 5751 Grimsbv Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4841 Dear Mr. Haley: Thank you for your letter regarding your opposition to Assembly Bill 16'K which attempts to impose a fine to individuals who do not spay or neuter their pets by the age of 6 months. By hearing your concerns I am better able to represent you in Sacramento. I believe that this fine and permit system is unnecessary as most breeders and owners already spay or neuter their animals. Moreover, the mandate of 6 months contradicts the common practice to spay.,and neuter between 6-12 months for health reasons. For those pet owners who do not wish to spay or neuter for breeding purposes, this legislation imposes a special permit, which must be obtained if pet owners want to avoid the$500 fine(per animal). . I strongly oppose this scheme and what appears to be an expansion of an over-reaching and abusive arm of the government. That's why I opposed it when it came to the Senate Local Government Committee. Thanks again for writing to me regarding this important matter and for the opportualty to represent you in our state's capitol. Working for you in Sacramento, Sincerely, TOM HARIVIAN Senator, 35"' District Y.S. If you would like to receive regular e-mail updates on this and other-important issues facing California, please go to: ww%,v,seP.ca.gov/Harman and subscribe to my weekly newsletter. Toe Nov 6 11:16:29 2007 P. 1 D—M Hedgcock PO BOX 8413 Redlands, CA 92375-1613 November 2, 2007 Jill Hardy Huntington Beach, CA Dear Jill Hardy: Mandatory spay/neuter and microchipping laws infringe on the right to privacy and on property rights.Animal owners in consultation with their veterinarians are the appropriate persons to make veterinary medical decisions about their dog or cat.This is a very slipery slope. California has a very bad track record with mandating Sterilization of humans (Eugenics laws not used since 1964). Up until the mid 1990's California required women who received State benefits to have "Norplant" contraceptives implanted. Some of these women never regained their fertility. This law which now only applies to animals is a thinly vailed first step back to Eugenics for humans. As far as mandatory chipping is concerned, this is again just the first step towards chipping humans. Those of us who read the bible understand what "mark of the beast" means and will not submit to this as long as we live in the United States. My forefathers did not fight and die in WWI & WWII to let this kind of totalitarian laws infect the United States of America. You are being duped by the orginazations that support this kind of law. Mandatory Hysterectomy and Castration are promoted by Cults like PETA and HSUS. They are VEGAN CULTS and want humans to have not contact with animals. Judy Mancuso (wicklund) who supports this law has said she does not care how many thousands of animals are euthanized she just want the law passed and does not care about the animals.2. Many dogs and cats relinquished to shelters are animals that are old, sick, or have behavior issues. These animals will still be ending up at the shelters since the reason they are left has nothing to do with breeding or over population. Sincerely, D—M Hedgcock 909-915-4939 Fax number dialed: 7145365233. If this is not your number or you received this fax in error, call Capitol Advantage at 703-289-4670 or e—mail cs@capwiz.com ,y V ej VVI QN, Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Pafty From: Beth Ann Kendzierski [Beth_Ann_Kendzierski@apria.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 8:39 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Pet Sterilization Ordinance When will the Council be voting on this proposed ordinance? Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient, please (i) do not read, copy or use this communication, or disclose it to others, (ii) notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, and (iii) delete the e-mail from your system. Thank you. 11/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:42 AM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Spay/Neuter Policay Suggestions Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Therapy456@aol.com [mailto:Therapy456@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:40 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Spay/Neuter Policay Suggestions Hello, I'm Linda Kraemer. I spoke at the council meeting last night, Nov. 5th, in favor of the spay/neuter measure. I had some suggestions that I was not able to add, especially in response to some of the concerns of the opponents. 1. Perhaps a good compromise would be spay/neuter at 6 months, not 4. Although most vets spay/neuter at 4 months, some still will not until 6 months. It might be good to check with the AVA or local HB vets on that. You can ask Dr. Naito at Huntington Pet Vet who is very active and busy with H.B. resident pets. For rescue purposes I have cats spayed younger(4 months) because I don't want to give them away without being spayed, but my own cats, I wait until 6 months. 2. One of the arguments the state bill made concessions for was that the poor would be unfairly hit. Have a financial hardship form or program for low income pet owners, and fund the microchip/spay/neuter for free. I believe there will be reactions from some of the poor who don't spay/neuter(even at the$30.00 fee), but do keep them well fed. They may just bring the pets to the pound out of panic, especially if they are undocumented immigrants and don't want trouble. I would like to volunteer in educating the poor on alternative vouchers if there is something implemented. I am at phone 714-653-2870 too. Thank You for you consideration on these matters, Linda Kraemer H.B. homeowner See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 11/7/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Richard Mayeda [rod i rich @verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:50 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: CANCER CHIP IMPLANTS.pdf Attachments: CANCER CHIP IMPLANTS.pdf CANCER CHIP APLANTS.pdf(802 . City Council Members: Are you aware of articles on chip implants and cancer. Google "dog chip implant cancer" 1 Health Science N E 21 The biology ®f political orientation } Liberals and conservatives not onlv have every now and then, the stream of was different views of the world—their brains interrupted by a W, The test subjects wereAll actuallyprocess information differently,a asked-to continually press a button when new study has found. "Ili the past, people ever they saw an Ni,and do nothing when r thought that politics were all encironnhen- a W came up. Liberals, the study found, tally influenced," New York University were more than twice as likely to spot and _ psychologist David Amodio tells.Scientific react appropriately to the W's when they t Anrericnrr. But his study shows that there came along. A brain scan showed that the b - are liberal and conservative "cognitive liberals had more,activity in the anterior styles" that may be largely hard-wired into cingulated cortex (ACC), a region of rile the brain. In the study, volunteers rated forebrain that allows people to break from "�firam_steady,tLe ,tl.,or.art 1ptrrhlc. themselves on a scale between strongly lib- habit when necessary. A brain with air smarter or berter, Amodio said. The cogni- eral and strongly conservative,then took a active ACC, researchers say, is more likely rive style of conservatives, which is"more test-rhat measured their reaction to conflict to alter its views based on new evidence, structured and persistent," may be useful and change.The test involved reacting rather than discount new evidence in order in situations where it is necessary to block to letters flashed briefly on a Computer to maintain a steady opinion,asconserva_ out irrelevant or distracting information in screen; most of the letters were M, but tives do.This doesn't mean liberals are making a judgment. her study shows that current sports and of their microchipped nice developed can- regular bras fail to prevent jiggling in even cer—a finding researches called "surpris- o, small-breasted women. When site took bio- ing.` German researchers found a I percent mechanical measurements of 10 women cancer rate in a separate study,concluding, while they exercised,Scurr found that that the tumors "are clearly due to the �t`� `a their breasts bounced imp and down,side implanted microchips." h'Ianthfacturer to side, and in and out—in figure eight 1%eriC;hip disputes the studies,and the FDA patterns—with a range of motion of up says it remains confident of the safety of to 8 inches.That much movement causes implanted chips. But Dr. Robert Benczra ' pain, and can stretch connective tissues of New York's Sloan-'etterim,Canccr in rile breast,causing sagging. "There Center say,, the research.cannot Ore st,c_s-kt: _ are women who want to do exercise but rlisntisscd. "-['here is no w�a� in the world. don't have the bras to cope," Scurr told having read this information, that 1 would Attacked by Ga(F,parasites arid a vir+r+ LiueSrience. "I know of a 16-year-old who have one of Hest:chips implanted in my Why the bees disappeared was selected to play basketball,but she was skin, or in one of my family members... Scientists may finally have discovered told to give it up because she couldn't find ErNw, s the cause of the mysterious phenomenon a lira that made playing possible." Scurr that wiped out between 50 percent and is working with manufacturers to design ` 90 percent of U.S, beekeepers'hives in a a bra made of "smart materials" that can More bad drug reactions single winter, placing S I S billion worth of inhibit movement in all three directions. l All medications have the potential to cause bee-pollinated U.S.crops in danger. When serious side effects—a fact that people seek- l researchers sampled diseased and l,ealtlhy Do chip implants cause cancer? ing relief from pain and disease symptoms hives from across the nation, says Nature, The micro- often forget_But as Americans take more they found a strong;connection between chips now being and more medications,reports of"adverse hives drat had succumbed to "colony Col- implanted under events"are soaring,says the Los Angeles i lapse disorder" and tile presence of a virus tile slain of pets Times. Nearly 90,000 bad drug reactionsl called Israeli acute paralysis virus (LAI11'). and in some cases were reported in 2005,with many result j rt ing in hospitalization and 15,100 ending in The exotic virus probably arrived in the hunhans—map death.Those numbers have tripled since j U.S. with shipments of Australian bees cause cancer. The °r 1998,when the FDA made it easier for- in 2t104. But IAPA'—a virus that causes chips,approved by consumers to report side effects of their pre- the bees to shiver; become paralyzed,and the FDA in 2005, scription drugs. Nearly nine out of 10 of the 9 die—doesn't usually decinnate entire hives. emir radio fre 1 adverse reactions were attributed to just l It map have c been so devasratint, this time, quency signals that " 20 percent of the drugs,some of which rile i cse uchcrs sus Best, hecaust the intnnr- can he tracked if t are commonly prescribed painWilers and niry t>f entire bee colonies was already pet gets lost. Sonne '�`"` immune system suppressants for arthritis. Grr�'irrogenrc. tivcal:erred by parasites called varrt>a mites. people with Chronic Five of the six drugs that caused the mast Researcher ]an Lipkin hopes to prove his medical conditions also have had the chips deaths were painkillers:OxyContin. Fentanyl, 1 theory with a controlled experiment. "File implanted, so that if they become uncon- �morphine,acetaminophen(the active ingredi- real rest will he introducing the virus to scions,doctors can instantly obtain n ccir ent in Tylenol),and methadone.These same healthy bees," I-ipkin saes. medical histories. In the past two years, j painkillers,along with estrogens.insulin. 2,000 people and millions of pet cats and warfarin(an anti-clotting medication),and To stop them from flopping dogs have been fitted with the glass-encased Paroxetine(an antidepressant),caused the Even while wearing a sports bra,half of all RFID chips. But now, the Associated Press most nonfatal adverse reactions."The clear 1 u•onnen experience painful bouncing while has uncovered if series of studies conducted finding is that we are losing ground in terms exercising,discouraging them from play- between 1996 and 2006 that found the of drug safety."says Thomas J.Moore of the ) ing sports, new research has found. British chips caused deadly tumors in rats and Institute for Safe Medication Practices."That 1 hiuuhechaought to be of great concern." rtics professor,Joanna Stun saps nice. A 1998 study found that 10 percent _ _ I lli n4EFK Scptemfvt X NO-.' November 8, 2007 N� RE: Spay, Neuter, Chip Resident Larry McNeely would like the Council Members to know that he is against the proposed ordinance. KVD NOV-06-07 10:01 AM HRZEI_MORTENSEN 803 686 7473 p,g1 s� �iG- 889 �50�� .90 22 f (vdo � �rs�/ 000'8z 'G cJ $ 2 o` ��i z; °z WX 1.0 — zoirol� ?� Qi �.�.,/ �a-✓�n�.�a-� RS�� d�' ,0/,, �..6 p� • �� / v� �i a�n✓qq , cY&�-g 76V - 7 o6X1IVOV -AOw�V4/` November 8, 2007 RE: Spay, neuter, chip Council Members: My cat is spayed. 1 am concerned about a chip causing cancer from what I have read. Please do research to see if a serious health issue before deciding. Linda Peterson HB Resident Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Roysdon, Kathlynn (Kathlynn.Roysdon@fnf.com) Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:48 AM To: Coerper, Gil Subject: Spay and Neuter Law Gil, I know it sounds like a huge feet but I would like to try and change your mind about mandatory spay and neuter laws. Yes I am a dog rescuer, no im not a crazy dog lady. If you input the "incentive plan"for spaying and neutering, it won't work. The people that need to be mandated by a spay/neuter requirement don't register there dogs. There dogs are locked in there backyards and never taken out, until they get out and meet another unsprayed/neutered dog.....then without graphic detail we all know what happens.....then the poor pregnant dog goes home, her owners don't want to deal with puppies, so they dump the poor pups off at the shelter. Where, unfortunately they don't survive, they are too young to fight off the diseases at the shelter and no one wants a sick puppy. The problem is that the general public doesn't know what happens at the shelter. They don't know that the dog they just dropped off probably isn't going to survive. Yes, there are responsible people in this world who breed there dogs to better that specific breeds. BUT the sad reality is that most"breeders" do it only for the money. They do it because they have a cute dog and they want more dogs like them, without understanding that there are so many dogs in shelters that need homes. Those are the people that need to be targeted. Also, anyone who is not willing to pay a higher fee for having a un-altered dog is a person who I would worry about. I understand what you are trying to do with the"incentive" program, but you need to understand that along with that comes the responsibility of making sure people are registering there dogs. Without a law there is now way of tracking what goes on, and that is our biggest problem. PLEASE do something to help the animals that don't have a voice, the hundreds of perfect animals that are killed everyday because no one wanted them. They need your help, they need YOU to step up for them, and protect hundreds of thousand of animals that will be born in the future from un-altered dogs. Thank you, 7681 Yukon Drive Huntington Beach, CA 714-767-2638 41r If Escrow Assistant Fidelity National Title 714) 669-5033 (direct) 714) 669-5043 (fax) RoysJv/ 11/6/2007 Elizabeth Shafer 12-1 13A 7 8166 Bushwick Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 December 12,2007 RE: Proposed Ordinance for Licensing cats and dogs To The Huntington Beach Mayor,Mayor Pro Tern and Council Members Dear Debbie, Keith, Joe, Cathy, Don, Jill, and Gil I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for 30 years and a homeowner for 27. As a board of Director of Surfside, I know how difficult your job serving the City of Huntington Beach is. There are always two sides to every story,but pet overpopulation is a serious issue and the animals have only one side and they have no voice. It is people who seek to profit from having more cats and dogs, or people's ignorance at not spraying their pets. They may be well meaning, and the revenue generated by this program could be used to provide low-cost spaying and neutering for low-income households. 12,000 animals were euthanized in Orange County last year. Have you ever visited the Orange County Shelter and seen the sad faces as they await their death? Having an ordinance of this type will encourage people to do the right thing by spaying and neutering. Having higher costs for unaltered animals is often just the push people need. There are sufficient safe guards for breeders contained in this ordinance. They are really, not the target. Altered pets are happier and often less dangerous to the community. As Huntington Beach grows,there is less space for people and pets to live together. Please know there are many residents in our great city that support you and understand the tough job you have. Please lend your support this great ordinance. Sincerely and respectfully, Elizabeth Shafer V 1� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:49 PM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Spay & Neuter Ordinance Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Margaret Stanard [mailto:mstanard@fmt.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Spay & Neuter Ordinance Please vote NO on the revised city ordinance regarding the Spaying and Neutering of pets in HB. This can be a life threatening operation and can have serious consequences to pets as they age. The city has no right to come between a pet owner and their veterinarian. This bill is unnecessary and will have no effect on the shelter numbers. Owner education and better adoption procedures are the way to go. Thank you. Margaret Stanard 11/29/2007 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: Fw: Neuter, Spay/Chip - Forget It! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Edwin V <edwin.v.sumner@bceing.com> To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: sumfamily@socal.rr.com <sumfamily@socal.rr.com>; sumfamily@juno.com <sumfamily@juno.com> Sent: Fri Nov 16 11:34: 17 2007 Subject: Neuter, Spay / Chip - Forget It! Attn: Council, I 'll be brief and to the point. I cannot tell you how much I am against this nanny-Govt. intrusion into my life. I have one old dog who is spayed, but sufficiently old that she could not run away if she wanted to. Which, by the way, she doesn't. I do not want to be forced to pay for a chip that serves no purpose other than to accommodate the special interests you are serving. Their agenda / cause may indeed be worthwhile, but do not force it on me. I hear our taxes may go down because at some point we will pay less to the O.C. Animal Shelter. Right ! I 'd like to see just how that works on paper before I believe any of it. Do not force this on us. Even a tiered system is forcing me to comply. Do not force me. Let those who advocate these measures bring them before the people and let the city residents vote on it. Then we'll see just how popular this is. Believe me, anyone who votes for any form of this will not get my vote the next time around. Regards, Ed Sumner 6442 Ringo Cr. SC-HB 714 762-6089 i Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:30 AM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Dog Laws Importance: High Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Andres Teutli [mailto:bigtoot74@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Dog Laws Importance: High Mr. Gil Coerper, I am deeply concerned about the recently composed mandatory pet law. The relationship between an owner and his pet is private in the way that a family relationship is private, and therefore should only be a public issue when welfare is in danger. While spaying and neutering can,be beneficial to pets, no one in the United States of America would demand the "fixing" of children, much less the mandatory microchipping of them. The residents of Huntington Beach see their pets as a member of the family, and many do not wish to put their pet through extra trips to the vet for microchipping. In addition, the penalty fees involved with not obeying the proposed law seem highly inappropriate. The residents of Huntington Beach want to see their local government doing what is best for them, and imposing fees regarding private pet ownership issues seems, honestly, to be a money- grubbing scheme. A second, deeper issue regarding this law also exists. I would like to remind the mayor as well as the city council that Huntington Beach used to be a laid-back, liberal surf town. I wish that the city council would keep that in mind and try to maintain what made Surf City what it is today. A major part of the appeal of Huntington Beach is that it is one of the last remaining "beach towns." I would hate to see the town I love turned into a conservative wonderland of manicured lawns and microchipped poodles. While I agree that health and sanitation are important, the city council has overstepped its boundaries this time. Sincerely, Andres Teutli, Concerned Citizen 12/3/2007 AOL Email Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus,Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:54 AM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: MANDITORY SPAY/NEUTER Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Mel72anie@aol.com [mailto:Mel72anie@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:34 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: MANDITORY SPAY/NEUTER I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE MANDITORY SPAY/NEUTER LAW. IT IS OVERREACHING AND INVASIVE. I THINK MORE TIME AND EFFORT NEEDS TO GO INTO FINDING ANOTHER WAY TO CONTROL THE PROBLEMS OF TOO MANY DOGS AND CATS NOT GETTING ADOPTED. YOU ARE JUST JUMPING ON SOMEONE ELSES BAND WAGON OF HOW TO CONTROL THIS. THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING SO LETS DO THE SAME. CAN'T SOMEONE PUT A LITTLE MORE EFFORT AND COME UP WITH A GOOD IDEA THATS NOT GOING TO HURT RESPONSABLE BREEDERS. THIS IS TOO BLANKET AND IT WILL EFFECT THE GOOD MORE THAN THE BAD. PEOPLE THAT BACKYARD BREED DON'T CARE WHAT LAWS YOU PASS THEY WILL FIND AWAY AROUND IT. LEAVING THE TRUE BREEDERS SUFFERING... MF9L"R If M`MP, 11/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat on behalf of Coerper, Gil Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:07 PM To: Van Dorn, Kay Cc: Henderson, Sandy; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Support Mandatory Spay & Neuter Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Debbie Wagner [ma i Ito:waggers2@dslextreme.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Support Mandatory Spay &Neuter Dear City Council, Our family is writing to urge you in the strongest terms possible to pass the mandatory spay and neuter regulation. We have been involved in rescuing animals for over 30 years, both as private citizens and with non- profit rescue groups. The devastation caused by pet overpopulation is horrendous. You know how much it costs the taxpayers to take care of this problem. A problem caused by irresponsible pet owners and breeders. Having a regulation that will allow the good breeders to be excluded will be more than adequate and will greatly reduce the number of animals that are euthanized in our nation every year. Back yard breeder animals live in inhumane conditions. Many of them never have vet care, live their entire lives in tiny crates or exercise pens, and receive no socialization whatsoever. Then when the animals can no longer reproduce, the animals are simply turned loose on the streets. We beg you to have the courage to do the right thing -the right thing for the animals and for the taxpayers. Innocent animals should not suffer and neither should innocent people have to pay for acts of irresponsible people. Thank you so much. Most sincerely, Debbie Wagner and family 916 N. Laurel Dr. Orange, CA 92867 714.289.1178 11/7/2007 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Party From: Norm Westwell [normw@modernpublic.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:45 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Resolution to save our pets Dear City Clerk. Please enter this communication into the public record when the Spay/Neuter/Microchip issue next comes before the Council for action. Thank you. Norm Westwell The following resolution was unanimously adopted by the Libertarian Party, Orange County Central Committee on 1/8108. It was also adopted earlier by the Orange County Democratic Central Committee. This illustrates the broad based opposition of both conservatives and liberals organizing against this proposed liberty robbing ordinance. Whereas (1) the Declaration of Independence states,: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," (2) the Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.. and (3) The 14th Amendment makes the 4th Amendment applicable to state and local government, and Whereas, pet owners must already comply with existing regulations and have the right to determine appropriate veterinary procedures in the best interest of their pets, and, (1) studies show that those to spay/neuter carry grave risks and potential complications, (2) people and children are often happier and live longer when they own dogs and cats, (3) the purpose of a dog is to provide joy, happiness, and protection, (4) part of the joy of owning a dog is to show that dog in a dog show, something not allowed if the dog is spayed or neutered, (5) dogs and cats are very useful in helping the disabled and in healing the sick, (6) recent studies have linked micro chipping to cancer in animals, (7) cancer can kill dogs and cats, and (8) fines and fees imposed for the privilege of owners to determine spay/neuter of their family pets are illegal intrusion and unfair taxation, (8) the value of a pedigree dog or cat is dramatically diminished when that dog is spayed or neutered and forced spaying or neutering results in a destruction of the value of personal property owned by people and 1/9/2008 Page 2 of 2 children, (9) when dogs and cats are within the privacy of a home, they are part of the effects that are referred to by the 4th Amendment, (10) spaying at six months of age is dangerous to the health of those dogs or cats so spayed, and (11) costs of pedigree dogs are prohibitive for many lower middle class people and children, and (12) there are already so few pedigree puppies available in California that those seeking to acquire a quality AKC puppy in California often have to fly in puppies from out of state at exorbitant costs, and Whereas, (1) strays can be controlled without punishing responsible pet owners, and (2) without endangering the health and even lives of family pets THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Orange County (1) calls on all levels of government to avoid or refrain from any laws requiring or forcing the spaying of dogs and cats, which have homes, and (2) to respect the 4th Amendment Right of the people (and children) to be secure in their persons, houses and effects, which includes their dogs and cats, and (3) opposes any government intrusions into homes to inspect the virility of pets, and (4) opposes any attempt by any government to mandate potentially harmful or carcinogenic procedures or implants in family pets. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Norm Firecracker Westwell - Huntington Beach, CA normw@ModernPublic.com \ j / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPubIic.com It's your government - GET INVOLVED! 1/9/2008 tk ' s r,x .a? y R i�.`' �q6 P AJ �6�t� 1St4 NC' q y Y_ h, `f_ t j � J 77 1. IT tri I-ZE Emit .re�.y . xIV y=. Ual { ' a w. f'',; • A Aa e k � ?moo $ w f., P X Y A qti �fi ,h 44 gb 021 r� r a * �` 3 "�p j.f r ?' `S'=Apk zj - s h " Y ` F FROM (MON)FEB 4 2008 13:02/ST. 13:02/No, 6800153867 P 1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2009-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(Sly Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The cuarent voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. license fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 spay and opu JUkg of doggy ana cats The dratted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of slx months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or quallfaes for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchiu identi cation of dw and cats The dratted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate miicrochips- The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that aloes not have a microchip Identification device." 7.09.010 License and r+ gi fttion reauired Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale'posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any nog or cat for adoption,sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7.08.050 License—Owner duty to gbtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanixed due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KIWOS PAGE 07 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RF, Ordinance No, 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 i vehemently oppose the draft,resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordin ce No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution iMat was agreed on by the council an November. 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required Licensing For cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed, 7.08,121 Spy and neutering,of dag,s and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this.section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set.forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption render Section 7.0&070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 MicrochiR identification of doss and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to,drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft,continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of.six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration_rm ired Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for, the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. l oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements.in.the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise, garage sales,ect. Firrthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale. barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs eutImnized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordunance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. 1 urge you to reject the drafted resolution,end stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on.this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, A" � 5 ib . fo,'�P?v 1YY,4#0AV,,_ y�L--)A-%Ld L_r,: 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEIEX KIWOS PAGE 08 February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution.No 2008-5 -for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNM)Ordin,,��ce No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution iMwhat was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status:for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in.the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.1,21 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering far all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No Person may own, keen, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualiTes,for an exemption tinder Section 7.08.070 c�,f this chanter." 7.08 122 Microchip identification of dogs and Cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance_ The draft continues to mandate microchips. The drall states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ref six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bahr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisetin..ents in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales.ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests, "...any and all public advertisementsfor the availability of any dog or cat,ihr adoption, sale, barter or other transfer trust prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. l firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on..this unnecessary proposal already, Respectfully, o L February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Stay and neutgn ng of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft.states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a ding or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7,08.1 2 Microchip)identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that dues not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.01 Q Licctase and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements fur the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthaniaed due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation, I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, . T0 'd ZTSL968 bTL NOOHfi onan w1d sS: TT soot-be-gad February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in.the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of'the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under.Section 7.08.070 ofthis chapter. " 7.09,122 Microchip idea ifi anion of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sin months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a brassiness license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, TO�d ZiSL968 btL N[l�Hg �IIOQ Wd 00: Zt 80AZ-b0-g3d 02/01/2008 17:10 7149620930 LAW OFFICE PAGE 01/01 in, AllenTDa 7e � Attorney at Law A 4. 9042 Garfield Ave.,Suite 306 Phone (714)962-0915 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 FAX: (714)962-0930 rab@baylislaw.com February 1,2008 City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,C.A.92648 Re: Oppose ordinance#3798 I respectfully request that this letter be made part of the public record Honorable Mayor Cook and Honorable Councilmembers: I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for most of my life since moving here in 1964.I strongly urge you to resist the temptation to press forward with the agenda of animal rights organizations by passing the proposed revisions to Section 7.08 et seq. of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Just as certain religious extremists won't be happy until all of mankind converts to Islam, the animal rights extremists won't rest until we are only allowed to eat fruits and nuts and nobody is allowed to own a pet of any kind.This proposed ordinance is but a step in achieving their goal of creating a society where human rights take a back seat to animal rights. This proposed ordinance is an unnecessary,counterproductive and possibly unconstitutional exercise of the power of the government. It this ordinance is passed, litigation is likely to follow. As then Mayor-pro-tem Cook stated at the Council meeting of November 5,2007,the city wants to use an incentive based program to get residents to engage in the behavior they want them to. In other words,the citizens will do as they are told or be punished. Yet another step toward a police state where the government uses the police power to set and enforce social policy. This is not acceptable. Some sections of the proposed ordinance have serious inconsistencies,do not reflect the direction given to city staff at the Nov_ 5 meeting, and are quite frankly totally unenforceable. Please do not pass proposed ordinance 3798.The residents of this city do not support and do not need such a law. Since Iy, R.Alen Baylis Attorney at Law ,e1&e5 02/04/2008 10:46 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 01 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: R.E. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution.No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council.members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for. cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Si1av and neuterine of does a�cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or gualifiesfor an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.0 .122 M}crocbi,p identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittenslcats. I oppose this requirement as it.is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or catfor adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7.08,050 License—Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,l oppose any discriminatory legislation. 1 urge You to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Feb 03 08 03: 53p Nancy & Walt Berger 415-564-9939 p. l Dear Mayor Cook and Council members Bohr,Carchio,Coerper,Green,Hansen and Hardy, I am a dog owner in San Francisco who is a longtime owner of purebred dogs(Westies) whom I consider members of my family.They are extremely well-cared for. I am concerned to leant that you are considering some serious and terrible changes to your proposal of last November-Please do NOT pass the mandatory spay/neuter microchip proposal at your council meeting tomorrow night.It is a very bad idea. Sincerely yours, Nancy Berger 429 Country Club Drive San Francisco,Ca.94132 02/04/2008 09:06 FAX 8187252508 HBALAW L0U01 CASA9WA l4s g=* Casablanca anca Kuvasz _ Gail S. Gash &� "I ail Berger_, 8620 Louise Ave. Northridge,CA 91325 818-77-BWDOG or 818.772-9364 ,��{'��, Kennel now located in Phelan. San Bernardino County I Nam OPPOSIT[ON to Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 February 3, 2008 Huntington Beach City Council Secretary (71 4) 536-5233 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I wish to share with you the letter I wrote to the Los Angeles City Council last Friday when they considered a similar matter. I'm a resident of Northridge. My husband and i own nearly an acre zoned Residential Agricultural in one of the few neighborhoods in L.A. City still zoned for horses. We thought the rural neighborhood would be the perfect place to exercise our passion. Our passion is the preservation of an ancient breed of dog used by the shepherds in Hungary as a protector of the flock. This breed is Kuvasz. We show and train our dogs-, we rescue kuvasz from shelters, vet them at our own expense, rehab them and find them new homes. We breed a litter about once every two years. When the move towards more restrictions on responsible breeding started up again last year I began having nightmares that an army of Animal Control officers came to my house and shot my dogs. This is not farfetched if you know the history of the Kuvasz. These dogs were protecting farms in Hungary during WWII and advancing Nazi soldiers killed them all. All except 12 dogs that were guarding warehouses rather than farms. After the war these 12 dogs were taken to the Budapest Zoo to start a breeding program. All the kuvasz in the world today come from those 12 dogs. °°Always a classic" e-mail: gailOcasa..blancakuvasz.com fax: 818-725-2508 cca ,ablancakuyasz.corn o 02/03/200B 14:27 9519400810 WALT BRADLEY PAGE 01/01 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, .RE: Ordinance No. 3'98 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council_members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states' "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or car over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or gualifrres for an exemption under Section 7 08.070 of this chapter." 7.09.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance, The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep,or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats, l oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to ali ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise, garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests- "...any and all public advertisemenrs for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption,sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Mary Bradley y1 Feb 03 08 06:21 p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5721 p.! HUNTTNGTON BEACH LETTER Page I of 2 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121._Spa�Land neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or quakes for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.09.122Microclup identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identif cation device." 7_0$,010_License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer http://www.cdoca.orgMLETTER.html 2/3/2008 Od�(.S Feb 03 08 06:21 p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5727 p.8 HUNTINGTON BEACH LETTER Page 2 of 2 must prominently display the business license member in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance_ I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, ''&k - �bLv `-�" http://www.cdoca.org/BBLETTER-hbnl 2/3/2008 Feb 03 08 06:20p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5727 p.5 HUNTINGTON BEACH LETTER Page ] of2 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3 798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SN )Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips- Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121_Spay_and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.©8.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "R'o person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.0.$..0...10_License_and_registra_,tion_required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the gave,such as merchandise,garage sales,eel. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer http:Nwww.cdoca.org/HBLETTER.html 2/312008 Feb 03 08 06:21 p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5727 p.6 HUNTINGTON BEACH LETTER Page 2 of 2 must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs eutbanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory.legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, VM''7& http://www_cdoca.orgft-IBLETTER-btml 2/3/2008 Feb 03 08 0620p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5727 p.1 HUNTINGTON BEACH LETTER ]Page i of 2 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121.p v and neutering of dogs_and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance_ The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08 070"of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states "No person may awn, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months that does not have a microchip identification device." 1_08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale ofpuppies/dogs and kittens/cats- I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage salesy ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: ".._any and all public advertisementsfor the availability of any dog or cat for adoption,sale, barter or other transfer http://www.edoca..orgMBLETTER.htrnl 2/312008 Feb 03 08 06:20p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5727 p.2 HUNTINGTON BEACH LETTER Page 2 of 2 must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement," As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs eutbanizcd due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, http://www.cdoca.org/HBLETTF-R.hbA 2/3/2008 02/04l2008 14:31 0000000 ADD To PUBLIC RECORD PAGE e� February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Mernbens: RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008,5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed SpaY,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Q&nauce No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to inject it. The drafted reWu6cm is not what was agreed an by the council on November S, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fro instead. The cogent voluntary it►censing for cats would change to become required Ecensing for cars. Liceme.flees would be wereased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. AdveMsements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7 08 121 Svxv sari neutcrinQ of doag and cats The drafted resolution connradiexs the council's agreement to drop the nnsndmory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to!mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and can over six months of agc. "11w draft states: "1Vo person may own keep or harbor a cog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person peat unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or gw1ifies for an exemption trader Section 7 08.070 ofthis chapter." M9-1.22 MiarogW jfi9!#oq of doss 8 d eats 7be dradied resolution contradicts the co vacil's agremuent to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinsxrce. The draft eontimm to nwulate micmochips. The dry states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or soy over trite age of sine months that does not have a tttacrochip idendfrcaiion device." 7.08.010_Lic_gm and oBisstmdon Mgtait Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution.to include the requirement for a business facensc for newspaper adver isements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kimmalcats. I oppose this regubvinent as it is diacriminatoty. If a business lioease is required for advardsernents in the Nave,therm it should apply to all ads"for sale'"posted in the Wave,such as m mhand+se,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolu don does smi specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...arty and all public adkrtisernenrs for the amilability of crrry dog or cant for adoption sak boner or outer transfer musi prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7,08.050 L* ense_—Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all, Statistics for Hun**Ion Beach dogs euthoWzed due to shelter overcrowding do not supPccl the need for a mandated ordinwm. I fhnaly oppose any mandaW spay,neuter, or microc*ordinance. Fuathcrmote,I oppose nay disu;rimitratary legislaution. I urge You to reject the drafted sesolutim%and stick to your agreemest. Too much time and tau payet dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already, 9 RespectfWly, Feb 03 08 06:20p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5727 p.3 HU N I IfVllrl ViN t3j�.19,t zi LL'.1 1 L'[C February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 20M5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121_Spay and.neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifces for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter_" 7.08_122.MicrochiQidentification of does and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of snr months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration r wired Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale ofpuppies/dogs and kittens/cats- I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "—any and all public advertisementx for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer http://www.cdoca.or&IMLETT'ER.htm] 213/2008 Feb 03 08 06:20p Tiffany Brooks (951) 928-5727 p.4 HUNTINGTGN BEACH LETTER Page 2 of 2 must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, I - http://vvww.cdoca..org/HBLETTER.htnd 2/3/2008 r-en U4 U8 1U,27a L. Clark 925-932-2318 p,2 February 4,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip(SNM) Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the counciI's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months in violation ofthis section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or gualiftes for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs MD U4 UO 1U2 fa L. Clark 925-932-2378 p.3 and kittenslcats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise.. garage sales,etc. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Nave, but instead suggests: "...arty and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or catfor adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Instead of another law,let's work together as a community to educate pet owners and encourage pet adoption_ This legislation as currently written is wrong, Respectfully, CG �, Feb 03 08 02:25p Cohen (818) 265-2035 p.1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE. Ordinance No_ 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft.resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SW Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary.licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisernents for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance_ The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Councilor qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08,070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own,keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months that does not have a microchip identification device_" 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppiesidogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all aids"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: ...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, eo Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Holly Conway [hollycnwy@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: mandatory Spay and Neuter Law Hello, I am a current resident in Huntington Beach. I will not be able to be at the meeting for the mandatory spay and neuter law on Monday February 4th so I wanted to e-mail my support for the ordinance. There is a very real problem with "willy nilly" pet breeding today and I for one am sick of it. Please make my vote count or at least my voice heard. Sincerely, Holly Conway Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 2/4/2008 , 02/04/200B 13:57 0000000 ADD TO PUBIC RECORD PAGE 01 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008 5 I vehemently appose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNAG Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7 08 121 S_pav and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. ?he draft states: "No person may oun keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or yualif:es for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip id—=i }cation of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council.'s agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. l oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"far sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoptioP4 sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " 7.09.050 License—Owner dM!g gbtam The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington.Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,l oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resohution,and stick to your agreement, Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/04/2008 13:59 8183523147 LI5A DARE PAGE 01 FjkX to® 715233 from: Usa Dare 818 352-377 2 pis, including cover Februwy 4,2008 Honorable Mayor and City council Members, I oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip (SNAG Ordinance No. 3798 and urge flee mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and'Ncuw proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay aced neutering for all dogs and eats over six months of age. The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip pmpmed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. Councilmari Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kincresicats. 1 oppose this requirement as it is diwrkmkatory. If a business license is required fvr advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Fintbemore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but imtead suggests. "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption.sale, barter or other transfer roust prombi endy display the business license number in the cadmiisernent." 02/04/2008 13:59 8183523747 LISA DARE PAGE 02 As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter ovemmwdmg do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the draped resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. 'mere has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal akeady. Respectfully, Lisa Dare 02/04/2008 10:46 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 04 February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members- RE.- Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008 S I vehemettly oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microcbip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. 'Plate current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats 'floe drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qual fes for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 h crodUp identa ation of do s and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. Tine draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7 01 010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale ofpuppies/dogs and kittaWcats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale'posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7.08.050 License—Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge You to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, r 02/04/2008 10:46 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 05 RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES P.O.Box 1406 Newport,WA 99I56 Web Site htrp://yvZvlvk.yot°n.com/rdoivs]E-mail US rdowsr'Fiyoyit.com. Blog hup/lydoks;w_ordpress;cx►m/ E-mail List 1►ttp://grcrups.yatroo.cam/grou rdowc Cherie Graves,Chairwoman.WA.(509)447 2821 Judy Schreiber-Dwornick,Assistant to the Chair,.Director at Large.rdowsdin ctoratlarxcrrl?�m;til.co,n Hcrmine Stover.Secretary.Press)Liaison.CA,hcnTdiur(i)ettdaneerrdsjecies.cotn Mats Schaeffer.Finance Director.firtedp�►slci)hatrnail.corn Afiirnna Director.John Bowen iohnalldogsh�s1rintmaal,ccTm California Director.Jan Dv-kema bcshnnl1Ji!sbcelobal.nct Illinois Director.Elizabeth Pensgard t pcnsg acfl{[�ahoo_com Indiana Director,Charles Coffman candkcot'f au(ir?comcast.nct. Iowa Director,Leisa Boysen rdoivrs ioira.etvaltcxw.cont Mississippi Director,Dan Crutchfield farmer I(6)tcler*itk,nct Nevada Director,Ken Sondej 41%indst&viawes1..nc1: Ohio Director,Tiffany Skotmcky ohdirrdo«s-'d!vahoo.com Oklahoma Director,Jade Harris aacirle hor>,com Tennessee Director,Gina Cotton gimcotton(dilrnsn.com Texas Director. Alvin Crow crobx(eaustin.mcorn IPOSMON STATEMENT ON MANDATORY MiOROC:RIPPING Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States opposes any mandated mierochipping of privately held domestic pet animals. The choice of whether to.or whether trot to microchip should be based upon all available information-.and left strictly up to the owner to make.for his/her animals. Our research has discovered potential.health,risks that are posed to domestic pet animals from microchip emplacement.Dare to space only two of several findings will be cited: @ (1)hitn/i`yv.vctlSat.holorv.ore/c&i/cgg"1latntrac1/43/4/545 Vet Pathol 43:545-548(2006)r'2006 A merican College of Vctcrinary Patholoeists Fibrosarcoma with T�vpictl Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of Microchip Implant in a Dog:Histologic and immunohistochemical Study X VancRar4 E.Melehiotta and F.NutineM Abstract A 9-yeas-old male French Bulldog was examined for a subaflancous mass located at the site of a m icroclup implant. Cytologic examination of the mass was suggegwc of a malignant mcsenchvmal neoplasm.Histologically,the mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fbrosarcoma,with muhifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates.By immtrrtahistvchemistry,the sample was investigated for vimentin, smooth-atiw le actin(SMA),CD3.CD79 ,and CD28. All the ricoplaaic cells were positive for vimentin. Scattered cells at the periphery of the lesion were also positive for SMA, highlighting a myofibroblastic phewtypc.The lymphoid cells were positive for CD19 and CD3.No aluminum deposits were detected by the aurintTicarboxylie acid method. A diagnosis of ftbrosarcoma morphologically similar to feline postinjection sarcomas was made.Fibrvsareomas at the site of injections have been reported in,dogs and ferrets. 1:urtherutore,ncoplastic grvwtIt at the site of.microchip implant in dog and laboratory rodents has been described. Jt ey words:Dog:ftbrosarcoma:immanohistochernistry- microchip. Marta VamcilaK.Istituto Zooproftlattico Spenmentale defile Venezie,Viale dell'Universiti 10,35020 Legtaro(PD)(Italy). E-mail:hntiaScellari ii)izsycnc�ic.it (2)http:l/cat: nist.fr/aModcic=afrlcl c 4cgidt=891987Tamors in long-term rat studies associated with microchip animal identification.devices Trmmes surrounding implanted microchip animal ideutiftcatlon devices were noted in two separate chronic toxicity/onOogenicity dies using F-344 rats.The tiunors occurred at.a low incidence rttc(approximately I Percent).but did result in the early sacrifice of most of f6cted animals.due to tumor size and occasional metastases. No sexrclatod trends were noted-All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies,were located in the subcutaneous doml thoracic area(the site of microchip implantation)and contained embedded microchip devices.All were mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types,listed in outer of frequency: malignant schwannoma. fibrosancoma,anaplastic sarcoma,and histiocytic sarcoma.The following diagnostic techniques were employed:light. microscopy.scanning electron mierumnpy,and immunohistochemistry.The mechanism of carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign-body induced turnorigenesis. (21109/2000)2001,vol.52,n°6,pp.569-575(24 ref.),pp,483-491 Copyright 2006 TNIST-CNRS..All rights reserved 02/04/2008 11:59 7145056273 NOVAPRO RISK PAGE 02/03 1 February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter, and Microchip(SNW Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is NOT what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and create an incentive program instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats(good luck here). License fees would involve using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. What is proposed now makes owning any dog or a cat absolutely prohibitive. The costs associated with owning an intact animal will be more than double what is currently required,and the current costs are already more than double the license costs of a neutered animal. The ordinance states that there are exemptions for show animals, but then increases the licenses fees to a rate that the average person cannot afford. The license fees still have to be paid at a rate that discourages anyone from breeding and raising service animals, show animals or any other animal that qualifies for any exemption. That is no exemption;it is a penalty and it is discriminatory. The proposed ordinance discourages anyone involved in breed rescue. Those of us that are involved in rescue already pay for veterinary bills, extra food costs, training costs, etc., for animals we temporarily keep while we look for a suitable home for the animal. If the animal is intact, according to the ordinance, we will be faced with the extraordinary cost of licensing the animal as well. It will be a lot less expensive to just kill it. Is this what you want? 7.08.121 Spay-and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pay unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualif es for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to.mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7,08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement, as it is discriminatory. if a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads "for sale" posted in the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sales, etc. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead states: 02/04/2008 11:59 7145056273 NOVAPRO RISK PAGE 03/03 2 "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " You will be creating problems when there wasn't a problem in the first place. It has never been established that there is an animal over-population problem in Huntington Beach. The testimony from the residents of Huntington Beach at the City Counsel meetings over the last several months has been overwhelmingly against mandatory spay/neuter and microchip laws of any nature. The people that spoke in favor of such a law were primarily non-residents of Huntington Beach. It is your duty to listen to and comply with the wishes of the majority of your constituents and to vote against this proposed resolution and ordinance. As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthaniaed due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. i fimily oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. 1 urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too.much time and taxpayer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Si,ncercl Catherine L. De Luca 17181 Kampen Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92647 dvvo vv:uu rAA 8137252508 HBALAW LP]G G2 So last year, instead of remodeling our home in Northridge, we bought a manufactured home on 2 acres in Phelan in San Bernardino County where you can still get a residential kennel permit. Our show dogs stay in Phelan and I drive two hours each way to go visit them. We have our retired champions that are spayed and neutered with us in Northridge. The Pet Over Population Ordinance adopted by the City ten years ago didn't solve the problem and this ordinance won't solve the problem. It will only turn responsible people into law breakers or force us to do ridiculous things like buy property in the desert where our dogs will be safe from a government that seeks to invade our lives. One more comment about mandatory spay/neuter. We placed a male Kuvasz puppy as a pet with a woman who had ruptured two disks in her back and was facing surgery. She spent 8 months training this dog to be a certified service dog to assist her with balance a stability following the surgery. This puppy is now two and a half years old and still intact. His owner has had the surgery and returned to work and normal activities assisted by this big dog. Had this dog been neutered at a young age, he would have never developed the size, bone density, and strength to allow his owner to resume a normal life. Sincerely, _ r Ga S. Dash "ALWAYS A CLASSIC" e-mail: gail@casablancakuvasz.com fax: 818-725-2508 �.� Icy' �cr�rrarr ioi:5uam r. uui I { i February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No.3798 and Resolution No. 2008-5 I am faxing this letter to voice my opposition to draft resolution No.2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter and Microchip Ordinance No. 3798. To my knowledge there was already an agreed upon resolution to this issue and the above differs from that agreed upon resolution. While I as well as millions of other people hate the idea of animals being euthanized in shelters,these types of requirements will not achieve the desired effects,not to mention encroaching on what I deem as being civil liberties(to do what I will with my animals as long as I am responsible for them and don't encroach on others' civil liberties). Aside from this there is in fact a lot of scientific evidence that spaying/neutering of animals at this tender young age can lead to health risks in the future. I DO agree we as individuals need to be responsible for our animals and when our animals cause harm or intrusions onto other people's lives then we need to take responsibility for that.However I feel strongly that it is not government's place to decide the physical state of my or anybody else's animals. Respectfully, Patti Dennis Orange County,CA FEB-04-200B 10:42 From:BLOCK PLANT EISNER BIB5016752 To:95365233 P.2f3 February 3,2008 !-honorable Mayor and City Council Members. OPPOSF Ordina tce Nit. 379,'_►'uncl Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppt tie the draft.resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spd y,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The druf cd resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The eounei agreed to drop the ordinance and arise license fees instead. `1Thc current voluntary ieensing status 1'ur cats would change to becotne requi ed licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee redo(tions for spay, neuter,and/or mic rochips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 S2.4yan neutei-Ing of dogs mid cats The drafted rcsolu Lion contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter propoi ed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dog;and cats t ver six months of age. The draft states: 'No person may own, keel), or harhur a dog or rat ove the age of cix months in violatio i of this section unless.each person pan-unaltered ani, al fee aS Net forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemptirn,Unde r Section 7.08.070 o f this el, ,pter. " 7.08.122 Microchi D identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolu ion contradicts the council's agreement to drop the ma ndait,ry microchip propos ordinance. The draft continues to mandate: microchips. The draft states: WO person may own, keep, or harbor u clog or cat over the age of six months t1wt doer not have a microcipl,identification vice. " 7.08.010 i.icensc d re eistration required Councilman Rohr •uggested an addition to the resolution to include the r quirement for a business license fc r newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale o puppies/dogs and kittens/can`s. I ppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for adverasernents in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads" r sale"posted in the Wave,such is merchandise,garage sales,etc. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisem nts in the Wave,but instead suggests: >� 'J SICK FEB-04-2009 10:42 From:BLOCK PLANT EISNER 8185016752 To:95365233 P.3/3 ...rant/rrnrl all rblic advertisements for the uvuilcrlallity r,/"ur�y cic��,j yr at fir ucloptivre, sale, barter or of,ier lt-an#er rust prominently ctiyntay the business lice zse number in Me advertisemen. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Reacb for doss cuthanized d ae to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I lirm)y oppose iny mandated spay, neuter,or n 11crochip ordinance, Furthermore, I oppose any disenl iinato.ry legislation_ I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, fuid stick to what you agreed to do. There has ben tots inuch tune and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 0-1 .� Karen Dembrow i 20450 Orey llac Whinetka,CA 91306 918-501-2933 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No, 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3799 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Snav and neutering of doag and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08,070 of'this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of do&§and cats 'Me drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: 11—any and all public advertisements for the availability of any clog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanizaf due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. ltespecttLlly 73 , ° Te *d ZT£,L968 bTL Nooma onou WFJ 'iS= T i 8@0Z-b@-S3d cats. License fees would be increased,using a tterea scare wire ree reaucuons iur spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 pav and neutering of dogs an cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft.states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation oJ'this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution oJ'the City Council or qualifies fur an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7,08,122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of.vix months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 Ljgcnse and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or catJor adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, RUC u--C---!A- February 3.2008 Dear Huntington Beach City Council, Please 1D0 NOT vote for any m2ndatery Spay/Neuter laws! This drastic,knee jerk reaction to PETA false claims does nothing,if not worsen the shelter animal situation. No one wants to see animals in shelters or euthanized for lack of homes but this is a fact of life in the United States and we would be far better off to EDUCATE and ASSIST the public to the benefits of altering their housepets rather than causing them to resist by forcing them. Americans choose a purebred pet for specific qualities that suit their lifestyle,such as size,temperament,exercise requirements and coat. Your grandmother will NOT adopt a Pit Bull from the Shelter if she cannot buy a Chihuahua. She will end up buying one off the internet or a Pet Store-both outlets of the horrible Puppy Mill situations. She will then most likely get an unhealthy/unsound animal and surrender it to the shelter causing more problems. Surgery for dogs at only 4 months is not healthy for many Toy,Sighthound and Giant breeds. Toys&Sighthounds are too tiny/fragile and easily lost to anesthesia and the Giants are nowhere near mature enough causing later problems with bone development and temperament. Six months is still too young for many breeds_ Shouldn't this be a professional decision by a Veterinarian,not the government? Even if you do pass this ordinance,who will enforce it and PAY for it? The'Vets will be seen at Neuter Police and pet owners won't take sick animals in for medical care if they think they will be turned in and face fines or loss of their pet. Many won't get inununizations for fear they will be turned in when they can't afford the average$200 to spay a pet. Who will keep all the paper work involving who is licensed,exempted and avoiding the law for pets? Will you waste already limited Animal Control Funds to keep records and to go door to door? How will you prove the animal is even the acused? Many will deny ownership to avoid fines,then go out and get another puppy or kitten from underground sources or the internet. What about Feral Cats? The State shelters will lose major charitable t'`unding for alter and release programs that help keep their easily expandable numbers under control. These cats are wild and CANNOT be tamed to be placed in pet homes. Please! Think public subsidized Spay and Neuter programs and Educational events- Most Pet clubs will be more than willing to assist-than the"Nanny"type government strong arming. Americans don't like their freedoms taken away and will vote so! ank you,,,, Marcie Dobkin Mdobkin 0rodiay.net 858 748 8848 085-d l00/t00 d 881-1 Bile Ho 858+ 11VEOW 811e8OM 1 43 MHS-A08d w el 800Z-VO-03i 02/04/08 16:34 FAX 9198164275 WiUU2 1 c 141C *a FENNEL CLUB- cOArOPP� February 4,2008 The Honorable Debbie Cook Mayor,City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Madam Mayor: The American Kennel Club,(AKC)a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement and welfare of purebred dogs,has previously contacted the Huntington Beach City Council,regarding the adoption of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We understand that the city council is again considering this proposal. AKC continues to have serious concerns regarding this ordinance. The fundamental effects of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance have no relationship to the purported legislative intent of this measure. While the intent of this proposal is to address animal shelter population issues,it in fact penalizes responsible dog and cat owners by forcing them to spay or neuter their pets;or, for those individuals who choose to keep their animals intact,to purchase an intact animal permit at an unreasonably high cost. AKC believes that responsible owners are not to blame for shelter population issues,and any attempt by Huntington Beach to penalize responsible owners by forcing them to spay and neuter animals that are not causing problems in the community is public policy that is both pointless and disparately unfair. The revised draft of the ordinance appears to be contradictory in that it says in section 7.08.075 that "When licensing a dog or cat that has not been altered,a Huntington Beach resident shall provide proof of an exemption."However,in section 7.08.121 it says that"No person may own,keep or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months unless such person pays an unaltered animal fee...or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070."This second section would seem to imply that a person could purchase an intact license even if they did not qualify for one of the"exemptions"in Section 7.08.070. Although the word mandatory does not appear in the revised draft,the intent and affect of the ordinance remains very much a mandate to dog owners. Present law and public behavior make this legislation unnecessary.According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association 2005-2006 survey,more than 70%of owned dogs and 84%of owned cats are spayed or neutered. With an overwhelming majority of dog and cat owners already choosing to spay or neuter their pets,a mandatory spay/neuter proposal is unfair and ineffective. Additionally,many of the pets surrendered to animal shelters are brought there specifically to be euthanized,or have behavioral problems,such as a bite history,which makes them unable to be placed in the community. Responsible breeders produce well-bred,properly socialized purebred puppies. By carefully screening potential buyers,responsible breeders insure that a puppy placed in a new home represents a lifetime commitment by the new owners to the welfare of the dog. This ordinance rejects the fact that responsible 5580 Centerview Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 Tel 919 816-3720 Fax 919 816-4275 www.akc.org 02/04/08 16:34 FAX 9198164275 gIuu:s dog breeders conscientiously provide canine companions to the many Californians who,each year,seek to add a purebred puppy to their family. Instead,a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance wrongfully blames such breeders for shelter population issues. In fact,purebred dogs account for only a small percentage of shelter populations and any purebred dog surrendered to a shelter can immediately be placed with a purebred rescue organization. The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits,breeding bans,or mandatory spaying or neutering of purebred dogs. We and our affiliated clubs support and conduct thousands of annual programs dedicated to teaching the pet-buying public how to find a responsible breeder and how to make well-informed decisions when buying a dog. Such programs help to ensure that pet purchasers find a puppy or dog that is a good match for their lifestyle,at an appropriate time in their lives,thereby increasing the likelihood that the animal will stay with the owner for its entire life. Additionally,we understand that the ordinance also requires all dogs and cats over four months of age to be microchipped. As part of our ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership,the AKC encourages dog owners to properly identify their pets.We believe,however,that the final decision about identification—whether by collar,tattoo or microchip—should be made by the owner,not the government. As you and the members of the Huntington Beach City Council consider this matter,the American Kennel Club and your constituent dog owners would be pleased to assist you in developing reasonable animal control regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities. We invite you to review our public education programs,and we respectfully urge you not to proceed with this proposal. Sincerely, Sarah Sprouse Manager,AKC Canine Legislation Cc:Members of the Huntington Beach City Council Feb-04-06 02:33pm From- T-672 P.001/001 F-117 Feb 4 200? Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Re: Ordin--:ace No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip Ordinance No 3798 and urge the Mayor and the Council Members to reject it. Such Ord--lance will be inhumane for animals concerned,and will punish all for the ignorant and irresponsibility of the few. The solution to the problem should not lie in the invasion of people's homes and private property which is against the Constitution of United St:.-:es of America, and castration and/or ova-hysterectomy of immature animals which nec-d specific hormones,like any mammal,to develop. Solution -:tiould involve public education in schools,working with the Breed and Regional clubs, creating low income and/or free spay/neuter clinics with the help of local veterinarians and helping with the transport to and from such clinics,education and longer ad.,ption hours in the Animal Shelters,creating No Kill policies in the local shelters, and capture-spay/neuter-release of feral cats which control the rodent populatio». Respectfol ly, Monika itachon FROM EPILEPSY & BRAIN MAPPING PHONE NO. : 8169860896 Feb. 03 2008 09:10PM P1 V=Pg -+\�- - [�; CJT33 February 3,2008 Honorable mayor and City Council Members, A strongly oppose the following: Ordinance No.37"and Resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay.Neuter,and Mocr ochip Ordinance No.3798. The idea that the lack of spay/neuter is the cause of all of the animals in the shelters is skewed at best. If this is true then why aren't there any puppies in all of these shelters? Please go and look for yourselves! I spent 6 months looking for a small,non-shedding dog(really wanted a puppy but after 2 months of looking I gave up and would have accepted an older dog)but finally bought from a reputable breeder because there were none!My husband and I went to every shelter within a 50 mile radius. 75%of the dogs in the shelters were pit-bull mixes. The small dog mixes all have waiting lists.If there was no waiting list then many had special needs or temperament problems. None were non- shedding like I needed_ The true reason for dogs on the streets is the lack of education given to people buying dogs. This is primarily found in dogs purchased from pet shops and backyard breeders. Follow the trail and you will find the pet shop dogs come from puppy mills. The shops don't offer guarantees because they don't want to loose a sale,and they certainly don't want the dogs back Read a contract from a true AKC breeder and there will be a guarantee clause. Also there is a screening process for each prospective family. The screening is more stringent than that for parents wanting to adopt children. The majority of individuals in pet stores are young adults or teenagers who don't know how to be responsible for an animal. They don't understand the cost and needs required long term. If they don't know then how can they relate these things to a first time buyer? They also don't know what personalities the different breeds have and therefore can't match an owner to a dog responsibly. How would they know that a Jack Russell needs lots of exercise otherwise they are very destructive? If a family who is sedentary buys this dog of course they will want to dump it. The ordinance will only drive the good breeders away and underground,and the bad ones will continue to breed and just keep moving one step away from the law. The beautiful purebreds will either cease to exist or be too expensive for middle class America to purchase. Too bad for children with asthma and allergies who can only have a non- shedding dog or cat...and yes they do exist but only as a purebred Please vote no on Ordinance No. 3798 and resolution no 2008-5! S' rely, 0 J uther in Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:44 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; City Clerk Agenda Cc: Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Tanaka, Miyako [ma i Ito:MTANAKA@SYCR.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:50 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, PLEASE DO NOT BECOME A NANNY CITY! Your job is not to infringe upon the community's rights! We have enough problems in this state, and we do not need the City Council to start coming into our back yards and homes. I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter, and Microchip (SNM) Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats 2� v G - A4 Page 2 of 2 The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale" posted in the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sales, etc. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement" As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Miyako Tanaka 9702 Delafield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 2/4/2008 Feb 04 08 09:46a Terry Toussaint 909 190 3488 p.1 February 4, 2008 TO: Mayor Debbie Cook Mayor Pro Tem Keith Bohr Council Member Joe Carchio Gil Coerper Cathy Green Don Hansen Jill Hardy Re: Opposition to Ordinance#3798 and Resolution 2008-5 The ordinance is an improvement over previous versions that imposed mandatory spay/neuter. However, I am concerned about the provision requiring publication of a business license number and ask the Council to consider returning the Ordinance to staff or deleting the provision. First: The provision would likely be counterproductive. In the event of an accidental breeding and resulting offspring,the desired result would be placement of those offspring with caring families. The ordinance, as written, would make this difficult by prohibiting media advertising.Without this advertising, it is more lately the offspring will be abandoned or turned over directly to your Animal Control facilities. In either case,this exacerbates the problem rather than contributing to the solution. Second: The provision singles out pet owners and creates a class of lawn that doesn't apply to other groups. There is no requirement that those holding a garage sale or selling appliances have a business license, so why should there be one for pet owners?An argument can be made that discarded furniture and appliances also constitute a public problem. Third: The provision puts the media in the role of law enforcement.The media would be required to police advertising and reject"illegal"advertisements. Fourth:The provision could be viewed as a restriction of free speech and therefore unconstitutional. This could put the entire ordinance at risk of being ove �� in court. er Toussaint Member:Alaskan Malamute Club of America 02/04/2008 11:13 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 01 RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES P.O.Box 1406 Newport,WA 99136 Web Site hup://www.i)ovn.couVrdoas E-mail US rdoy,* pq n,cqnl Blog Littp--11rctp-ws.mord css.oinj E-mail List MW--//&mW -yp com/group-10PA" Cherie Gmes,Chairwoman,WA.(509)447-2921 Ludy Schreiber-DworniciX Assistant to the Chair,Director at Large,-Tk%—v Hermine Stovcr.SecmWry.Press Liaison.CA.LicrLT@jqqL.cndangcrcijs e1je—coln Mary Schaeffer,Fbiance Director,fivowd bounad.coni Arizona Director.John Bm-en iotvmll foLvi1g, hLbrupilcom California Director,TanD%&ctna bM!%-q Minis Director.Elizabeth Pensgard bpe k_rdQ1vakjiotkqom Indiana Director.Charles Coffman qgpdjg&f0)yj!_w-coT=ist.net Iowa DiToctot.L&nsa Boyscn rdnj%s_towaldlyahoo qpip Mississippi Director.Dan Crutchfield fannell-j Nevada Director,Ken Sondqj_4wjWs(e^iayvpji.qLi Ohio DiTector,"riffany Skouncky qlt*rrdmy...;Ltj)valioo.coLtn Oklahoma Director,Jade Harris nadyletislation&i) - hLxLcoin Tennessee Director.Gina Cotton vjyW_qqqnWiwn.com Tc.-as,Director,Alvin Crew c_Tohx(&austqLrr.ajin POSITION STATEMENT ON ANTMAL CONTROL.RESCUES& SHELTERS Responsible Dog Owners of the Wcstmn States was formed.October 15, 1989 to protect the civil and Constitutional rights. and interests of dog owners.Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States takes exception with animal control agencies labeling of dogs by breed for the purpose of negative profiling Animal control agencies are not qualified to make dog breed determinations. Animal control officcrs are not trained in breed recognition.Mislabeling of dog breeds skews statistics.and causes misinformation to be accepted as fact. RDOWS opposes animal control agencies, rescues, and animal shelters importing animals from outside of the locale in which they are located. The animals are used to inflate intake figures, and euthanasia rates. These inflated figures we being used to point the finger of blame at, and to pass unnecessary legislation against local dog owners whose tax dollars, and license fees support these animal control agencies. and shelters. Teas of thousands of animals were transported out of the Gulf Coast to animal control agencies. and shelters all over the United States following the hurricanes Katrina-and Rita. Plane loads of animals are imported into the United States from Chim,Ramwiia,Mexico.the Caribbean and c1smbae by animal control agencies..and shelters that are promoting the myth of pet overpopulation. (See attached links at the bottom.) Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States request: that cities, counties.. and states to call for the following changes in protocols for not for profit mscties that import animals, for animal control agencies, and for shelters that are supported by public funds: 02/04/2006 11:13 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 02 • Only dogs/cats that come into animal control with registration papers from a pure-bred registry to be identified by breed. • Dogs/cats will be identified by sve_ weight_ set., intact status, approximate age. color, and markings. • Every dogicat taken in to shelters/animal control will have a record of where it originated from. and its final disposition. • All dogs/cats/animals imported by shelters,or animal control from outside of the locale of the area served by animal control or shelter must be quarantined in separate quarters from local animals for a period of six months prior to being offered for placement to the public,or being transported to another venue. Their city,county,state,or country of origin must be prominently displayed on the gate of the quarantine quartets. No public moneys shall be used for the care and upkeep of imported animals. • Only local animal intake figures will be used to cite unwanted ananals in each animal control agency,or shettces,locale.No imported animals will be used in intake figures. • No animal control agency, or shelter shall breed animals,or cause animals to be bred to add to intake figures. • No owner reclaimed animal shall be spayed/rteatered without express permission of the owner. • No animal control agency. or shelter shall cause any legislation that mandates against the ownership,or use of animals—is it is a conflict of interest. (1)TUFTS;FELLING EMPTY DOG POUNDS(FROM 02-06-03) hltr://enetts.tttifis.txht/stories/02(1(iR+�tlin�•Emph'Pgunds.hhtt Pet Underpoputation:The Pet Shortage in the US by Laura 13aughan htht:/lctxtttieliourt>ii.��m/?,3prm�tan.htntl (2)Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease atlEp:!/..�.�..r�s;ttculat,cum/irett sht�t�lt><?(n17:I tl-2 I- dog=impptts N.hqu Outbreak of D.m -Resistant Salmonella at an Animal Slater Itttj�:l/���tw.aninr�tshcllCriltk.hr�resgurcc liblan/ma arincztrtirlcs/nov dec 20Nt;/ombrcal <►f dine_ tesist un sahnonetla.btutl. Disease shuts animal shelter(Las Vegas)ittjt)J/tut%jjp� icty rn�mal.cont/ly Ixlmc/7(k) /Feb-lt►-Sat- _J 200 7/netts/12 i 17017.htm 1 (3)Rabies Treatmem Saves One.Does Not Work for All !TIJLLAc-Y�ufox j101111111 Human]rabies—Indiana and California.2006 http;//tva tr.cdC.gnv/W(}1AN,'Wytta icw,'nnnttrht ntl!n�tn�G 1 Ott I.him (4)9 Things You(Probably)Didn't Know About Dog Shelters blt ://wtiti.n.kttbrccds_cum/animalshcltcrs,hlm ABC NEWS: 100.000 Imported Poppies Prompt Rabies Scare ItttDa/ahcnens.Co.�rnn/He;tltWst�:n;'id—?'6�'I7��?G_p;�ge=,1. 02/04/2008 11:13 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 03 U.S.Customs and Border Protection Today_Smuggled puppies a concem to California Utt ://�a�r��.CIw.Ca�•/� C.ttstontsTcd�/24106/luns�l/other/ouonics.xml FROM :CHARLENE VINCENT FAX NO. :818 709 0756 Feb. 04 2008 09:14AM Pi CHARLENE T.WNCENT 10900 Farralone Avenue Chatsworth, CA 91311-1329 (818)709-0756-CharlieVinhaol.com February 3, 2008, via FAX 714-536-5233 b Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE. Drdinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter, and Microchip (SNM) Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. FEB-04-2008 06 :27 AM P. 01 Z. February 3,2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, JW: Ordinanev No. 3798 and fiesolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2009.5 for th®pwposed Spay,Neuter,and h icaochip (SNM)Ordinance No.3795 and urp the mayor and all c omoil nm=bm to itm it. The fesolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5,20U7. 71w council agrwj to drop the ordinum and raise licaw fees Wsw& The current voluntary lkmftg suwas for cats wouldchange to become requited licensing for cab. License fees would be 'mmand,using a fiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neater,andlor microchips. Adv for dogs and cats its the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121,.. ay seed nt The drafted reIOludon c®ntaudicta the council's AVVOMW to drop tie mandatory Spay sad Neuter ordinance.proposed Tier draft continues to mandate sir and neutering for all dogs and cab over six months of age. The draft states: "No arson may own, keel" or harbor a dog or cat over the age of sbr months in violation of this section unless such person pm unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolutions of the City Council or qualifies for an exera don under Section 7.08.070 of this clgter.11 7,JQ8.I—Z2—M cr rAw, atiftcadon of does is no drafted resolution contradicts the cou ncil's apeement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. 11w draft coati»to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, 1wep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip ldenttfdcradon device... 1-OLQ.1Q.lt imse and msis0fion MVind Councilman Bohr sugrated an ad don to the resolution to include the requirement fora business license for newspaper advertisaneft in the Wave for the sale of puppleddogs and lcitteaas/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertiscama eta the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for vale"posted in the Nave,such as hmWise,garage sales,ect. Furdiermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements its the Wave,but'instead suggests: "...any anrd all public advertisements, or the aw dabllity h tp://Www.odoca.o L D f fJ.,_ ..�.._, .«, At 2/3/200g FEB-04-2008 06 :27 AM P. 02 of away dog or cwfor adoptkm sate,barter or otkr trawfer smear pronra the bu 1wo lkwm wmber in the itlStrle� d to As you are awon.statistics for Hirfington leach for dogs eudmnind due to delta overcro do not suppM any mandated orffiname. I fialy opow my mandated Voy,naox,or mia=Wp ordinance. Eunhermore,I oppose any diwriminawry leglsWon. I urge you to reject do drafted lution,and stick to whet you agreed to do. Thm has ben too much*w and tax payer dollars wamed®n this unnecesmy pmpood Wiveady. http://www.cdooLorg4MLETTEP.html '���* i February 3, 2008 i Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE: Ordinance No. 3795'and Resolution No 2008-5 I veheinwitl.y oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay, Neuter, and Microchip (SNIvi) Ordinance No: 3.798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what Was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance.and raise license fu" instead. The Current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License flees would be increased,;usuig a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, ?. and/or miorochips. Advertisomcnts for dogs'=d. cats in the Wave we;rt also discussed. 7.09.121 Spay and neutering of dar?s and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. 'T'he draft continues to mandate sway dad acutcthib fui all dogs and cats over six months'of age. The draft states: "No person mau owra, keep or harbor a clog 6r cat : 11 over the age of'six,months in violtition of this section runless such person,pan unaltered animal fee as,sei forth by resodution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.P70 of this chapdcr, " r 7.08.122 Microchip identification'of dogs, and cats The drafted resolution contradicts'.the cuLuac iI's agreement to drop the mandatory ' microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate inicrochips. The draft states: "No person may own. Iceep or harbor a dog or r8t over the age of'six months that dues not haue Cl microchip identification devict , „ 7,08,010 License and re ig stration segdired Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to uiclude the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisement's in the Wave for'the' sale;of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this req!iArnment as,it is discriminatory. If a bueiriess license is required for advertisements in the'Vi�ave,'thei it should apply to all ads;"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise; garage sales,etc. Also; the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements': fcr the availability of any dog!vr eat for adoption, sale,;barter or other trurwfcr must prorntne'ntly display?he business hcens'e number in the advertisement, i 7.08.050 License_ Owner duty tolobtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely'prevent inost owrier¢ fr6rn licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthaniied due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. 1,firtnly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance, Furthermore, T oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution and stick tip your agreement: Too,inuch time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already Respectfully, Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: j wilker[romany.rye@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:22 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: pet microchip/neuter program Importance: High As a long time city resident, I have seen the city council tackle many issues, some that I agreed with and others that I didn't. The pet spay/neuter/microchip program is one that I do not agree with, not that I don't believe that irresponsible pet owners are a root cause of pet over population - but because I believe that the microchip component of this proposed program is not safe for the animals. Veterinarians are not in agreement that this type of surgery is 100% safe for cats or dogs. This opens the city to potential liability when an animal fails to survive the surgery. We as citizens of this city should not be put in a position where we will face these types of liability claims. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. John Wilker Huntington Beach Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now! 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 4 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:59 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: C&C thoughts on Council Item G-2b Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: kbb123@aol.com [mailto:kbb123@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:09 PM To: mail@catnipandcarrots.org; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re: C&C thoughts on Council Item G-2b Hello Ms. Wise, Thank you for your thoughtful email we will take your suggestions under consideration. Keith Bohr HB City Council -----Original Message----- From: C&C Mail <mail@catnipandcarrots.org> To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 8:26 pm Subject: C&C thoughts on Council Item G-2b 2/3/08 Mayor Cook, Vice-Mayor Bohr and City Council: While the issue of Spay/Neuter/Microchip has been controversial and emotional during the past 10 months, we'd like to thank you for your hard work, compassion, and dedication to the animals of Huntington Beach. It's not easy to appease the masses and yet remain true to the goal of making a difference in the lives of those who have no voice. You will no doubt get many emails and letters for and against the proposed licensing ordinance. Both sides have many valid points and deserve your consideration. Below are a few ideas our organization came up with that we feel are important to the success and implementation of this new law: 1. Lower the senior age from 65 to 62. 2. Offer a Senior Discount for cats 3. Allow Seniors 60 days for compliance, vs. 30 days /(,/ rV 2%4/2 8 6 - -), 6 Page 2 of 4 4. Eliminate the male & female distinction and treat all animals equally 5. Eliminate the .50 cent increments 6. Consider the sale of licenses from dedicated vendors within the city of HB We realize you will get a lot of argument over how to enforce this new ordinance. We've outlined a few suggestions below. We've also added several suggestions on how to promote the Low-Cost S/N/MC program administered by Save Our Strays from city grant money. For an endeavor such as this, you simply must make an alternative available to all residents and offer a reasonable way to discount the fees via compliance; especially in our ever growing Senior population(estimated at 50,000 residents). We all realize our seniors often depend on a pet as their sole companion and emotional support. The last thing any of us want is for their beloved pet to end up in the shelter because they couldn't afford the licensing fee or S/N surgery. This segment of our population can also face limitations on transportation to/from local veterinarians and low cost clinics outside our city, since busses only allow animals in a carrier. We believe many residents are against cat licensing because they are afraid they will be found in violation of the City's pet limitation laws. Yet the current proposed fee of$23 per dog and $5 per cat is reasonable. The addition of cats will only help to increase their worth as pets by making them equal to dogs in the laws eyes. We hope our ideas can help you make an informed decision on how best to proceed. We have the experience and the passion to continue working and searching "outside the box" to save resident and homeless animals and offer them a life of love, good health and compassion. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our support. Susan Wise, President Catnip and Carrots Animal Bunch, Inc. Huntington Beach, California Devised Fees for your consideration: ((Changes in RED) CATS: Altered& Chipped: S5 Seniors: $3 Altered, Not Chipped: $30 Seniors: $15 Chipped,Not Altered: Males $80, Females $100 ($85M/F) Seniors: $70 (male or female) Not Altered &Not Chipped: Males S105, Females $125 ($110 M/F) Seniors: $95 (male or female) DOGS: Altered& Chipped: S23 Seniors: S11.50 ($12) Altered,Not Chipped: $48 Seniors: $38.50 ($38) Chipped,Not Altered: Males $168, Females $188 ($175 M/]F) Seniors: Males $156.50,Females $176.50 ($160 M/F) Not Altered & Not Chipped: Males S193, Females $213 (S200 M/]F) Seniors: Males $181.50, Females $201.50 ($185 MI F) Ways to enforce the new licensing ordinance 2/4/2008 Page 3 of 4 1. Consider developing a volunteer program to assist in enforcing the Ordinance. Train in door to door canvassing to help record household information and pass out licensing applications with prepaid envelopes. Allow 30 days to comply before reporting violation to OCACC. 2. Allow the sale of licenses to approved HB vendors e.g. Veterinarians, Groomers, Senior Center, City building, etc. Allow outside vendors to collect a 75 cent fee for processing. 3. Have Vets & Groomers verify license and/or microchip before appt.,just as they do vaccines and rabies. Only takes a few minutes and offer the sale of license on premises for ease of compliance. 4. Begin canvassing program with apt/condo complexes and mobile home parks. Ask Mgmt. for a copy of their list of pet owners/pet deposit info for verification. 5. Have an anonymous hotline available to report abuses. 6. During routine traffic stops with a pet on board, ask for their license, as well (tag) Ways to help reduce the impact of the Licensing fees on Seniors & Others/ Promote Save Our Strays Low-Cost Program 1. Have S/N/MC applications available at Rodgers Senior Center. 2. Have S/N/MC applications available at City Building. 3. Have S/N/MC applications available at Vets offices participating in the program. 4. Have S/N/MC info and applications available online at City website. 5. Make all info Bilingual. 6. Run a full page ad in Bright Outlook Newsletter. 7. Add printed note to city utility bills. "Low Cost Spay/Neuter/Microchipping available thru Save Our Strays. 714-442-1446 or www.saveourstrayshb.orc"; 8. Actively seek all HB vets to participate in the program for betterment of community—even if on a limited basis. 9. Consider hosting 2 microchip clinics: 1 for General Public, 1 at Senior Center. 10. Work directly with Council on Aging or Community Services Department - Senior Outreach Center for help in spreading the word to seniors. 11. Flyers to Mobile Home parks and Senior Living Residences. (even if they don't allow pets, the seniors may have friends who need or could utilize the program) 12. Flyers to apartment complexes. Mgmt would appreciate being able to let residents know the program exists: it helps them, too. Many have a monthly newsletter. 13. Flyers to all Grooming businesses in town. Go where the pets are! 14. An ad in the Sands Magazine re: details of the low cost program. 15. Ad on HBTV-3 16. Consider a catchy name for the low cost S/N/MC program. Something everyone will remember it and spay it forward. 17. There is an issue that some vets in the program require additional payment of registration fees for microchips. ($17.50-25.00) All chips must be registered or the chip is worthless but many people will not pay. Prepaid chips are available to help alleviate the non-registration problem. Susan Wise President, Catnip & Carrots Animal Bunch www.catnipandcarrots.or "We are a voice for those who can not speak." 2/4/2008 Page 4 of 4 p & e a, IBIA& I GoodSearch for Catnip & Carrots! Raise money for homeless animals simply by searching the Internet with GoodSearch - www.goodscarch.com. More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Barton and Sandy Boehm [seikenway@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:35 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Concerns to City Council 1/02/08 Greetings city council, As a resident of HB and a citizen of a country that is supposed to have government officials elected by the people and for the people I want my voice heard and respected. Having the right and privilege to pass laws is an extremely serious and honored endeavor. It concerns me deeply how laws are being passed for events that rarely happen, when laws already exist for the same types of issues, or they affect only law abiding citizens without increasing "public safety". A city councils job is not to create new laws for their personal agendas nor is it to increase the profits for specific businesses. You are in these honorary positions to represent those of us who live here. The law that has grasped my attention recently is requiring mandatory micro chipping for pets especially in cats. If you choose to create a market for this private company,then I demand seeing the studies creating a safer world by placing them in each specific species. What will happen is people who keep their cats indoors will be penalized for the owners who leave their cats outside and don't neuter them. Whose cats do you think you will find? Will you call upon all veterinarians and pet food sellers to be nazi neighbors and turn names into the police? Oh and whose going to pay for enforcement? Also wonder whether the council has a coffer of money for the lawsuits that will surely follow this unethical and of economically driven inequality. Best Regards, Sandy Young 9171 Madeline Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Val 2/4/2008 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:45 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Cc: Van Dorn, Kay Subject: FW: Spay neuter legislation Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Dean Langwiser [mailto:dlangwiser@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Spay neuter legislation SURFCrrY WEIMARANERS Phone 562.430.7493 Fax 562.430.7493 dlangwiser@hotmail.com alpha@scwbitchwear.com February 4, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip (SNM) Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pay unaltered animal fee as set forth 2/4/2008 —��j Page 2 of 2 by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads "for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise, garage sales, ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave, but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Dean Langwiser SurfCity Weimaraners Vice President Santa Ana Valley Kennel Club Vice President Southland Weimaraner Club Inc. Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now! 2/4/2008 02/04/2008 15:41 4086263625 WESTMONT PAGE 02/02 February 4th,2008 RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No. 2008-5 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I'm writting to you today because what you decide may sweep the state and eventually affect me in the Say Area_ As you know Assemblyman Levine and PETA,the animals tights group, is solidly behind the mandatory spay/neuter issues in the state of California, and they are proceeding with their agenda county by county, Their goat is to neuter ALL dogs and cats in the state in a timely manor on the premise that it will save the state money, and reduce euthanasia in our tonal shelters. It wR also eliminate adoptable pets In our future, and it is the beginning of exterminating our healthy prue breeds as we know them today. Bottom-line it takes away our civil liberties and constitutional tights. lt's an insult to responsible pet owners,whose dogs,cats,and puppies are not a threat to the state,the communities in which they live,or your state or city budgets. Let me go on record here by stating that I am vehemently opposed to the drag resolution No. 2008-6 for the proposed Spay/Neuter,Microchip Ordinance No.3798. 1 urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on Nov 5,2007. The council,(which is you), agreed to DROP the ordinance and raise license fees instead. Do you remember? ?.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats: The drafted resolution contradicts the councirs agreement to DROP the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. This new draft continues to mandate spay/neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age.Why are you going"Back"on your word,your previous decision???? 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats: The new drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to DROP the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance.. The new draft conbnues to MANDATE microchips. Going back on your word to the pubk is down right unfairl l!1 7.09.010 Ucerme and registration required: Councilman Bahr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittenstcats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory,ry, If a.business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to ALL ads"for sale'posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales, etc. Furthermore,the resolution isolates for punishment speoaYcally the sale of animals, and does not apply to cars, clothes,toys or other sale item& It specifically asks for business license Ira for selling pets,and does not require license Vs for other sales items. How blatantly unfair is thatlltl As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcowdfing DO NOT support any mandated ordinance. It means passing this ordinance is UN-4mecessaryt i firmly oppose any mandated spay/neuter/or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any DISCRIMINATORY legislation, such as Business licenses to sell puppies or pets in the WAVE. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. Hey,pule selling parts in the WAVE are actually looking for GOOD HOMES for these pets. They are taking this responsibility on themselves to do so. Passing this ordinance,will force them all to drop more pets off at the shelters to be euthanized. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Please be reasonable, please don't cave into the pres- sures of PETA and the animal rights folks. Please keep our civil rights and constitutional rights sacred. Sup- port responsible pet ownership at all costs. We are ALL allreadky doing the right things with considerstionss for not overpopulating the pert market,or adding to overcrowding in our shelters. We are also very concerned with the future of all Prue breed dogs and cats,and our ability to show and maintain Healthy prue breed stix*, Mandatory spay/neuter proposals are fair too restrictive From: Marilyn Bercellos 620 Kenneth Avenue Campbell,Californian 9M008 Feb 04 08 05:08p Kevin Foley 7148496854 p.1 K--M�J) OF�JCJAL t� February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members. Re: Mandatory spay/neuter and microchip ordinance My name is Charlotte Foley and I am a retired California Highway Patrol Officer. I am not an extremely political person but I need to be heard about the new tiered spaying charges that you are proposing. I recently moved to Huntington Beach almost 2 years ago after living in Maryland for I l years. I chose this city because of its great schools for my child and the over all friendly safe community that Huntington Beach is. I also picked Huntington Beach to buy my million dollar property in because of the wonderful "pet friendly"city it represented itself to be. Now[am so ashamed as a law abiding citizen who owns several pets to be living in this community. My Pharaoh Hounds(a very rare and ancient Egyptian/Maltese breed)are all AKC and UKC registered show champions.One ranked in the top 10 in the AKC! He was also invited to the Eukenuba National show in Long Beach several times. All of my pets are micro chipped because I have always been a responsible pet owner even before I moved back here to CA. I am also responsible enough to realize that when the right time comes for my dogs to be sterilized they will be spayed.That time will be when I know they are not going to be bred or shown any longer. Those are my choices and not yours. l own these dogs. You do not. My animals are taken well cared for and live inside my home 90%of the day and the other 10%they are leashed or in my backyard fenced in. They are always up on all of their vaccines too since they travel from time to time to Europe. Remember I am a responsible adult. If my dogs are to be bred a lot of consideration will go into the thoughts as to who the sire will be. I do not run a puppy mill/backyard breeding program or breed one of those"Designer Dogs"that people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on just to obtain a mutt.My titter wild be carefully thought out and the people who do get a dog from me will have to go through a thorough background check. I would never even think of advertising my show puppy in the paper for sale. That is for people who want to profit off of a litter and are most likely backyard breeders,. Most of us responsible breeders make very little in the way of money and always save any extras incase of a return.Ivry contracts will stipulate that for any reason the person who purchased my puppy and can not keep the puppy I will take them back_ These are the responsible and sensible things as a future breeder I will do. Here is my question for you? Now why would you want to penalize someone who is an upstanding citizen and gets her dogs vaccinated on time,takes them to the vet when they are ill, gets pet licenses for each of them,keep them micro chipped ....well I think you get my point. Why do you want to penalize me for having 3 beautiful rare show dogs and punish me the responsible law abiding citizen????? Why should my fees cost me almost$600.00 per year just because I believe in the beauty of these dogs and want to see them continue for generations as a 100%pure Pharaoh Hound. 6 �L� Feb 04 08 05:09p Kevin Foley 7148496854 p.1 I am asking you to reconsider the astronomical amounts of money for my pet license. I can not afford the increase along with my huge city taxes too. WHY ARE YOU PUNISHING THE GOOD RESPONSIBLE DOG AND CAT PEOPLE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THEIR ANIMALS????? You are already punishing us with $95 fees. Never in my life after living in 5 other states have I seen fees like this. I believe$50 was the highest I feel punished when I have done nothing wrong except be a loving responsible pet owner. 1 will be EXTREMELY surprised if someone responds to my concerns or needs. I will welcome any phone calls to discuss this. Respectfully, Charlotte Ze➢ayskas Foley Ret STO#11367 21422 Augusta Circle HB 92646 (7I4)475-4733 P2--' Feb 04 08 05:10p Kevin Foley 7148496854 p.3 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on_November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months in violation ofthis section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qual ies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads "for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,ca. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "_..any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer mustprominentwdisplay the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, C 9,_ Harriet Seldin PO. Box 231274 Encinitas CA 92023 7604364484 February 4,2008 Mayor Debbie Cook City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mayor Cook: Re: Ordinance#3798 and Resolution#2008-5 OPPOSE I am totally opposed to the above proposed ordinance and resolution. I don't live in Huntington Beach,but I live in North County San Diego and,up until now I have enjoyed traveling to Huntington Beach with my dogs. I especially enjoy your Bark in the Park Dog Park and my dogs enjoy the yummy food in the restaurant there that caters to dog parties. I fondly recall a golden retriever gathering some time ago in that park/outdoor restaurant. If your Council passes the misguided draconian ordinance to force the spaying/neutering of almost all young puppies and kittens in your city and requires licenses for anyone who advertises puppies/kitteris for sale, I will no longer visit your city.Either for the bark park or for other activities. In addition to the Bark Park,I travel to various places in Orange County for dog agility and other dog events. I will bypass your City. I firmly believe that spaying/neutering and microchipping should be voluntary. I have always microchipped my dogs, and most have been spayed or neutered.But that should be a decision between the pet owner and their veterinarian. Promote voluntary low-cost microehipping and spaying/neutering,but don't turn law-abiding small hobby breeders into criminals.Don't reduce the gene pool of the best dogs and cats for the fitture. beep your community"friendly's to dogs and cats and their owners. Surely,the irresponsible pet owners will ignore such laws anyway. Why go after your best residents? 1 hope that you will take my views and those of others who love their animals into account,and vote down 3798 and 2008-5. Thank you for your consideration, Harriet Seldin t� FROM :PARADISE GREAT DANES FAX NO. :707 762 3763 Feb. 03 2006 03:02PM P1 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject i.t. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License i'ccs would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Shay and neutering of doe.5_and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate shay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person ran unaltered animal,fee as.pet forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.0R 070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Micrax hip identification of doffs and cats The drafted resolution.contradicts the councWs agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age gfsix months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.01.0 License and registration tration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a. business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise, garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements,for the availability Qf any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthariized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance, I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. .I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/03/2008 18:36 7149639781 FEDEX KINKOS PAGE 11 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RF_ Ordinance No. 3798 and.Resolution No 2008-5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 .for the proposed.Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 379 and urge the mayor and allcouncil mem.bens to .reject it. The drafted resolution is1wiat was agreed on by the council on November. 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121. Spay and neutering of doU and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat .over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee a.s set,forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies,fi)r an exemption under.Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip idemi_frcation.of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory iicrochip proposed ordinance_ The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement far a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and.kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as.it is discriminatory- If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales, ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements,for the availability o f any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other tran!fer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach:for dogs euthanized due to shelter ovezcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. i firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,)oppon, any discriminatory legislation. l urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal. already. Respectfully, i��1N' 02/04/2008 10:46 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 02 February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008 5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution i uvvtat was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter.,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 5pU_and. utering,of dots and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering fox all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: ".No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as setforth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08 070 of this chapter." 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep. or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittenstcats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave, such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/04/2008 10:46 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD PAGE 03 February 3,2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE., Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for rats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7 0$ 121 Snav and neuter of dogs and eats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatary Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over sin months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7-08.122 Microchip identification of dops and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips, The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that doer not have a microchip identification device." 7.08.010 License and registratiQp required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppiestdogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat_for adoptiont sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." Z 08.050 License,Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Leach dogs euthanixed due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the dratted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, / �0 02/04/2008 14:19 0000000 ADD TO PUBLIC RECORD rAut February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RR: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehennently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Newer,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November S, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7 0$ 1211 Spay and neuterinof dotes and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter," 7_08.122 Migochin ktentific_ation ofdOa9 and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip idecation device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sates,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead.suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability ofany dog or catfor adoption sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7 08 Q,5015 icepse=Ovonner duty to obtain The flee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, 02/04/2008 14:31 0000000 ADD TO PLGLIC RECORD PAGE e� February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008.5 1 vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SN )Ordinancc No.3798 and urge the mayor and ail council members to reject it. The drafted resolution,is not what was agreed on by the council on Nmernber 5, 2007. The coumci7 agreed to drop the ordfinm=and raise lieense fees instead. 71e cu =t voluntary licensing for cats would change to became required licensing for cats. License fees would be imare;zsed.,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, andror microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in.the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Smy and netaterenZof dons and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to snan"e spay and neutering€or all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may owrt keelk or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution ofthe City Council or qualifiesfor an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter." 7-0t 122 Mimebip identification of does and cats The drafted rewhitioan eontmdicts the cotmcit's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The drab continues to mandate rnimcbips. The craft states: "No person may owrc keep,or hwbor aft or cat over the age of six months that does.not ham a microchip ident ficalaon device. 7 08.Q 10 License and reaiWi0 required Councilman Bohr suggaested an addition to the resolution to include the reqWxernent for a business License far newspaper advertists in the Wave for the sale of puppiestdogs and kitttcnstcats. I oppose tins requirement as it is disemivatory. If a business licezise is required for advemsemam in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sate"postetl in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption,sale, bte'rter or other tra rtsfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisementt," L 050 License—Own-a duty to obtain The fee schedule is tmr+ealistic and will likely prevem most owners fxom licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs cutbanized due to shelter ovcrcrowdin.g do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I finny oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance Ft rd=niore,I oppose any discrimainaatmy legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Toe,much tim and tax Payer dollars bave been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, ._ FRDM :PARADISE GREAT DANES FAX ND. :707 762 3763 Feb. 04 2MG 11:54AM P1 February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RF.: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution, No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, acid .Microchip(SN1VT)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November. 5, 2007. The counci►,agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee.reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements Im dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed, 7.08.121 Spay gLi neutcrinZ of'd(1"d cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The drab continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a clog or cat over the age q/six months in violation(?fthis.section unless such person pan unaltered animal_fee as set fl)rth by resolution pf the City Council or qualOr#s f)r an exemption under Section 7 08.070 pl-this chapter. " 7.08.1.22 Microchip identification ot'do s and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keen, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip idengf cation de vic.•c. " 7.08.010 License and registration re uircd Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement.for a businem License for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. 1-appose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required fay advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all. ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as m.erchandi.se,garage sales,etc, Also, the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements fbr the availability gfany dog or cat.for adoption, sale, barter or,other trapzxfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." 7.08.050 License—Owner duty to obtain The f'ee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs eutha.nized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. 1 firmly oppose any mandated spay, neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation, I urge you to reject the dratted resolution,and stick to your agreement. Too much ti.ane and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, ram.... February 3,2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and All council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased, using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter,and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Slav and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of*six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.09.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age ofsix months that does not have a microchip identification device." 7.08,010 License and regjstration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the We of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. 1 oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "..,any and all public advertisements for the availability of any clog or cat fur adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. 1 firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, . U/ (,JA T0 'd ZISZ968 bTL NO�tlB '3f10Q Wd bO: ZT 80eZ-b0-H3A RECEIVED FROW, ASPUBLIC RECO G _ O CITY E JOiI1N L FLYM,C11 Y CLL;iti MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER The Wrong Answer for Cat Lovers This article available in PDF format Legislation is often written without a clear understanding of the unintended consequences it may bring. A"Mandatory Spay/Neuter"ordinance may seem like a quick fix to decrease shelter populations. Instead it may not only fail to address the situation but could create even more troubles and harm to pets. The first step in addressing a problem is to define it. It is an easy assumption to make that cats enter shelters because of failure of owners to alter their pets. However, the facts do not support this supposition. Many owned cats are taken to shelters because of behavior issues, poor breed choices,job or housing problems, illness or old age. Numerous studies now show that 85%to 92% of all owned cats in the U.S. are altered already. However, it is the unowned/free-roaming cats who primarily contribute to the homeless cat population. Mandatory spay/neuter Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are intended to deter and penalize pet owners. No matter ordinances are intended how severe the punishment, cats with no owners continue to to deter and penalize reproduce on the streets adding to the feral cat population. These laws have no impact on the unchecked reproduction of unowned/free pet owners. roaming/feral cats-the greatest reason for shelter euthanasia. Trap/neuter/return programs have proven to be successful in reducing the numbers of feral cats. A bad ordinance will only divert limited resources away from real solutions to the problem. One unintended consequence of mandatory spay/neuter laws is that they often define ownership to include people who feed or care for strays. This drives away citizens who might try to help care for the strays, but are afraid of being penalized under the law as an owner.What about the pregnant stray cat who arrives at the door? Up to 34% of all cat owners obtain their cats as strays. A well meaning cat lover could be penalized for an act of kindness. Those who feed these cats must be encouraged and helped to sterilize more of them. Instead of driving away help, communities need to invest in solutions that will keep these cats and their unweaned kittens out of the shelter. Proponents may offer the option of a"breeder license" or"intact permit"to allow for limited ownership of unaltered pets. An example is this year's New Mexico House Bill 1106, called the "Pet Owner Responsibility Act". It would, with limited exception, require the surgical sterilization of every cat or dog over the age of 6 months. An intact permit could be obtained for certain show animals entered into competition at least once a year, along with certain other requirements. Intact permits would be good for only 1 year and personal information must be passed on to animal control when licensing. Cats are not small dogs. Because of the differences in cats' reproductive physiology they must be either bred or spayed to remain healthy. Cats are not purposely kept intact unless for breeding purposes. Mature breeding cats lose coat, go into heat, and have other issues that prevent them from being shown while breeding. No cat will ever qualify for the intact permit based on show requirements which were obviously written.with dogs in mind. r Entire breeds of cats could well be forced into extinction by these laws. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are often passed with no ill-conceived mandatory consideration of animal husbandry requirements. Some rare and spay/neuter exotic breeds are kept alive by a devoted following of people who system could lead value them for their distinct personalities and beauty. A sampling of the extinction a rare these, with the total numbers registered worldwide with CFA in 2005, and beautiful breed. include: • the mysterious and ancient Korat(93); • the Turkish Angora, saved from extinction once before by a breeding program in the Ankara Zoo (250); • the unique curly coated La Perm (24). A single breeder dedicated to these and other rare breeds who is forced to give up breeding can mean a devastating blow to the health of the entire breed. The loss of genetic diversity may be irreplaceable. An ill-conceived mandatory spay/neuter system can easily mean the final straw to hobbyists.An unintended consequence could lead to the extinction of a rare and beautiful breed. Most breeder licensing schemes with "standards of care"assume inspection of large, commercial activities. For example, the Federal PAWS legislation that failed in 2006 would have provided for USDA licensing of many hobby breeders. USDA regulations assume separate caging in sterile environments, and all but prohibit carpet and furniture in areas occupied by the cats and dogs! These regulations are ill-suited when pets are kept in a home. Most hobby breeders would be reluctant to have animal control officers coming unannounced to inspect their bedrooms. Home- based hobby breeders, used to treating pets as part of the family will be unable to comply, and forced to stop raising cats and dogs. Health and socialization of pets will suffer when cat breeding can only be commercial. As private hobby breeders leave the community those who want pedigreed cats and purebred dogs will turn to the Internet and go outside the area. This means less interaction between the pet owner and the breeder. If private home breeders stop preserving their breeds the public will be unable to obtain cats of the breeds they want for their family or lifestyle. Pedigreed cats/purebred dogs will become too costly for many or unavailable. Studies show cats who meet pet owners' expectations have less risk of being relinquished to shelters. So an unintended consequence of mandatory spay/neuter can be an increase in relinquishment to shelters due to failure of pets to meet owners' expectations. It will take away the public's choice for a pet without any reduction in the numbers of pets relinquished to shelters. Those who do not alter their cats now are unlikely to change after the initial media hype surrounding passage of a new law. Authorities lack the manpower, or the legal right, to search each and every home in a community looking for the small percentage of unaltered pets. With enforcement of these laws nearly impossible, veterinarians are often conscripted into becoming government agents.When veterinarians are required to report unaltered pets who receive treatment, some pet owners will avoid veterinary care for their animals. This not only affects the proper care of the pet, it goes against public health interests. An unintended consequence of mandatory spay/neuter may be to reduce rabies vaccination for cats at risk and diminish the quality of life of some pets. In some low income communities lack of available low cost spay/neuter services prevents residents from altering their pets. The poor are put in a no-win situation by intact license fees and fines.Where mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are in effect, many poor people might like to neuter their pets, but cannot afford to do so. Nor can they afford either the registration fees for having unaltered pets or the fines for noncompliance. The fear of punishment may lead to abandonment of animals in the streets and parks adding to undesired reproduction and the nuisance/safety hazards of strays. What some see as a simple solution -mandated spay/neuter-results in many complex problems. Resources can be better used to reduce the numbers of cats and dogs born. Education, low cost spay/neuter assistance, support of trap, neuter, return (TNR)and community cooperation that involves all animal interest groups and the pet owning public have worked to reduce the numbers of animals in the shelters. Communities with the best shelter live animal release rates do not have mandatory spay/neuter laws. You can help to prevent these laws by taking action. Lawmakers need to know that the pet owning public does not support legislation that may mean the extinction of wonderful cat breeds. Go to the CFA website for ALERTS and more information on several pending mandatory spay/neuter state bills and local ordinances. By George Eigenhauser CFA Legislative Information Liaison March 1, 2007 OPPOSE AB 1634 as Amended OPPOSE The Los Angeles City Mandatory Dog& Cat Spay and Neuter Ordinance Dear Speaker Please do not listen to these people and organizations that have a hidden agenda behind this ordinance. Spaying or neutering a dog at four months of age is ludicrous and dangerous. We know this ordinance will result in more dogs and cats being killed in shelters, will result in higher costs to the City of Los Angeles, and will result in a considerable loss of revenue when licensing plummets and is unenforceable. Obviously if this ordinance goes through, what the City of Los Angeles does with this ordinance will have profound effects across the state. The proponents of AB 1634 are ballyhooing these victories in the hopes it will influence and pressure state senators looking at AB 1634. All your residents voices are strongly opposed to this proposed ordinance. Levine and his supporters are behind this. You do not want to create an Animal Welfare Select Committee for him to Chair. If this happens,he will effectively control any and all animal welfare legislation in the state. And he is using late Cesar E. Chavez to justify his evil intentions. Levine is using you for his ulterior motives. Don't let Levine use you to usurp Californians' constitutional and property rights,because angry voters will hold you and him responsible come election time! I and my fellow constituents are watching what is going on in your offices and who is moving up to good things and who is going to move over and out. As California residents are up in arms about Levine's under handed tactics. And if AB 1634 does pass. You can expect many will leave this beautiful State and never look back. And the power of the people's vote will really be seen in the short future. As many of your fellow politicians will fall along with Levine. When the people finally have their say. Which we are unable to do now except in our many letters, faxes, emails and phone calls to you,the Assemblyman, the Senators and the Governor or CA from concerned CA residents. So please listen and stop this madness! We the people of CA are asking that you put a stop to this injustice! Please see the following about what is happening and just some of the things that AB 1634 will do to California and her wonderful residents. AB 1634 is bad for California and its responsible pet owners. In spite of the author's claims AB 1634 will not save money,but will instead cost Californians hundreds of millions of dollars. Shelter Populations Will Not Decrease — Most animals in California shelters are there because they are too sick, too old or too ill behaved to remain with their owners. Or, they are feral cats who do not have owners. If AB 1634 passes, those animals will continue to be dumped on California shelters, but in even greater numbers. So will an increased number of healthy pets whose owners cannot afford, or are unwilling, to comply with the draconian measures demanded by AB 1634. Shelters will need more facilities, more staff and more money. Animal Health Will Suffer — It is dangerous or unhealthy for many cats and dogs to be neutered before they are four months old. It stunts their development and puts them at risk for a number of severe medical conditions. The decision of when to neuter an animal should be made by its owner with advice from a veterinarian. Enforcement Costs Will Skyrocket—Every local jurisdiction in California will have to increase,staff to enforce AB 1634. Enforcement alone could add $50-100 million of costs to already overburdened local governments. Health Risks Will Increase — Wherever these laws have been tried, licensing compliance has plummeted. Not only does that decrease revenue to shelters but it increases the risk of rabies to the population since the primary goal of licensing is too enforce mandatory rabies vaccinations. And, the loss of local breeders will result in increased importation of pets,thereby increasing the number of sick or unhealthy pets entering California. Costs of Pet Ownership Will Increase — California's poorest residents will be hit the hardest when the price of pets increases along with the cost of owning a pet. AB 1634 could result in the doubling of pet acquisition prices and will result in much higher costs for licensing and mandatory sterilization. Police Will Be Put At Greater Risk — Every day police dogs save police officers from grave risk. Their loss will endanger policemen throughout the state and add risks to the public's safety. Vast Sums of Money Will Flow Out-of-State —AB 1634 eliminates California's hobby breeders of purebred cats and dogs. As a result, Californians will have to get their expensive purebred pets from out-of-state breeders. That alone will result in several hundred million dollars spent in places other than in California. In addition, the loss of dog and cat shows will cost the state another $1.00-200 million per year. AB 1634 will cost California $1,000,000,000 or more in increased costs and lost revenue. And it will jeopardize the health and welfare of many Californians, a cost that is immeasurable. There are better solutions, many of which are already working in California. Shelter turn-in's and euthanasia rates have been dropping for over a decade. AB 1634 is a solution in search of a problem that is already being well addressed by existing laws and volunteer programs. Please vote against AB 1634, a costly and dangerous proposal. Very truly yours, April Parmelee CheshirSmile And on behalf of: Myself And all my family, friends, fellow cat & dog breeders, and fellow CA residents. I beg you to you not to do this evil thing! Email Ji Print i"i'_�a:y`ate '7 c itinfy to fl �s - )ei,F s.$�� e.ce 3s: "ns�..a4s airm„y Y.e 15, This law will force nearly all family cats our city to be surgically sterilized by the time they are six months old. This was started by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, and it was called AB 1634. And it was turned away and stopped at the State level.Now they are trying to do an end run around you and come to you at the City Level. To try to once again bring to to pass at the state level This is an ill created convoluted maze of government permits, hefty fees and punitive fines that will not decrease animal shelter populations or euthanasia rates. It will, however,take scarce funds from caring for animals to pay for an overreaching bureaucracy that will be expensive to administer, impossible to enforce, and is guaranteed to fail. €,tos F 4s a1 0z i.,i"LI£.i' Animal shelters take in lost, stray, abandoned and surrendered animals; provide food, shelter and veterinary care; offer low-cost spay/neutering; investigate animal cruelty; rescue animals from dangerous or abusive situations;track and control rabies; inspect, facilities that sell, groom and kennel pets; pick up dead or injured wildlife; humanely euthanize sick, injured,diseased, aggressive, old and suffering animals; and place homeless pets with adoptive families. For these invaluable services, Californians pay less than 2¢ a day—more taxes are spent on city golf courses than on city animal shelters. Yet, Assemblyman Levine and the bill's supporters claim: "The financial costs to taxpayers are extremely high" and an"enormous fiscal burden." According to Levine,AB 1634 will save taxpayers"$200 million a year." The only way to cut$200 million from annual funding of$250 million for animal care is to layoff workers and close down the majority of community shelters across California. Animal care shelters play a vital role in our society, and—despite what backers of AB 1634 believe—we have a moral obligation to fully fund them. The decision to perform a serious surgical procedure on a family pet should be a choice made by pet owners in consultation with their veterinarians—not dictated by a one-size- fits-all statewide mandate and overseen by a government bureaucracy. The California Veterinary Medical Association agrees, and does not support AB 1634. of . .)_-e xldg 01 et(z -oio the € ,­.A)l$.`n! There are no state funds in AB 1634 to pay for low-cost spay and neuter services for low- income families or seniors. There are no funds to pay for education or outreach programs. for pet owners. There are no funds to pay for increased enforcement of leash laws. All these programs have proven successful and are responsible for reducing California shelter populations by 57%and euthanasia rates by 75% over the last 30 years. Feral cats account for more than half of all animals entering local shelters and most will end up euthanized. AB 1634 will have no impact on unowned animals and does nothing to address the feral cat population. Instead, the bill targets owned cats—more than 90% of which are already spayed or neutered. • AB 1634 is modeled after a similar law in Santa Cruz County where mandatory spay/neuter was enacted in 1995. Since then, the County's animal control expenses have more than doubled—up 109%. And while shelter intakes were reduced by 22%,the statewide average reduction was 26%. • In Monterey County, MD,more than 10,000 licenses for unaltered pets were issued the year before mandatory spay/neuter was adopted, and only 743 licenses the year after it took effect. The law has since been repealed. • In the year since the City of Los Angeles enacted a mandatory spay/neuter law, the dog and cat shelter population has gone up for the first time, reversing a 5- year downward trend. Shelter expenses have also increased. • There is not one local jurisdiction in the nation with a mandatory spay/neuter law that has seen a drop in shelter expenses and a reduction in intakes and euthanasia rates greater than their state average. `ro Sv' 1Go: Cab=,:e to Maddltd-'s Fund,the Nation's Largest Pi.:-Re54,ue Foundaiflon From Richard Avanzino,President of Maddie's Fund: "If AB 1634 does pass, it could impact Maddie's support of spay/neuter programs in California. Since our inception, Maddie's Fund has had a policy of not funding government mandated programs. This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as to other requirements imposed by federal, state and local legislation." Maddie's Fund has distributed more than$10 million in grants to California, including: • $7.9 million—CVMA Feral Cat Altering Program resulted in the spay/neutering of 170,440 feral cats in California. • $468,000—Pet Rescue Project in Lodi, which reached 100% of its spay/neuter goals and adoption guarantees for all healthy shelter animals. • $1 million—Founded the UC Davis Shelter Medicine Program,the first in the nation for training animal shelter veterinarians. Proponents of AB 1634 are deceiving state legislators, misleading the media, and betraying well-intentioned supporters through their use of misinformation, erroneous data,phony statistics, and emotional manipulation. The wheels are about to fall off AB 1634 as their questionable claims and tactics are exposed in testimony to be heard in the Senate Local Government Committee on July 11. 19094648886 X Ray 09:30:24 a.m. 02-05-2008 1 /1 I The City of Angels Pomeranian Club I February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City'Council Members„': i RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 1008-5 The City of Angels Pomeranian club strongly Apposes this'ordinance and resolution. Mandatory spay-neuter programs have been tried in many places_The effect of these measures has invariably;been to INCREASE animal abandonment and the burden on shelters; to INCREASE diamati6lly expenditures on animal control; to DECREASE licensing compliance and revenues;land toy DECREASE compliance;with rabies vaccination programs, thereby INCREASING the risk of RABIES,to the general opulat ion. These effects are well documented. i In addition, this ordinance will do nothing to reduce the numbers of feral cats and kittens, who I comprise the MAJORITY of shelter populations I' 1 Euthanasia rates for dogs in California have been falling steadily for decades down 86%from the mid 1970's —because local agencies find what WORKS: Owner education, enforcement of at large"and leash Paws; and subsidized low-cost elective spay/neuter services. Relaxing limit � laws and promoting foster`care of adoptable anima s until they can be placed would go a long way toward easing the burden on city shelters.Adoptable shelter animals can also be placed through cooperation With local pet store vendors. Decisions regarding elective surgery should rest solely with an owner, in consultation with his veterinarian. Contrary to what one may hear or read, there are inany long-term NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS associated with neutering of immature dog$. For example, sterilizing dogs before matiu it more than triples the risk of bone cancer, which is extremely painful and almost invariably fatal.Juvenile neutering delays closure of thegrowth plates,rendering the dogs much more liable to hip dysplasia and patellar;luxation. They become more susceptible to have adverse reactions to vaccinations,and to develop cognitive idysfunction as they grow older. All these effects,and many more,are well documented in published veterinary literature. !. Anesthesia and surgery is extremely risky for toy dogs. In our breed, the Pomeranian, dogs often !, die while under anesthesia just to have their teeth cleaned. Our dogs should not have their lives endangered by'a legal requirement to submit to unnecessary`sterilization surgery. We urge your``NO"vote on these measures. i i Sincerely, Geneva Coats, R.N Secretary and-Show Chair 2008 i The City of Angels Pomeranian Club I f Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Allison Carter[allie6401 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:33 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Spay, Neuter and Microchip Ordinance I am a 26 year resident of the City of Huntington Beach and aside from the planned Senior Center this is the worst thing this city has tried to pass. I do not have a problem with spaying or neutering cats, all of mine have been taken care of, but a dog on the other hand should be the owners preference as they are SUPPOSED to be on leashed and controlled. I DO NOT AGREE with the unaltered fee being 8.4 times higher than the altered fee for male dogs or the unaltered fee being almost 10 times higher than the altered fee for females if they are not microchipped. My other concern is that you are forcing people to (even though you say its voluntary when you look at the costs)to put a microchip in an animal when you have no idea what it will do to the animal. What research has been done to prove that the animal will not end up with an CANCEROUS growth that will be fatal. I will agree to microchip my animals when each and every council member has a chip inserted in themselves. What is the next thing you will want microchipped all out children???????? This is so past obsurd. Are there not more important things for each of you to worry about in this City. Like Streets that are in need of repair, Parks that need Restrooms repaired or build. Sewer lines that need replacing. Water lines that nee slip lining. How about addressing the fact that the Senior Center is a White Elephant that need addressing and halted. There has already been enough money spent on the planning for this misstake and the ground breaking has not even started. If you are trying to stop people from moving into Huntington Beach and want to have more problems with cash flow then by all means pass a obsurd Ordinance like this one. You may be surprised by how many people put their animal DOWN rather than deal this ordinance that will cost a fortune to inforce. Sincerely Allie Tourville and family Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yaho ! Mobile. Try it now. 2/4/2008 ,C/ t-eu U4 uu vc:oup k LV , Dr.Christine Vigil P.C.Box 36213 San Jose, CA 95158 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, February 3,2008 RE. Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2009-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter, and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The. current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay, neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age.of six months in violation of this section unless such person pan unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualifies for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of does and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the counciil's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own, keep. or harbor a dog or oat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identiftation device. " I Feb 04 08 04,00p CLV ,..., ,.... ,.._ Dr.Christine Vigil P.O. Box 36213 San Jose, CA 95158 7.08.010 Licmm and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/;rats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the'Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,ect. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: ...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption,sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license member in the advertisement. As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance_ I firmly oppose any mandated spay.neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully; r 'Dr. Christine Vigil P.O.Box 36213 San Jose, CA 95158 2 February 4, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No.2008-5 I vehemently oppose the draft resolution No 2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM)Ordinance No.3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is not what was agreed on by the council on November 5, 2007. The council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. License fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter, and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own,keep;or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pays unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or qualif es for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter. " 7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states: "No person may own,keep,or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device. " 7.08.010 License and registration required Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave, then it should apply to all ads"for sale" posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Also,the resolution does not specify ads in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption,sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " 7.08.050 License-Owner duty to obtain The fee schedule is unrealistic and will likely prevent most owners from licensing at all. Statistics for Huntington Beach dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support the need for a mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter, or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution, and stick to your agreement. Too much time and tax payer dollars have been wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully,Patricia A. Schempp 02/04/2008 16:28 i/14yL1tstsL! L NIPlt�� �- and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"for sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,eat. Furthermore,the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: ...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement." As you are aware,statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore,I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on this unnecessary proposal already. Respectfully, Dena Atkins 02/05/2008 10:04 1bIbUJZ'JUo7'� �•�. ��� .�••�� -- -- A.K.C. Approved Judge G February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Re: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 I strongly oppose draft resolution No.2008-5 for the proposed Spay,Neuter,and Microchip(SNM) Ordinance No. 3798 and urge the mayor and all council members to reject it. The drafted resolution is what was agreed on by the Council on November 5 2007. The Council agreed to drop the ordinance and raise license fees instead. The current voluntary licensing status for cats would change to become required licensing for cats. license fees would be increased,using a tiered scale with fee reductions for spay,neuter. and/or microchips. Advertisements for dogs and cats in the Wave were also discussed. 7.08.121 Spay and neutering of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory Spay and Neuter proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate spay and neutering for all dogs and cats over six months of age. The draft states: "No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months in violation of this section unless such person pay unaltered animal fee as set forth by resolution of the City Council or gualifres for an exemption under Section 7.08.070 of this chapter"7.08.122 Microchip identification of dogs and cats The drafted resolution contradicts the council's agreement to drop the mandatory microchip proposed ordinance. The draft continues to mandate microchips. The draft states:No person may own, keep, or harbor a dog or cat over the age of six months that does not have a microchip identification device" 7.08.0.10 License and registration required. Councilman Bohr suggested an addition to the resolution to include the requirement for a business license for newspaper advertisements in the Wave for the sale of puppies/dogs and kittens/cats. I oppose this requirement as it is discriminatory. If a business license is required for advertisements in the Wave,then it should apply to all ads"fox sale"posted in the Wave,such as merchandise,garage sales,etc. Furthermore, the resolution does not specify advertisements in the Wave,but instead suggests: "...any and all public advertisements for the availability of any dog or cat for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display the business license number in the advertisement. " As you are aware, statistics for Huntington Beach for dogs euthanized due to shelter overcrowding do not support any mandated ordinance. I firmly oppose any mandated spay,neuter,or microchip ordinance. Furthermore, I oppose any discriminatory legislation. I urge you to reject the drafted resolution,and stick to what you agreed to do. There has been too much time and tax payer dollars wasted on the unnecessary proposal already. Repsectfully, - t �F 75-$25 Dillon Road,S)ry Valley,Ca.92241 Phoney 760-329-7951 —Email:mIhTnyway@aol.com 19094648886 XRay 09:27-59a_m. 02-05-2008 1 H The City of Angels Pomeranian Club February 3, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RE: Ordinance No. 3798 and Resolution No 2008-5 The City of Angels Pomeranian club strongly opposes this ordinance and resolution. Mandatory spay-neuter programs have been tried in many places. The effect of these measures has invariably been to INCREASE animal abandonment and the burden on shelters;to INCREASE dramatically expenditures on animal control;to DECREASE licensing compliance . and revenues; and to DECREASE compliance with rabies vaccination programs, thereby INCREASING the risk of RABIES to the general population.These effects are well documented. In addition, this ordinance will do nothing to reduce the numbers of feral cats and kittens, who comprise the MAJORITY of shelter populations Euthanasia rates for dogs in California have been falling steadily for decades—down 86%from the mid 1970's—because local agencies fund what WORKS:Owner education,enforcement of "at large"and leash laws;and subsidized low-cost elective spay/neuter services. Relaxing limit laws and promoting foster care of adoptable animals until they can be placed would go a long way toward easing the burden on city shelters. Adoptable shelter animals can also be placed through cooperation with local pet store vendors. Decisions regarding elective surgery should rest solely with an owner, in consultation with his veterinarian. Contrary to what one may hear or read, there are many long-term NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS associated with neutering of immature dogs. For example, sterilizing dogs before maturity more than triples the risk of bone cancer,which is extremely painful and almost invariably fatal.Juvenile neutering delays closure of the growth plates,rendering the dogs much more liable to hip dysplasia and patellar luxation.They become more susceptible to have adverse reactions to vaccinations,and to develop cognitive dysfunction as they grow older. All these effects,and inany more,are well documented in published veterinary literature. Anesthesia and surgery is extremely risky for toy dogs. In our breed, the Pomeranian, dogs often die while under anesthesia just to have their teeth cleaned Our dogs should not have their lives endangered by a legal requirement to submit to unnecessary sterilization surgery. We urge your"NO"vote on these measures. Sincerely; Geneva Coats,R.N. Secretary and Show Chair 2008 The City of Angels Pomeranian Club i Page 1 of 1 I� Van Dorn, Kay r� ► From: Holly Conway [hollycnwy@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: mandatory Spay and Neuter Law Hello, I am.a current resident in Huntington Beach. I will not be able to be at the meeting for the mandatory. spay and neuter law on Monday February 4th so I wanted to e-mail my support for the ordinance. There is a very real problem with "willy nilly" pet breeding today and I for one am sick of it. Please make my vote count or at least my voice heard. Sincerely, Holly Conway Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 2/4/2008