CA SB 250 alert!!!

Bulldogs World Forum Archives

These archives contain a copy of the contents of the old Bulldogs World Forum for reference purposes.Posting is disabled in the archives.
Click here to visit the active Bulldog Forum

CA SB 250 alert!!!

amended, again, please write your own senator and the appropriations committee ASAP

cross posting encouraged the folowing is from Save our Dogs

go here

for working links to sample letters and how and who to write

SB 250 - Senate Appropriations Committee Alert
SB 250 is scheduled for a hearing and possible vote in the California Senate Appropriations Committee on May 11. Please take the following steps


write to the senators on the Appropriations Committee using this template and ask them to oppose SB 250. Customize it into your own words or write your own own custom letter. The senators fax numbers are here.
call the senators on the Appropriations Committee and ask them to oppose SB 250; the senators phone numbers are here. It takes less than a minute to call each one and say Im Joe Smith, Im from Bigtown California, and Im asking Senator Wilson to vote NO on SB 250
talk to your friends, co-workers, and club members and ask them to oppose SB 250. Send them to this site for instructions.
convince your clubs, rescue groups, businesses, and associations to oppose SB 250
Organizations (clubs, rescue groups, associations, businesses, etc.)

write to the Appropriations Committee and ask them to oppose SB 250, using this template. Customize it into your own words so that it doesnt look like a form letter. Or write your own own custom letter. Then either fax it to all committee members the senators fax numbers are here or else email it to us and we will fax it for you. If possible, please also send it via priority or overnight mail to the committee staff analyst Mark McKenzie, as he does not accept faxes or emails.
contact every member of your organization and ask them to respond as noted above for Individuals

Analysis of SB250 as Amended May 5, 2009
It took 13 amendments to kill AB1634, so I guess we are making progress. SB250 has been amended yet again. Either someone is reading our analysis or is reaching some of the same conclusions. The bill is still ridiculously punitive, but the most ridiculous part has been deleted.

Under previous versions of the bill your intact licenses could be denied or revoked at any time, forever, at the whim of local animal control for just being cited for violation of an animal control law or being neglectful of your animals. Just get a ticket, even if you are later found not guilty, and you can never have an intact dog again. Under the latest amendments, you at least have to be found guilty and the vague neglectful clause has been struck.

Still, be found guilty even once and you can never confidently own an intact dog ever again. One violation and forever after your local animal control can deny or revoke your intact dog permits at any time. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires an animal rights whacko as head of animal control. The Adminsta revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours. Maybe he/she is fired six months later but its too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. Its not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. If you get a citation for some minor infraction, you wont just pay the ticket. Youll hire an attorney and appeal any adverse decision all the way to the Supreme Court. One ticket is a death sentence. Rather than pay the ticket and go on, you have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way. If you loose you either get out of dogs or leave the state.

Older dogs sometimes loose control of their anal sphincter and unknowingly have accidents. So you are taking your senior dog for a walk in the park. He accidentally poops without you seeing it. An animal control officer sees you walk away from a poop on the sidewalk and gives you a citation. Prior to SB250 youd just pay the ticket. You are probably guilty. You didnt actually see the dog poop so you dont know for sure, but its $50 or whatever so you just pay. After SB250 you hire an attorney. If the county cant prove via DNA testing that the poop came from your dog, you wont pay and youll fight to show the DNA test was invalid. You will spend whatever it takes because the alternative is forever being at the mercy of whoever is in charge at animal control that day. One violation and your intact permits can be denied or revoked forever.

Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, and go to court, and appellate court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. Its only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so youll do whatever it takes.

There is some language that partially exempts some hunting dogs. If you have a hunting license and you are using your dog to legally hunt mammals, your dog cannot be considered running at large under section (e). This is disappointing. It doesnt cover all working dogs. It doesnt even cover all hunting dogs. What is so special about dogs hunting mammals that makes it necessary to exempt them in this special way? We know a fair bit about hunting dogs and we cant think of a thing that is unique to dogs hunting mammals. If this bill is bad for those dogs (and it is) then it is equally bad for many other dogs. Save Our Dogs opposes forced sterilization for all dogs. We speak from the perspective of working dogs but we do not seek and will not support exemptions for working dogs.

The hunting dog exemption is in practice meaningless because you are still subject to having their intact permits revoked for any animal control law violation. A dog running at large is a violation of various local animal control laws. The exemption only applies to section (e)(1)(A) of SB250. It does not apply to local leash laws. So you are out hunting mamals. Through a combination of circumstances your dog is picked up for running at large. Section (e)(1)(A) doesnt exempt you from the local leash law so you are found guilty. You have violated a local animal control law so your local animal control agency revokes your intact permits under section (b)(2) and you must surgically sterilize your dogs.

Section (g) of previous versions of the bill specifically stated that the owner of an impounded dog had to pay all sorts of costs to get the dog back. These amendments try to disguise that dog killing provision with vague language.

The owner or custodian shall comply with any additional impoundment procedures.

Of course what this means in practice is that the owner must pay to get the dog back. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Around 80% of owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs.

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed. SB250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs.

More articles we recommend: