?a=110269
0566424> Concerned Dog Owners of California

September 2, 2009

A LETTER TO SENATOR FLOREZ



A RESPONSE TO SENATOR FLOREZ

This is not actually as much of a bulletin (CDOC is still up in Sacramento
working on explaining why the amendments do not address our concerns) as a
reply. An interesting thing occurred yesterday. In the "six degrees of
separation" type of scenario, a Florez supporter sent our bulletin on the
amendments to the Senator. The Senator responded to his supporter who sent
it along to us. This is the first communication we have ever had from
Senator Florez so I wanted to respond to him.

The subject is in bold, Senator Florez remarks are in red, CDOC is in blue.

This will cost more money?

The consensus of two fiscal committees and every jurisdiction that has
passed some form of spay / neuter is that these ordinances lead to long-term
savings.

>From the Senate Appropriations Analysis:
"To the extent conformance with the bill's requirements reduces
the
population of unwanted animals and results in a corresponding
decrease in the number of cats and dogs impounded to animal
shelters, local governments could realize operational savings.
It is likely that such results would take several years. In the
short-term, these costs could increase to the extent that
irresponsible pet owners would surrender their animals to a
shelter rather than pay for a surgical sterilization procedure,
which would somewhat increase shelter populations and related
costs."

>From the Assembly Appropriations Analysis
"Requiring owners of cats and dogs to sterilize their animals or
pay for a more
expensive unsterilized animal license, could result in more
animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owner's
inability to afford sterilization or increased fees and fines.
While exact figures are not available, studies show
that at least 60% of animals that enter shelters are
ultimately euthanized. A modest two percent increase in
shelter costs could result in $400,000 in additional GF costs."

Senator Florez is correct when he says that the analyses say that if it
worked and no one turned in their dogs it could save money. But MSN has
never worked, anywhere. After 15 years the Annual Animal Control Cost, per
capita in Santa Cruz is almost twice what the whole of California spends.
Again, this number comes from Santa Cruz' own published budget numbers. We
believe if Senator Florez were teaching at his alma mater and someone
proposed this as a business solution, we would have one less MBA.

But the issue here is that MSN kills more dogs. These analyses don't
address the human concerns. Dogs that now have owners get surrendered and
killed under these laws because the sterilizations, fines, court costs, time
off work are too much for some people; but that doesn't make those people
irresponsible. Both analyses, AVMA, ASPCA, and others acknowledge that and
it is why that oppose MSN of owned dogs. Indeed, no nationally recognized
organization is supporting this bill. We hear legislators say they want to
do something for the dogs but this cannot be what they aspire to.

It should be noted that the D o F is married to the breeder organizations
that oppose SB250. For example, the Department did not consult or cite one
neutral / objective source of information in its analysis. The one
organization it did consult, the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA),
is a large association of breeders.

First of all, we don't believe Senator Florez is knowledgeable about the
make up of the organizations that oppose this bill and that is
understandable; there are so many of them. But speaking for Concerned Dog
Owners of California we have members that are veterinarians, trainers, puppy
raisers for Guide Dogs, rescuers, owners of search and rescue dogs, breeders
and people who compete in all types of dog activities; shows, obedience,
agility, lure coursing, earth dog events, hunting and tracking tests.

Since CDOC is neither a breeder organization nor married to the Department
of Finance, we cannot speak to whom they consulted. But much of their
information clearly comes from the reports filed by the municipalities with
the Department of Public Health.

Again, we are not experts on NAIA but know that they represent many
different types of animals with dogs being only one of the species. They
represent many of the agricultural interests which are vital to the State of
California and who are constituents of Senator Florez.

Senator Florez might be interested to note that, of the portion of CDOC
membership that participates in dog activities, fewer than 10% ever have or
will breed a dog. We can only assume from his use of the word 'breeder'
that he considers it pejorative and it is the worst thing he can think to
say.

Fortunately for Canine Companions for Independence, Guide Dogs of America
and the fourteen other service dog organizations in the state, the people
who do breed are generous and provide the quality puppies these groups must
have so that our disabled population can have service animals.

Each of the Departments facts and figures, including the Santa Cruz numbers,
have been debunked by city and county auditors. (FYI - the Santa Cruz
ordinance has resulted in a 60% decrease in the County's stray dog intakes,
allowing the County to build a smaller shelter, and even accept stray
animals from counties that are at capacity - such as Kern County).

Actually no one has debunked the Santa Cruz numbers used by the DoF, no city
or county auditor. And we doubt that Santa Cruz would want that; these are
the number they filed with the State of California themselves; the source
they used to get Hayden reimbursements from the State of California. I am
sure they would not knowingly file false information.

Nor do we disagree with the 60% improvement in Santa Cruz. It is just that
the state of California, as a whole, has seen a 74% improvement. Santa Cruz
is doing well; they are only underperforming slightly. But they are not,
after fifteen years to "get it right", doing as well as the surrounding
counties that do not have mandatory spay and neuter - a pattern repeated
everywhere.

Mandatory Spay and Neuter is the choice of Santa Cruz County and one their
residents had a chance to impact and we respect that decision. CDOC
believes that, since MSN is much more costly and is one of the most divisive
approaches one can take, it should be a local government issue.

More dogs will die?

With less unwanted litters there will be fewer strays that end up in our
local shelters (and fewer animals to euthanize).

After 15 years, Santa Cruz still is not as good as the surrounding counties
none of which have mandatory spay and neuter.
After 4 years, Lake County has the highest kill rate per capita of any place
in California; it is 4 times the California average.
After 1 year (10 months of enforcement) the kill rate in the City of Los
Angeles is up 24%. This in a City which was already below the 5% "no-kill"
threshold.
There is not ONE SINGLE PLACE where a MSN program like the one proposed by
Senator Florez has resulted in lower euthanasia rates, higher licensing
compliance and lower operating costs.

The bill provides discretion to local animal control to waive fees, fines,
and other costs for those responsible owners who cannot afford to bail out
their impounded animal.

Line 25, page 6 "The licensing agency may, at its discretion, waive any
impoundment fee, cost or fine, if upon the first impoundment the owner or
custodian of the unlicensed, unaltered dogs does both of the following"
Gets a license
Sterilizes the dog

Line 29, page 9 "The licensing agency may impose a penalty . . . not to
exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per day, in addition to any other existing
penalty which may be imposed consistent with this chapter, against the owner
or custodian if the owner or custodian fails to provide the required
sterilization information."

Not exactly rooting for the underdog here; that sterilization is not
affordable by all. And in that case, there is no option to waive fees. We
had asked for exemptions for those below the poverty level and for
unemployed, a suggestion that cam from Assembly Member Krekorian's office.

Exemptions?

The bill, as amended August 31, 2009, exempts dogs in the business of
shepherding, herding, guarding livestock, or cultivating agricultural
products; hunting dogs; owners of certain service dogs; and owners of law
enforcement dogs.

Note that in the first part, it is the dogs that are exempt; for service
dogs it is the owners. This is not so much an exemption as compliance with
the American Disabilities Act. Service dogs are specifically at risk while
they are with their puppy raisers, who are not trainers.

There are no exemptions for natural disasters such as the fires we are
having right now. There appears to be no attempt to try to be in concordance
with the Pet Emergency and Transportation Act. There is no "Statute of
Limitations" on the 'at large' violation. One can occur at 10 weeks and one
at ten years and the owner is deemed "irresponsible" and must sterilize and
is not allowed to have unaltered dogs in the future.

Due Process?

SB250 is modeled after similar ordinances passed in Santa Cruz, Riverside,
and Los Angeles - all of which provide due process. In addition, the bill
explicitly provides appeals procedures consistent with existing law.

Line 26, page 4 "The licensing agency shall use its existing procedures or
may establish procedures for any appeal of a denial or revocation of an
unaltered license, which appeal process may include a written notice of the
denial or revocation of an unaltered dog license consistent with this
chapter".

There are huge differences between "may" and "shall" and Senator Florez has
chosen his words carefully. There are more then 500 different animal
control entities in the State of California and all their laws are different
- we don't have a state law. SB250 provides an overlay of MSN on this
patchwork of local laws. It is disappointing that given the disparities
among those laws, he did not choose to provide real due process.

Low cost / free spay - neuter?

The majority of jurisdictions throughout the state offer some form of low
cost or free sterilization services for the economically disadvantaged.
LA's program has become so effective that they ran out of sterilization
vouchers within the first quarter of this year.

We would be pleased to provide to Senator Florez the statement made, under
oath in a sworn deposition, by Los Angeles Animal Services Director that he
was told to cut costs and, rather than making staff cuts, he decided to
eliminate the voucher program. Los Angeles did not "run out" of vouchers,
they repurposed t money to salaries and benefits.

Also note that every rescue organization (over one hundred) in support of
SB250 also offer low cost / free sterilization services in their respective
jurisdictions.

It is wonderful we have so many groups that want to do this. But most are
not free and most are not provided in the neighborhood (it's tough to get
your animal to and from the bus for surgery on public transportation). Some
of these low-cost services START at about $240. While some offer free
surgeries, the office visit, anesthesia and after care is all charged at a
regular rate. And there are some wonderful programs that truly do make
sterilization affordable - and in those places we see a higher incidence of
voluntary spay and neuter.

In Los Angeles, CDOC was instrumental in matching a generous veterinarian
and Actors and Others For Animals a program that did provide 100% free spay
and neuter - but again not transportation. Our next step is to try and form
a non-profit that will allow more veterinarians to participate in such
programs I return for tax deductions.

We would like Senator Florez to note that CDOC also sponsored AB2291 last
year. Carried by Assembly Member Tony Mendoza, this bill added a check off
box to the California Personal Income Tax form so that people can donate to
a free spay/neuter fund. And any municipal shelter can get a grant from
this fund. We invite Senator Florez to partner with us this year in
promoting that fund through all his rescue contacts. We want to make sure
we get at least $500,000 into that this year and $1 million sounds even
better.

Thank you Senator Florez for acknowledging us. We wish we could have met
with you; we've been trying since January. Che Salinas of your office has
met with us once, last March and he has been in touch with our
representative in Sacramento several times.

We do not correlate intact animals with responsible breeding. CDOC's goal
is to stop the killing of healthy adoptable animals without abrogating the
rights and responsibilities of dog owners. Everywhere MSN has been tried it
has not performed as well as places that use education and ease of
licensing. California can do better and if this in an area of interest near
and dear to you, as it is to us, let's get together after the session and do
it right!

Concerned Dog Owners of California