PLEASE FORWARD AND CROSS POST

LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS, INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES MUST GO TO THE TWO COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS BY 5:00PM MONDAY JULY 2 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL BILL ANALYSIS

PLEASE ALSO SEND LETTERS TO THE 5 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITEE. CONTACT INFO FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS CAN BE FOUND AT www.petpac.net or www.saveourdogs.net




Because of the short time frame and 4th of July Holiday, new letters
on organization letterhead referencing the June 27 amendments and
requesting listing on the Bill Analysis must be faxed or hand
delivered to the Senate Local Government Committee Consultant, Peter
Detwiler and the Republican Local Government Consultant, Ryan Eisberg
by 5 p.m. Monday, July 2. The fax number for Eisberg originally
posted by AKC on Friday morning, was corrected by a later direct
email to Liaisons and has been corrected on their web site but is not
marked as corrected. For your convenience, following are templates
for each letter to copy and paste into your letter and
individualize.

LETTER #1:
July 2,
2007


FAX: 916-322-0298

Senate Local Government Committee
ATTN: Peter Detwiler
State Capitol, Room 5046
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB 1634, "California Healthy Pets Act" amended June 27 –
OPPOSITION

Gentlemen:

We oppose AB 1634 mandating sterilization of dogs and cats and ask
that our organization be included on your Committee's Bill Analysis
opposition list.

(Include your standard description of your organization. Breed clubs
should be based on preservation and welfare of their breed as a whole
and not merely the interests of members or their animals).

Make, brief and concise comments directed to the local government
mandate issues.
*****

REPEAT THE PROCESS FOR LETTER # 2 -
July 2,
2007


FAX: 916-445-3105

Senate Republican Local Government Consultant
Ryan Eisberg
Legislative Office Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB 1634, "California Healthy Pets Act" amended June 27 –
OPPOSITION

Gentlemen:

(copy and paste your Committee letter)

NOTE: INDIVIDUALS MAY SEND SIMILAR LETTERS REQUESTING TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE NUMERICAL COUNT OF OPPOSED INDIVIDUALS.

FOR LETTER WRITING BASICS, SEE "Grass Roots Lettters - A Simple
Recipe: Complete instructions how to write your own, simple and
effective letters to lawmakers.
http://www.cfa.org/articles/legislative/grassroots-letter.html
*****

CA AB 1634 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27 is yet another effort by
Assembly Member Levine to appear responsive mainly to his supporters'
concerns while persisting in the flawed concept of imposing a
permanent bureaucracy on 536 local jurisdictions whether they need,
want, will or will not benefit, already have considered the concept
and either enacted their own version or rejected the entire concept.
The bill allows local governments no flexibility, no incentives to
use non-legislative measures proven effective elsewhere or innovate
new ones and no recognition of past success or vast variations in
local conditions and resources. Claims of potential cost savings are
unfounded in the reality of animal control budget realities of
facilities infrastructure, personnel, vehicles and overall operating
expenses that cannot be eliminated by public service providers.

As amended, the intact permit age threshold is raised from 4 to 6
months, and specific provisions are included for California licensed
veterinarians to state by letter that "it is the medical judgment of
the veterinarian that the cat or dog should not be spayed or neutered
prior to the age of nine months" and after the animal is 9 months,
to "provide a letter to the owner extending the date for spaying or
neutering the cat or dog to 12 months of age". The previous
eligibility requirements necessary to apply for an intact permit
remain the same with the addition of a new permit category for one
male and one female dog (dogs only) per household, based on the Santa
Cruz style Unaltered Certificate but with expanded provisions and
restrictions including a prohibition on sale of the offspring of the
one breeding allowed between the permitted dogs (this category
only). "Free" is considered contrary to public policy by attracting
undesirable takers, and some newspapers do not accept "free" ads for
animals. Other amendments are made to appear to satisfy opposition
interests yet are more illusory than effective to ensure future
availability of the wide variety of dogs and cats for ongoing public
benefit.