SACRAMENTO, California — State legislators are currently considering three control-freakish pieces of so-called "animal-welfare" legislation:
AB 1939 (Pan) Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses
SB 969 (Vargas) Pet groomers
SB 1221 (Lieu) Mammals: use of dogs to pursue bears and bobcats
Among other things, AB 1939 imposes a monthly reporting requirement (read: tracking and tracing) on pet dealers, shelters, etc. who must reveal the "name, address, and telephone number of the person who receives a dog...," i.e. the new owner. The bill would also require a dog owner to obtain a"puppy license" in addition to the usual license for adult dogs.
In short, the bill not only imposes further fees and fines on the backs of dog owners in order to enrich the state, but it also makes it far easier for the state to hunt the "perpetrators" down, since they will have everyone's contact information.
In her letter of opposition to AB 1939, Geneva Coats, R.N., Secretary of the California Federation of Dog Clubs (CFDC), wisely states that, "Reporting of private matters such as animal ownership information or microchip data will only foster further distrust of government.... Bearing in mind that our state has the worst budget crisis in history, it seems ludicrous that we would now prioritize precious resources to implement additional bureaucratic red tape in the tracking of dogs."
Coats also points out that:
"Owners in certain areas (such as heavily populated Los Angeles), will discover only too late that they will face mandatory, unnecessary and costly sterilization surgery, or else pay an exorbitant intact license fee for their dog (currently $335 yearly per dog in the City of Los Angeles) once the puppy license expires. This will cause an increase in shelter relinquishments by low income families and those surviving on fixed incomes."
Not satisfied with squeezing the daylights out of dog owners, sellers and rescuers, California is also going after the hard-working folks who would dare to groom your pets...
SB 969 will create a whole new "California Pet Grooming Council" bureaucracy in order to "certify"and "regulate" pet groomers (read: the state will collect lots of fees). Oh yes, and there will be"administrative penalties" involved for violators (read: the state will collect lots of fines).
In yet another letter of opposition, Coats states:
"Grooming programs would be required to be approved for certification by this new council, a group composed of individuals overwhelmingly unfamiliar with established grooming practices...
Instead, the proposed council would consist primarily of animal rights proponents and animal rights activist lawyers. Animal rights extremists are philosophically opposed to animal ownership and certainly should not have a seat on any council pertaining to animal husbandry."
Perhaps most shocking (and least likely to get media attention) is SB 1221, a bill which essentially criminalizes the use of hunting dogs with respect to hunting bears and bobcats (both in season and out).
According to CAPetLawNews (a CFDC blog):
"The animal rights groups, led by [Humane Society US], have vowed to put an end to all hunting, and this is their first step... The sponsors of SB 1221 allege that the use of hounds is inhumane, unsporting and unfair. Unfortunately, the information they use to support this bill comes from anti-hunting organizations that have no motivation to be truthful about the practice."
The CFDC blog also makes the point that the use of hunting dogs allows the hunter to approach a treed animal in order to determine if "a female is pregnant, nursing, or has offspring so that they can be left alive and well in the tree."
Apparently the bill also allows for law enforcement to destroy "any dog determined to be a threat to a 'big game mammal'" without due process of law (read: no judge, no jury, no recourse, no compensation). Law enforcement, of course, would be exempt from said law (read: they can hunt and you can't).
As of this writing, all three bills have been "referred to committee."
Contact information below (for anyone who would like to make their voice heard):
AB 1939 - Seller reporting and discounted puppy licensing:
Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
State Capital, Room 2053
Sacramento, CA 95814
SB 969 - Pet Grooming:
Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee
State Capital, Room 3013
Sacramento, CA 95814
SB 1221 - Anti-hunting bill:
Hearing Date : June 26, 2012
Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
1020 N Street, Room 160
Sacramento, California 95814
Jared Huffman, chair
P.O. Box 942849, Room 3120
Sacramento, CA 94249-0006
Linda Halderman, Vice Chair
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009
Sacramento, CA 94249-0029
P.O. Box 942849, Room 3141
Sacramento, CA 94249-0026
P.O. Box 942849, Room 6026,
Sacramento, CA 94249-0040
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175
Sacramento, CA 94249-0023
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5135
Sacramento, CA 94249-0022
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009
Sacramento, CA 94249-0004
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4140
Sacramento, CA 94249-0043
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5150,
Sacramento, CA 94249-0057
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5144
Sacramento, CA 94249-0079
Brian W. Jones
P.O. Box 942849, Room 3147
Sacramento, CA 94249-0077
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2179
Sacramento, CA 94249-0050
State Capitol, Room 5160
Sacramento, CA 94248-0001