California AB1634

---

Latest News

Assembly Bill 1634 is now scheduled for the Senate Floor Session Monday, August 11th, and will be item #137.

There are many theories floating around the internet as to why the bill at this point has no Floor Manager. One thought is that once it has a Floor Manager, it must proceed with a reading. Therefore, if they aren't ready to go forward with the bill, no Floor Manager would be assigned. This is NOT a popular bill so success could hang on having the "right" Floor Manager. It is possible that if they drag this out too long, the bill would be put on the "Inactive" file. It can be brought out of inactive file at any time by the author.

Once a Floor Manager is assigned and if the author doesn't think he/she has sufficient votes to approve the bill they can "Pass" when the bill is called. Two passes are allowed and then the next time that file number comes up, a vote must be taken by the end of that day's session. If a bill is put "On Call" it must be voted on by the end of the day.

Resolution of Differences
If a bill is amended in the second house, it must go back to the house of origin for concurrence, meaning agreement on those amendments. If the house of origin does not concur in those amendments, the bill is referred to a two-house conference committee to resolve the differences. Three members of the committee are from the Senate and three are from the Assembly. If a compromise is reached, the bill is returned to both houses for a vote.

Governor
If both houses approve a bill, it goes to the Governor. The Governor has three choices: sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without his or her signature, or veto it. A governor's veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both houses. Most enacted bills go into effect on the first day of January of the next year. Urgency bills, and certain other measures, take effect immediately after they are enacted into law.

Since this bill was gutted and amended in a Senate committee, it must return to the Assembly for concurrence as described above.

Some feel that AB1634 is being held back because the Governor has stated that he will take no action on any bills until the Budget issue is resolved. However, all passed bills are being held "at the Desk", so that absolutely is not the reason AB1634 is being held back.

At this point it is still advisable for constituents to contact their Senators, including their District Offices, and express their opposition to AB1634. Talking points are listed on the DPCA Legislative page: http://www.dpca.http://www.dphttp://www.dphtt
Faxes and phone calls are the most effective. The contact information for all CA Senators is listed on the DPCA Legislative site. If necessary, we will post the same information for the Assembly members should the bill pass out of the Senate.

Dana Johnson
DPCA Legislative Director
To watch the Senate Floor Session please go the this link: http://www.calchannel.com

To view the Analysis provided with AB1634 please go to this link:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_cfa_20080806_202152_sen_floor.html
 

---

 

Archive to View AB1634 Hearing  [top]

GO to: http://www.calchannel.com/search.htm
1. Go to the bottom where it says to search by month: Browse by Month
2. In the drop down box place June 2008
3. That takes you to Archive Search Results
4. Go to the very bottom and find the last entry:
June 25, 2008 local government Committee,
5. Then click on watch

---

Brief Talking Points for AB1634   [top]

as PDF

Brief talking points to use for the Appropriations Committee letters:

• CA is $18 Billion in debt, so there is no money to enforce mandated program

• Shelter costs will soar due to abandoned animals from owners unable to pay increased fees and/or castration

• Administrative costs associated with tracking pets under a "3 strikes" penalty system will rise

• Audit and investigative fees for potential abuse of privately collected funds will be costly to the State

• Local governments will demand funding as historically shown re the Hayden bill

• No Due Process, therefore there will be high cost legal challenges

• Decreased license compliance due to people going underground, increased enforcement costs

• Rabies compliance will be reduced due to licensing requirements. Public Health costs will go up

• AB1634's author asserts intact animal ownership in itself is illegal, owners will not seek intact animal licensing, further reducing licensing compliance

* Neighbors, AR groups will increase complaints, AC will increase costs investigating these complaints, valid or not

* If Veterinarian reporting is required to enforce licensing, less rabies immunizations would follow, more public health dangers could follow, requiring more State Public Health funds

• Shelter Costs are fixed costs, not dependent on other factors

• Abuse could result from private organizations being allowed to collect the penalties, and takes revenue away from legitimate public needs

---

Contact Information   [top]

Copy and paste this block of emails into your email program (comma delimited emails) and you can send an email to all of these senators at one time.

Senator.Perata@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Steinberg@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Ackerman@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Alquist@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Ashburn@senate.ca.gov, Jim.Battin@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Calderon@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Cogdill@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Corbett@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Correa@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Cox@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Denham@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Ducheny@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Dutton@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Florez@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Harman@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Hollingsworth@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Hollingsworth@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Kehoe@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Kuehl@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Lowenthal@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Machado@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Maldonado@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Margett@senate.ca.gov, Senator.McClintock@senate.ca.gov, Senator.McLeod@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Migden@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Padilla@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Ridley-Thomas@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Romero@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Runner@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Scott@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Simitian@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Torlakson@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Wiggins@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov, Senator.Yee@senate.ca.gov
 
Fax and Call all 40 Senators and ask them to KILL AB 1634, and cc the
Governor and the Senate Office of Floor Analyses.

CA State Senators & Governor - Tel & Fax Nos.
Senator
Sacramento Phone:
Sacramento Fax:
District Phone:
District Fax:


Sam Aanestad
916-651-4004
916-445-7750
530-470-1846

Dick Ackerman
916-651-4033
916-445-9754
714-573-1853
714-573-1859

Elaine Alquist
916-651-4013
916-324-0283
408-286-8318
408-286-2338

Roy Ashburn
916-651-4018
916-322-3304
661-323-0443
661-323-0446

James Battin
916-651-4037
916-327-2187
951-653-9502
951-653-9524

Ron Calderon
916-651-4030
916-327-8755
323-890-2790
323-890-2795

Gilbert Cedillo
916- 651-4022
916-327-8755
213-612-9566
213-612-9591

Dave Cogdill
916-651-4014
916-327-3523
559-253-7122
559-253-7127

Ellen Corbett
916-651-4010
916-327-2433
510-577-2300
510-577-2308

Louis Correa
916-651-4034
916-323-2323
714-558-4400
714-558-4111

Dave Cox
916-651-4001
916-324-2680
916-783-8232
916-783-5487

Jeff Denham
916-651-4012
916-445-0773
209-726-5495
209-726-5498

Bob Dutton
916-651-4031
916-327-2272
909-466-4180
909-466-4185

Dean Florez
916-651-4016
916-327-5989
559-264-3070
559-445-6506

Tom Harman
916-651-4035
916-445-9263
714-957-4555
714-957-4560

Dennis Hollingsworth
916-651-4036
916-447-9008
951-676-1020
951-676-1030

Christine Kehoe
916-651-4039
916-327-2188
619-645-3133
619-645-3144

Shiela Kuehl
916-651-4023
916-324-4823
310-441-9084
310-441-0724

Alan Lowenthal
916-651-4027
916-327-9113
562-495-4766
562-495-1876

Mike Machado
916-651-4005
916-323-2304
916-651-1511
916-323-2596

Abel Maldonado
916-651-4015
916-445-8081
805-549-3784
805-549-3779

Bob Margett
916-651-4029
916-324-0922
626-914-5046
626-914-8976

Tom McClintock
916-651-4019
916-324-7544
805-494-8808
805-494-8808

Carole Migden
916-651-4003
916-445-4722
415-557-1300
415-557-1252

Denise Moreno Ducheny
916-651-4040
916-327-3522
619-409-7690
619-409-7688

Gloria Negrete McLeod
916-651-4032
916-445-0128
909-621-2783
909-621-2783

Jenny Oropeza
916-651-4028
916-323-6056
310-318-6994
310-318-6733

Alex Padilla
916-651-4020
916-324-6645
818-901-5588
818-901-5562

Don Perata
916-651-4009
916-327-1997
510-286-1333
510-286-3885

Mark Ridley-Thomas
916-651-4026
916-445-8899
213-745-6656
213-745-6722

Gloria Romero
916-651-4024
916-445-0485
323-881-0100
323-881-0101

George Runner
916-651-4017
916-445-4662
661-729-6239
661-729-1683

Jack Scott
916-651-4021
916-324-7543
626-683-0282
626-793-5803

Joseph Simitian
916-651-4011
916-323-4529
650-688-6384
650-688-6370

Darrell Steinberg
916-651-4006
916-323-2263
916-324-4937
916-327-8754

Tom Torlakson
916-651-4007
916-445-2527
925-602-6593
925-602-6598

Edward Vincent
916-651-4025
916-445-3712
310-412-0393
310-412-0996

Patricia Wiggins
916-651-4002
916-323-6958
707-445-6508
707-445-6511

Mark Wyland
916-651-4038
916-446-7382
949-489-9838
949-489-8354

Leland Yee
916-651-4008
916-327-2186
415-557-7857
415-557-7864


Rules Committee:
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
916-651-1520
916-327-4478


Gov. Schwarzenegger
916-445-2841
916-558-3160


Travel and Tourism Commission:
Caroline Beteta, Pres/CEO
916-319-5420
916-444-0410


CA Division of Tourism:
Wendy Arzaga-Messersmith
916-323-3807
916-322-3402
 

---

In Depth Analysis   [top]

UPDATES FROM THE ANIMAL COUNCIL

June 27, 2008 Last publication date 6/19/08 Preserving Our Right To Own And Breed Animals Is Your Responsibility

IN THIS ISSUE: * CA AB 1634, AS AMENDED, REVIEW: THE OPPOSITION; THE HEARING AMENDMENT; CREATION OF A NEW OFFENSE; THE IMPOUND PROVISION; THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE; HISTORY OF MSN ON IMPOUND; CONTRASTING LOCAL ORDINANCES; AB 1634 AND 1998 AB 1856 VINCENT BILL, ISSUE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

THE OPPOSITION: CA AB 1634 as amended June 18, authored by final term Assembly member Lloyd Levine (D-40) of Van Nuys, with previous Assembly co-authors Nava and Solario, and Senators Padilla and newly added Gloria Negrete McLeod, passed (3-2 partisan vote) out of the Senate Committee on Local Government, chaired by Negrete McLeod on Wednesday, June 25, after a nearly hour-long hearing and is now referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This review covers only the owner impact issues and not the bill provision for county reports to the Department of Health Services and seeks to clarify the principal issues after Senate policy committee. Opposition to the original bill mandating local ordinances allowing only designated cats and dogs to remain unaltered had been well focused, but the entirely new bill provisions mandate sterilization as a post offense/impoundment consequence. This reversal diluted opposition clarity on key issues and bypassed critical legislative history of statutory provisions being amended. Some opponents asked for amendments or later legislation, cited "lack of due process" without explanation or obvious understanding of the extent and significance, or otherwise endorsed most of the bill.

THE AMENDMENT: Considering our 2005 experience in this committee, with only slightly different membership, hearing SB 861 (modified the 1990 breed specific preemption) passage of AB 1634 was no surprise regardless of opposition effort. The limited amendment of AB 1634 in committee was the only surprise. In response to slight equivocation by Democrat Mike Machado of rural San Joaquin county, favoring the bill due to damage in his area from loose dumped and loose dogs and cats but still with reservations, Levine readily amended the "complaint" provisions from "shall" to "may" be cited (third complaint/citation results in mandatory sterilization.) The amendment could allow some local discretion in citing for "complaints" about violations of non-noise animal laws against owners of unaltered dogs or cats as provided by this bill. However, discretion is not a right, entitlement or defense and its use would depend on agency policy and individual enforcement personnel's perception of the complaining party, subject, animal and owner.

THE NEW OFFENSE: Mr. Levine – both last year (July, 2007 hearing) and now – equated the MSN penalty to a seat belt violation secondary to a traffic stop for other reasons since individual traffic stops are not allowed for seat belts alone. But, not wearing a seat belt is a existing legal offense, whereas owning an unaltered dog or cat is not. This analogy fails. In effect, AB 1634 creates a new offense for violating a non-noise animal law with an unaltered animal. Since animal laws range from trivial to grave, related or not to unaltered status or unwanted breeding, intentional or unknowing, innocuous or reckless, this uniform, severe, confiscatory consequence would be disproportionate and inappropriate in some cases. Note, the trend in dangerous dog laws is to include sterilization provisions in those separate laws.

THE IMPOUND PROVISIONS: The additional bill provision for MSN penalty following 3rd impound for dogs and 2nd for cats has even been endorsed by some opponents without regard to legislative history or future implications. This attitude may have led to oversight in making the case for lack of due process in the legal and practical sense.

THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE: The bill wording is confusing as to whether the owner must be cited for an actual offense under other animal laws and consequently cited under this bill if the subject animal is unaltered, or merely cited under this bill without actual citation and legal disposition for the original complaint. This confusion led to allegations of lack of due process for defending the "complaint", to which the author replied there would be no lack of due process for citations. On this point, Levine would be correct as to the citation itself which would be appealable in court as any type of citation. Rather, the actual lack of due process is for challenging the sterilization penalty based on individual facts and circumstances. Without authorization for an express appeals process on this issue, the owner's only recourse is to attempt to go directly to court – an impractical, expensive and very problematic forum. For those who believe anyone violating any animal law or whose animal is impounded, including themselves, should suffer this penalty, perhaps there is no concern. For everyone else, this is and has been a critical concern in this area of animal law involving forfeiture of a property interest, possibly of significant monetary or other value and/or partly owned by persons other than the apparent owner.

THE HISTORY OF MSN ON IMPOUND: The concept of mandatory sterilization on impound was developed in the San Mateo Community Animal Task Force Technical Committee in 1991, a large, contentious group that intensely scrutinized and debates the pros and cons of every aspect of San Mateo County animal laws and shelter policies related to the pending "overpopulation" ordinance. The enacted recommendation for this concept was MSN on 3rd impound in a THREE YEAR PERIOD with an appeal process. The relevant provisions of the San Mateo County Code Section 6.04.220 Redemption/spay neuter fee are:

"(b) Upon redemption of any impounded unaltered animal, the owner will be required to pay a spay/neuter fee in the amount of $35.00 in addition to the impound fees imposed under section 6.04.290 of this chapter. Such fee shall be refundable upon proof of spay/neuter of the animal within thirty (30) days of the redemption date. Any unaltered animal impounded twice or more within a three-year period shall be altered at the owner's expense prior to redemption. At the option of the owner, required spaying or neutering may be performed by a private veterinarian. (c) Any owner of an impounded animal subject to mandatory spay/neuter under subsection (b) of this section may petition, in writing, for a hearing conducted by the Animal Control Program Manager or his or her designee within three days following notice of the second impoundment. The hearing shall be held within four working days of such petition and shall be subject to the provisions of section 6.04.115, subsections (a) through (g) of this chapter. After the hearing, the Hearing Officer may require that the animal be spayed or neutered at the owner's expense, unless the Hearing Officer determines that good cause exists for not requiring that the animal be spayed or neutered."

Since these provisions were enacted in 1991, owners have requested hearings and some have prevailed. "Good cause" might include veterinary contraindications and totally unforeseeable circumstances, particularly those out of the owner's control. Since then, we have seen this type of provision proposed around the country at the local and state level, but not always enacted, and with numerous variations. Variations range from first to third impound, appeal process or none, exemptions for "show", "competition" or certain registries", time periods or lifetime, animal or owner, non-residents and others. Additional concerns include civil liability to the owner, and AB 1856 would have given immunity to agencies and shelters.

CONTRAST 1998 OAKLAND CA PROVISIONS – 1st IMPOUND UNLICENSED/NO APPEAL, 2ND ALL OTHERS WITH APPEAL: "Oakland CA Municipal Code Section 6.04.241 Spaying/neutering impounded animals prior to release. A. Unlicensed Dogs. Any dog taken into custody by the animal control shelter that is not licensed pursuant to Section 6.04.030 must be spayed or neutered prior to release from the animal control shelter unless such dog is excepted from the license requirements pursuant to Section 6.04.090• B. Repeat Offenders. After the first violation of any provision of Title 6, Chapter 6.04 or 6.08, pending an appropriate appeals process, animals taken into custody by the animal control shelter will be subject to a mandatory spay/neuter prior to release from the animal control shelter. (Ord. 12069, 1998)"

AB 1634 AND THE 1998 VINCENT BILL, AB 1856: Both AB 1634 cat and dog impound provisions would amend existing law enacted by the 1998 AB 1856 authored then Assembly member Edward Vincent for whom Mr. Levine was the bill's staff person. AB 1856, as introduced, required sterilization of ALL cats and dogs prior to transfer by anyone and was opposed by all dog and cat owner groups and many others. When Vincent met with stakeholders to discuss amendments, Mr. Levine walked out of the meeting, and has never worked with owner groups during his prior Assembly years' animal bills. When AB 1856 reached the Senate Judiciary Committee, it had been amended to only sterilization of shelter and rescue adoption releases and the MSN on 3rd impound (same as AB 1634) in addition to the escalating surcharges on local fines for each unaltered impound.

THE AB 1856 OPPOSITION: San Mateo was recent history in 1998, and the AB 1856 MSN on impound provisions were uniformly and successfully opposed and deleted while the remaining "Vincent Bill" went on to enactment as a shelter sterilization bill only. Our question now is why some of the 1998 opponents now accept or even advocate the language removed from the 1998 bill? AB 1634 would preempt San Mateo County's ordinance that offers greater protection, but leave Oakland's far more harsh ordinance with the invitation for others to take the low rather than high road.

1998 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AB 1856 ANALYSIS (6/23/98 HEARING):

"4. Opposition by dog clubs: bill denies due process rights of dog owners, and is draconian

Numerous dog and cat clubs oppose this bill. They have three primary concerns. The first is that the provision requiring the sterilization of dogs and cats that are impounded three times are too stringent. Sharon Coleman of the Animal Council argues that some animals are "true escape artists" and imposed sterilization for those who are picked up three times is inappropriate. Moreover, she argues, animals are impounded for a myriad of reasons: in cases where an owner's house has burned down or when a natural disaster has occurred, for instance.

The second concern is that the bill would deny the due process rights of owners. Coleman points out that the bill does not provide for an administrative hearing of any kind, and gives civil immunity to shelters who sterilize "third-strike" animals. Third, several clubs have argued that inappropriate, and that citizens would be better served if such matters were left to local jurisdictions.

The author responds that requiring sterilization after the third time a dog or cat has been impounded provides ample opportunity for owners to mend fences, fix back-doors, or make other changes that will keep a dog or cat from roaming free. He is concerned that providing for an administrative hearing prior to a third offense sterilization would be overly bureaucratic."

AB 1634 HAS THE SAME PROVISION OPPOSED AND DEFEATED IN 1998: Why is this not uniformly opposed now when it is the basis for creation of a new offense of owning an unaltered dog or cat when violating any non-noise animal law? Is the switch from front-end to back-end mandated sterilization that confusing? Does it make opponents appear reasonable and worthy of concessions or just weak enough for a final defeat as the author leaves the Legislature?

The registered opposition on this 1998 Bill Analysis was as follows:

"Opposition: The American Kennel Club; American Staffordshire Terrier Club; Irish Setter Club of San Diego; Samoyed Club of America; Associated Obedience Clubs of Northern California; Golden Gate Labrador Retriever Club, Inc.; Irish Setter Club of Southern California; Pet Lovers Protective League; South Bay Collie Fanciers, Inc.; California Federation of Dog Clubs; Afghan Hound Club of California; Antelope Valley Kennel Club; Aztec Doberman Pinscher Club of San Diego; Bull Terrier Club of California; Cabrillo Club of California; California Canine Hikers; Channel City Kennel Club; Cocker Spaniel Club of San Diego; Diablo Valley German Shepherd Dog Club; Western Hound Association of Southern California; Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles; Golden Gate Akita Club; Golden State Chow Chow Club; Golden State Rottweiler Club; Great Pyrnees Association of Southern California; Kennel Club of Riverside; Kennel Club of Palm Springs; Kern Valley Kennel Club; Lake Matthews Kennel Club; Mensona Kennel Club; Orange Coast Rhodesian Ridgeback Club; Dalane Golden Retrievers; Samoyed Club of Los Angeles; San Angeles Saluki Club; San Joaquin Kennel Club; Santa Maria Kennel Club; Santa Clara Valley Kennel Club; Shoreline Dog Fanciers Association; Southern California Beagle Club; Southland Weimaraner Club; St. Bernard Club of San Diego; St. Bernard Club of Southern California; Western Fox Terrier Breeders Association; Ventura County Dog Fanciers; Society Collies; Keeshound Club of Southern California; National Animal Interest Alliance; Collie Club of America, Inc.; San Gabriel Valley Collie Club; Simply Corgis; South West Dog Sports of California; Saga Welsh Springer Spaniels; The Welsh Springer Club of America; The Art Network; Pricilla Eiden, Inc.; Balua Sur Kennel Club; Kayra Kennel; Killija Labradors; Dalmatian Club of Southern California; Golden West Fox Terrier Association; Custom Canines Obedience; Tioka Norwegian Elkhounds; Bulldog Club of Southern California; BisSchips CB Schipperkes; JMC Service; CRIS'S K9 Training; Coyote Hills Kennel Club; American Dog Owners Association, Inc.; ASTRO; The Animal Council; Animal House, Inc.; Animal Lovers Unlimited, Inc.; Authentic Bengal Cat League; Bahia Sur Kennel Club of Chula Vista; Barbary Coast Bull Terrier Club; Bear County Cattery; Bijou Bleu Cattery; Borzoi Club of California; The Cat Care Clinic; The Cat Fanciers Association, Inc.; Del Sur Kennel Club; Embergain Golden Retrievers; Feather River Dog Training Club; Fresh Start Victorian Cat Shelter; Golden Empire Brittany Club; Great Companions Dog Training; High Desert Cat Club; Human/ Animal Bond in Society; International Bengal Cat Club; Just Persians Cat Club; Malibu Cat Club; Mother Lode Bulldog Club; Nakota Siberians; National Pet Alliance; Northern California Alaskan Malamute Association; Pet Pantry; Pups are Us Pet Store; Rowe's La Mesa Pet Hotel; Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs; Saluki Club of Greater San Francisco; San Diego Cat Fanciers; San Francisco Dog Training Club; Sandy Oak Chesapeakes; Santa Clara Cat Fanciers Association; Sierra Foothills Dalmatian Club; Tahoe Bengals; Two Cities Kennel Club; Western Abyssinian Cat Club; West Shore Shorthair Cat Club" See the complete Analysis at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1856_cfa_19980624_114323_sen_comm.html *****

Copyright © 2008 The Animal Council. Updates From the Animal Council is a time-sensitive publication e-mailed to members of our Yahoo Groups or those who have provided an e-mail address for receipt. Permission to forward in its complete format to interested individuals, aligned groups and email lists is granted, but no part of this publication may be otherwise stored in a retrieval system or incorporated within other publications without the prior written permission of the publisher, theanimacouncil@aol.com

  

---

Current Version of the Bill  [top]

For the current version of the bill, click here (PDF).

---

Read the AKC's Letter to Senator Torlakson   [top]

Click here to read the American Kennel Club's letter to Senator Torlakson

---

Videos   [top]