Gibson Family Pit Bulls

ALERT - URGENT - SB 250....MOVES TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR

From: CFODC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CFODC@yahoogroups.com]

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:49 AM

To: cfodc@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [CalFedDogClubs] SB 250....MOVES TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR SB 250 passed the Appropriations Committee and will go to a full vote on the assembly floor.

This is without a doubt the most destructive law ever for dog owners. Any dog at a show without a license on his collar, or off leash is in violation.

The fact that obedience doesn't allow tags in the ring, the fact that show dogs don't wear tags in the ring, means NOTHING. You only get one chance. Once you've been cited, your dog is spayed or neutered and SO ARE ANY OTHER DOGS YOU OWN. You think they won't come after you at a show? Just check around and see what they're already doing.

The Burbank shows are September 26 and 27. SB 250 could be on the books by then. Maybe it's not likely, but what if? What if AC decides to make an example of us at that show? You could lose your entire breeding stock. If not Burbank, how about Riverside, San Gabriel, any show, anywhere in California?  Every time you enter, you'll be putting your dogs at risk, all of them.

And if you're one of those who flies under the radar and doesn't license - and you get caught - you won't need to commit a leash violation or anything else. You'll be cited, dogs sterilized and you won't be allowed to own an intact dog ever again.

If you don't show but you compete in obedience or agility,20chances are you already spay/neuter your dogs and think none of this applies to you.. Dogs get old, they retire, time for a new puppy. Where will you get that puppy?  From a breeder? Yeah, right.

We have eleven days to make the biggest stink Sacramento has ever seen.

Remind them that this bill will cost the state a fortune. Call, write, fax, email. Then do it again. Tell everyone you know to do the same. Every Democrat in the Assembly needs to hear from you.

Here is their contact info.

Except for the room number, all addresses are the same:

State Capitol,

Sacramento, CA  95814

Tom Ammiano (San Francisco)

916-319-2013

Room 2175

Fax 916-319-2113

Juan Arambula (Fresno)

916-319-2031

Room 2141

Fax 916-319-2131

Karen Bass (speaker) (Los Angeles)

916-319-2047

Room 219

Fax 916-319-2147

Jim Beall, Jr. (San Jose)

916-319-2024

Room 5016

Fax 916-319-2124

Marty Block (Lemon Grove)

916-319-2078

Room 3132

Fax 916-319-2178

Bob Blumenfield (Van Nuys)

916-319-2049

Fax 916-319-2140

Julia Brownley (Woodland Hills)

916-319-2041

Room 2163

Fax 916-319-2141

Joan Buchanan (San Ramon)

916-319-2015

Room 4167

Fax 916-319-2115

Anna M. Caballero (Salinas)

916-319-2028

Room 5119

Fax 916-319-2128

Charles M. Calderon (City of Industry)

916-319-2058

Fax 916-319-2158

Wilmer Amin a Carter (Rialto)

916-319-2062

Room 2136

Fax 916-319-2162

Wesley Chesbro (Santa Rosa)

916-319-2001

Room 2176

Fax 916-319-2101

Joe Coto (San Jose)

916-319- 2023

Room 2013

Fax 916-319-2123

Mike Davis (Los Angeles)

916-319-2048

Room 2160

Fax 916-319-2148

Hector de la Torre (South Gate)

916-319-2050

Room 4016

Fax 16-319-2150

Kevin de Leon (Los Angeles)

916-319-2045

Room 2114

Fax 916-319-2145

Mike Eng (El Monte)

916-319-2049

Room 4140

Fax 916-319-2149

Noreen Evans (Napa)

916-319-2007

Room 6026

916-319-2107

Mike Feuer (West Hollywood)

916-319-2042

Room 3146

Fax 916-319-2142

Paul Fong (Mountain View)

916-319-2022

Room 5135

Fax 916-319-2122

Felipe Fuentes (Arleta)

916-319-2039

Fax 916-319-2139

Warren T. Furutani (Long Beach)

916-319-2055

Room 3126

Fax 916-319-2155

Cathleen Galgiani (Merced)

916-319-2017

Room 5155

Fax 916-319-2117

Martin Garrick (Carlsbad)

916-319-2074

Room 2158

Fax 916-319-2174

Isadore Hall III (Compton)

916-319-2052

Fax 916-319-2152

Mary Hayashi (Hayward)

916-319-2018

Room 3013

Fax 916-319-2118

Edward P. Hernandez (West Covina)

916-319-2057

Room 4112

Fax 916-319-2157

Jerry Hill (San Mateo)

916-319-2019

Room 4146

Fax 916-319-2119

Alyson Huber (Lodi)

916-319-2010

Room 5175

Fax 916-319-2110

Jared Huffman (Petaluma)

916-319-2006

Room 3120

Fax 916-329-2106

Dave Jones (Sacramento)

916-319-2009

Room 6005

Fax 916-319-2109

Paul Krekorian (Burbank)

916-319-2043

Room 4005

Fax 916-319-2143

Ted W. Lieu (El Segundo)

916-319-2053

Room 3173

Fax 916-319-2153

Bonnie Lowenthal (Long Beach)

916-319-2054

Room 5158

Fax 916-319-2154

Fiona Ma (San Francisco)

916-319-2012

Room 3091

Fax 916-319-2112

Tony Mendoza (Norwalk)

916-319-2056

Room 2188

Fax 916-319-2156

William W. Monning (Santa Cruz)

916-319-2027

Room 5150

Fax 916-319-2127

Pedro Nava (Santa Barbara)

916-319-2035

Room 2148

Fax 916-319-2135

John A. Perez (Los Angeles)

916-319-2046

Room 3160

Fax 916-319-2146

V. Manuel Perez (Indio)

916-319-2080

Room 4162

Fax 916-319-2180

Anthony Portantino (Pasadena)

916-319-2044

Room 2003

Fax 916-319-2144

Ira Ruskin (Los Altos)

916-319-2021

Room 3123

Fax 916-319-2121

Mary Salas (Chula Vista)

916-319-2079

Room 2137

Fax 916-319-2179

Lori Saldana (San Diego)

916-319-2076

Room 3152

Fax 916-319-2176

Nancy Skinner (Oakland)

916-319-2014

Fax 916-319-2114

Jose Solorio (Anaheim)

916-319-2069

Fax 916-319-2169

Sandre R. Swanson (Oakland)

916-319 -2016

Room 6012

Fax 916-319-2116

Tom Torlakson (Antioch)

916-319-2011

Fax 916-319-2111

Norma J. Torres (Ontario)

916-319-2061

Room 4164

Fax 916-319-2161

Alberto Torrico (Fremont)

916-319-2020

Room 319

Fax 916-319-2120

Mariko Yamada (Vacaville)

916-319-2008

Room 5144

Fax 916-319-2108

**** A message from the California Federation of Dog Clubs***

***Please forward***

ALERT CA - SB250 scheduled to be heard Aug 27

The Assembly Appropriations Committee; all bills currently in suspense (about 100 of 'em) will be heard next Thursday.

Here's the link to the California Department of Finance bill analysis for SB250:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/LIS_PDF/09/SB-250-20090714021846PM-SB00250.pdf

Assembly Appropriations Committee

http://asm.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=43

Maddie's Fund recently said its' research shows there is no pet overpopulation problem in California because even if ALL of the ~350,000 dogs & cats now killed in shelters found new homes instead, Californians would still get 1.7 million million more pets from other sources. If no one breeds them in the state, they'll come from other states or out of the country.

ALERT IL - Highland Park - new ordinance will have a negative impact on dog owners - Aug 24th

Proposed new ordinance will have a negative impact on dog owners

Some provisions of the new ordinance:

Mandate spay/neuter of any intact dog that is impounded, even on a 1st offense.

Defines as a �public nuisance,� a dog that engages in frequent of habitual barking. The terminology in this section is not defined, making this it entirely subjective and easily misused.

Allows any dog deemed a �public nuisance� to be impounded. (Meaning the dog would have to be spayed/neutered before being returned to the owner.)

Define as a �public nuisance� any enclosure that is offensive to persons residing in the vicinity because of debris or odors. Again, this is subjective and poorly defined, making it easily misused by a neighbor who does not like dogs.

Create a �Problem Pet Owner� designation

Anyone who commits 3 violations of this chapter in a 36 month period. (This could mean three violations under the aforementioned poorly-written barking dog section would require an owner to surrender their dogs!)

�Problem Pet Owners� are prohibited from owning ANY animals for 24 months, and all existing animals must be surrendered to the Animal Warden of Chief of Police.

Require that a female dog in heat be confined inside the owner�s home, a veterinary hospital or kennel at all times. This would prohibit the owner from taking the dog for a walk, or even allowing it in their own yard.

Require an annual rabies vaccination, effectively prohibiting owners and veterinarians from using the existing 3-year rabies vaccine.

Require that microchips provide readable information, including the animal�s name and contact information for the owner. As you know, when a microchip is scanned it only provides a serial number which can be looked up in a national database to provide the owner�s contact information. There are no microchips on the market capable of doing what this ordinance mandates. It would be impossible for residents to comply with the ordinance.

Require that owners provide information about the reproductive status of the animal when it is licensed, likely to create a differential licensing system where owners of intact animals pay a higher fee.

Include a series of restrictions on tethering:

Requires any tethered animals be sterilized.

Animals tethered for more than 1 hour must be supervised.

Prohibits tethering between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Highland Park City Council Meeting

Monday August 24th, 2:30 pm

City Hall

1707 St. Johns Avenue

Highland Park, IL 60035

EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE! Indiana has set a precedent with its "as yet

unproven" evasion of taxes case against the Garwoods of Mauckport,

Indiana, that is now being followed by other states. TN has a case

pending similar to what just occurred in Indiana...seizing dogs for

alleged "unpaid sales tax." The CA Franchise Tax Board is now sending

out letters to dog owners who have been identified as possibly "selling

dogs."

Permission to cross post everywhere!

Permission to cross post granted.

In California a friend got a letter from the "Tax Board" dated

6-10-2009. Seems that "someone" went on the AKC web site and must have

used a link to the our national breed club to find names of potential

puppy sellers.

Here's part of her message regarding the letter from the California

State Board of Equalization:

/ /Just this morning I received a letter from the Ca State Board of

Equalization saying that they had gotten information from the American

Kennel Club Web site that I might be selling animals and I needed a

seller's permit.  I just phoned the American Kennel Club to inquire as to whether or

not they provide information and if there is a list on their web site of

breeders. AKC says that their web site information is not provided to

agencies like that. There is a link on the web site to our National

club's web site and breeders list...I am sure that is where California

got my name and address.  Now I have to respond within 30 days...Oh yes...and...the letter says that if we purchase a dog from someone out of the state of

California, we are required to pay a "use" tax. -end-

After reading this and the actual letter, I asked if anyone knew of

others that had gotten letters such as my friend rec'd. I asked on a

list with people in multiple breeds in multiple states. And got a reply

with the following:

I'm guessing this is HSUS/PeTA lead after the "sting" in

Indiana where they seized a commercial kennel (took the dogs) for sales

taxes owed. It worked there, I'm guessing they are now scanning

throughout the country. The Indiana governor "thanked" HSUS for bringing

the lapse to their attention.  It worked once, likely to work again. -end-

So it seems H$U$/PeTA was behind a TAX issue in another state. I wonder

if H$US and/or PeTA are doing this in CA. Because in my opinion, now

they are going after the good guys.. Going after people that don't sell

puppies such as my friend in CA. Going after people that don't sell

puppies is something I find to be an absolute waste of time, energy and

money ..in other words typical waste of generously donated

dollars people give to the H$U$ and/or PeTA.. -As far as I can tell the

H$U$ is an AR group that operates ZERO shelters. And PeTA, also an AR

group has a single "shelter". A shelter with a kill rate well over 90%.

I also feel this is also a waste of a State employee's time. Someone had

to write the letter, print it, mail it, file the copy, open a file in my

friends name to be tracked. And some state employee is going to have to

read what ever is sent back and update the file. Then will argue even

though she sold no puppies she owes for something. I figure this

single letter costs our state quite a few actual dollars: the

employee's time (to research and write the letter, paid to a person),

paper and envelope, fuel (to deliver), the postage (paid to the USPS),

electricity (to print, fold and stamp, paid to PG&E), and that is just

to produce the letter. There is also all the processing and file

updating, mailroom, delivery to the right person... phone calls "if you

have any questions you may call me".

I have no legal background. But feel that if the Tax Board thinks you

owe them money in sales tax, that its up to them to prove you do and how

much, -BUT- that's only IF you do NOT already have a sellers permit.

Because if you have a resale license you may have signed off on allowing

them the burden of proof by applying for one. My friend does have a

kennel permit (for her personal dogs), so that may have been used as

well. I do know you give up many of your rights when you apply for a

kennel permit. -where I live, you grant unannounced inspections just for

applying for a permit.

How do you prove you are not selling puppies? I can see how you can

show proof that you have.. but how do you prove somethibg that does not

exist?

So be warned.. Cities and States are hard up for money. They are going

after every penny they can get. And they are using anything they can,

to do so. I, myself paid dearly on a technicality, several months ago.

I had to pay fines that were basically DOUBLE the lic fee to my city.

I had a small retail space I rented in another city where I sold my

books and crafts. Turned out I needed a business license in my city

simply because I had a sellers permit with the State of CA. It should

be noted, I owed zero sales tax because I have faithfully paid my sales

taxes each and every year.

So, be warned BIG BROTHER is out there.

"Senate Bill 241 would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies"

Nevada Bill to Terribly Impact Responsible Dog Breeders

[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]

 
A bill has been introduced in the Nevada Senate to regulate anyone who wants to breed and sell dogs, regardless of the number. Senate Bill 241 would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies. It would also impose numerous other regulations and subject anyone who breeds and sells dogs to random inspections. It is very important for all responsible dog breeders and owners in Nevada to contact the Nevada Senate and express your opposition to this infringement on your rights!

As written, SB 241 would:

Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.

Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times."

The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.

Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.

Mandate microchipping of all dogs prior to sale.

Prohibit anyone who is not in compliance with a court order for child support from obtaining a breeder's license.

Include ambiguous exemptions for those who are housing domestic dogs or cats as pets or caring for another person's dog or cat in a home environment and those participating in the exhibition of dogs.

The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. We believe, however, that onerous regulations do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. The AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.

How You Can Help:

Contact the bill sponsors and politely, yet strongly express your opposition to Senate Bill 241.

Their contact information is as follows:

Senator Shirley Breeden
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2131
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1457
E-mail: sbreeden@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Maggie Carlton
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2125
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1431
E-mail: mcarlton@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Valerie Wiener
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2132
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1422
E-mail: vwiener@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Randolph Townsend
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2107
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1450
E-mail: rtownsend@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Steven Horsford
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 1222
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1429
E-mail: shorsford@sen.state.nv.us

Senator John Lee
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2131
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1457
E-mail: jlee@sen.state.nv.us

Senator David Parks
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2121
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-6504
E-mail: dparks@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Joyce Woodhouse
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2127
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1481
E-mail: jwoodhouse@sen.state.nv.us

Contact your State Senator and express your opposition to the bill. Click here to find your Senator and obtain contact information.

Do you have a dog that is tethered, cabled, or chained?  If so pay attention...  HSUS has a new version of a NO TETHERING bill.  This was put on the floor today. 

Restraining of Dogs HB 626

www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H626v0.html

*SESSION 2009*

*H D* *HOUSE DRH30138-LL-68A (2/5)* * * * * * *

Short Title: Restraining of Dogs.

(Public) Sponsors: Representative Yongue.

Referred to: A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

to amend the criminal law concerning restraining of dogs.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

*SECTION 1.* G.S. 14‑362.3 reads as rewritten: "§ 14‑362.3.

Restraining dogs in a cruel manner.

_(a)_ A person who maliciously _knowingly_ restrains a dog using a chain or wire grossly in excess of the size _or weight_ necessary to restrain the dog safely _or other type of tethering device in violation of this section_ is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this section, "maliciously" means the person imposed the restraint intentionally and with malice or bad motive.

 _(b)_ _No person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause such restraining of a dog, to a tree, fence, post, dog house, or other stationary object for more than nine hours in a 24‑hour period. During periods of tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection, any tethering device used shall be at least 15 feet in length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other injury to the dog and entanglement with objects other than the stationary objects to which the device is attached.

_ _(c)_ _No person shall attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to, or cause such attachment to, a choke‑type or pronged collar on a dog.

_ _(d)_ _No person shall attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to a dog in such manner that does not allow the dog access to water and adequate shelter.

_ _(e)_ _Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, a person may, subject to the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section:

_ _(1)_ _Tether and restrain a dog while actively engaged in:_ _a._ _Use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock, or_ _b._ _Use of the dog in the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraining is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog, or_ _c._ _Use of the dog in lawful hunting activities if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog.

_ _(2)_ _After taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of the dog, tether and restrain the dog during such time as the person having taken possession of the dog is seeking the identity of the owner of the dog.

_ _(3)_ _Walk a dog with a handheld leash._ _(f)_ _Restraining a dog in a manner prohibited by this section constitutes cruelty as defined in G.S. 19A‑1(2)._ _(g)_ _A county, city, or town may by ordinance reduce the time of permissible tethering provided in subsection (b) of this section, including a prohibition on tethering._"

*SECTION 2.* This act becomes effective December 1, 2009, and applies to acts committed on or after that date.