SACRAMENTO, CA " Legislation that would lead to the forced sterilization of thousands of dogs and cats and empower animal rights vigilantes to launch a campaign of legalized terror has advanced to the floor of the State Senate for a final vote.
The vote could come as early as tomorrow, Thursday, August 7, according to the Senate calendar, but Friday, August 8 is more likely. The vote also might be delayed until next week, but dog owners will have no way of knowing until it"s too late to act.
Dog owners should be prepared for the worst. It"s now a matter of do or die.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every California pet owner to immediately phone or fax his or her state senator to oppose AB 1634, which is sponsored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine. Please ask your friends, neighbors and family members to help, too.
In addition, we are urging all dog owners to immediately contact their assembly representatives, as the measure must go back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote if the Senate passes it. The Assembly passed this bill last year in a different form, which called for mandatory pet sterilization statewide.
Here is what the current version of AB 1634 will do to dog and cat owners if it becomes law:
It will create animal rights vigilantes. The bill empowers anyone to make a complaint about any dog owner for an alleged violation of any law pertaining to animals. Complaints can be anonymous. Any animal control officer or humane police officer must look into the complaint, and may file a citation against a dog owner if the officer believes a law has been violated. An officer also can cite a dog owner based simply on his/her own opinions or observations.[/ul]
Filing a citation is entirely based on the opinion of the officer, and the dog owner has no way to challenge the citation. Dog owners must not forget that the state association of animal control officers has endorsed the forced sterilization of all pets, and that many humane police officers work for private organizations that are hotbeds of animal rights activism. Many of these officers are personally opposed to the private ownership of dogs, breeding dogs and using dogs for hunting, obedience events, field trials or shows.[/ul]
If an officer cites a dog or cat owner, civil penalties automatically kick in. These penalties are mandatory even if the charges are never filed, dropped, or if the dog owner is found to be not guilty in court. The fact that a citation has been issued automatically creates the civil penalties. There is no hearing, no chance to defend oneself and no appeal. It doesn"t matter if the dog owner is found innocent of the charge. The civil penalties still apply.[/ul]
For dog owners, the civil penalty for the first citation is a $50 fine. For the second citation, it is $100. For cats, there is a $50 civil penalty for the first offense only.[/ul]
For the third offense, spaying or neutering becomes mandatory for the dog or dogs that are owned by the person who is cited. For cats, the penalties are even more stringent. Cat sterilization is mandated for the second citation.[/ul]
Similar penalties are provided for dogs and cats that are picked up by animal control and taken to a shelter, or taken to a shelter by any person who claims that the animal is a stray. Animal rights activists have been known to turn dogs loose, or steal dogs and turn them loose.[/ul]
The important thing to understand is that the officer who files a citation does not have to prove that the allegation is true. Nor does a dog or cat owner have to be convicted of any violation in court. You do not have to break a law to be cited.
The officer who files the citation also is judge, jury and hangman.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees this legislation as a clear and deliberate violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right of due process under the law. This guarantee is central to the U.S. and California Bill of Rights. This legislation is a wholesale desecration of every American"s constitutional right of due process under the law. Accusations do not have to be proven. There is no opportunity to defend oneself. There is no appeal. This legislation imposes the legal system of a totalitarian state on every Californian.
Want proof?
Here are some quotes from the public record.
Rep Levine"s testimony: "No, that complaint doesn't have to be proven."
The consultant for the Senate Appropriations Committee: "Due process is too expensive."
Levine"s top aid, Zak Meyer-Krings: "You don't have a right to have due process.""
The California Department of Finance also issued a cautionary statement about AB 1634 last week. The Finance statement said the legislation likely will increase state costs under "Hayden Law" reimbursements, as it will cause many people to give up their pets.
No significant amendments were attached to AB 1634 over the summer recess. Only one amendment was filed: To take the teeth out of a requirement for municipalities to file shelter data with the state.
Amendments may be made from the floor of the Senate, and we urge dog owners to ask their senators to do this if they will not simply vote against the legislation.
Before contacting senators, it is important to become familiar with the legislation. Many senators have not read the bill for themselves, and are relying upon biased and inaccurate summaries from party leadership. Please study our objections above, and read the bill for yourself. Here is a link to the current version: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080805_amended_sen_v89.html.
This link will give each senator"s mailing address and district office address: http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. You can find your senator from this list, simply by clicking on the correct name. You also can search for the name of your senator by using your address.
Because this legislation is expected to move quickly, it is important to contact Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ask him to veto AB 1634. Here is a link to email the Governor: http://gov.ca.gov/interact. Under subject, choose animal issues and concerns. A link at the top of the page will give phone and fax numbers.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The bill empowers anyone to make a complaint about any dog owner for an alleged violation of any law pertaining to animals. Complaints can be anonymous. Any animal control officer or humane police officer must look into the complaint, and may file a citation against a dog owner if the officer believes a law has been violated. An officer also can cite a dog owner based simply on his/her own opinions or observations.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is there to be all wound up about? Everything in this bill is already law in every state - there are animal laws everywhere that must be investigated when someone makes a complaint (even and anonymous complaint). How is this different? And LEOs issue citations based solely on their opinions and obvservations every day - traffic citations, etc. This is no different - in fact, my reading of this bill is that it is a lot of hot air and wasted time to pass laws that are already laws.
As far as the third violation of a particular pet resulting in mandatory sterilization, I can't get too upset about that, either. With all the idiots I see in my city with dangerous dogs of various breeds (and mixed breeds) I don't have a problem with euthanization as the result of a third violation.
I have two dogs myself - I keep them on a leash when it is required, I clean up after them and if they ever attacked someone (unlikely, but anything is possible) I'd shoot them myself. I follow the laws regarding pet ownership and, frankly, I don't find them to interfere with the enjoyment I get from my dogs. What's the problem?
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
Yes, citations are issued based on the officer's opinion.
BUT...the officer has to prove the allegation in court.
This legislation takes away a person's right to a his/her day in court. It turns the cop into the judge.
If you think it is OK to find someone guilty without proving the case, then you and I live in far different versions of America.
And, by the way, dogs are personal property. You should not have the power to tell me to spay or neuter my dog. It's none of your business. Your life is none of my business, too.
When your dogs interfere withmy life, it most certainly does become my business. If you let your dog roam free, don't clean up after your dog or your dog attacks me, it is definitely now my business and I 100% support the state stepping in.
So the only portion of this that you really have a complaint with anyway is the fact that there is no court date and no appeal process? It's basically like a parking ticket? Well, I can't say I am too wound up about the lack of a trial or court date unless it is appealed (just like a parking ticket). I do agree that there should be an appeals process. Do you have any evidence that there will be no appeals process apart from the few sound bites? By evidence, I mean some wordingin the bill that says there will be no appeals process?
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
With a parking ticket, you have the ability to contest it. You can either pay your fine and admit guilt, or you can request a hearing to prove your innocence.
I know of no other law in America where people do not have the opportunity to prove their innocence or appeal a decision.
You wrote: "If you let your dog roam free, don't clean up after your dog or your dog attacks me, it is definitely now my business and I 100% support the state stepping in."
No one is arguing with you about that. There are ALREADY laws on the books to deal with those problems. You can report the person and a citation will be issued if your complaint has merit. BUT...the dog owner would still have the right to defend him/herself in court and appeal.
Having no right to contest a citation is a legal system for a totalitarian state.
I agree - there should always be some process for appeals in every situation where the government can take adverse action against a citizen. That's why I am wondering if you can point to the specific language in the bill that states there is no process for an appeal. The quotes in the article are very short and I am questioning the context.
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
It doesn't - where does it say that you have no right to appeal? I don't see that in there - given case law and history in America, I would assume there is an appeal process for these fines/punishments, just like every other kind of law. I'll admit that I might have missed it in my reading of the bill, so if you can point it out I will stand corrected and be 100% against this bill (not that my voice matters in a California bill).
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
Do Or Die For California Dogs
