Los Angeles to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter on 2nd Impound & Breeder Restrictions on June 18 – Your Opposition Needed! akc.org/press_center/article.cfm?article_id=5028 Dear AKC Delegates, Club Officers, Judges and Breeders, Please forward this to your club members in the Los Angeles, CA area: The Los Angeles City Council will consider modifications to the current mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to require spay/neuter for any licensed dog that is impounded twice, and will remove exemptions in current law for dogs that have earned or are being trained for and are in the process of earning a title in agility, carting, herding, hunting, working or other title. It will also require anyone who holds a breeding permit to submit to an inspection by the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services. The measure will further require breeders to implant all dogs sold with a microchip, “to maintain the breeder’s identity as well as that of the new owner’s” on the microchip. A draft of the ordinance and the city attorney’s report can be seen here. AKC strongly opposes these changes and encourages Los Angeles residents to attend the city council meeting on June 18th or to immediately contact your city council representatives and ask them to oppose this measure. This ordinance is burdensome and unfair to responsible owners and breeders and it is imperative that Los Angeles residents oppose this measure strongly. In January 2008, The City of Los Angeles adopted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in January 2008 requiring that all dogs and cats be sterilized unless the animal qualified for an exemption or the owner purchased a breeding permit. This proposed ordinance would modify that law in several important ways. Los Angeles City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 Time: 10:00 AM Location: Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring Street, John Ferraro Council Chamber, Room 340, Los Angeles, CA 90012 What You Can Do Attend the council meeting and speak in opposition to this proposal. Contact the members of the city council and ask for their opposition to this proposal. Scroll down for contact information. Provisions Opposed by AKC Eliminate the current exemption for dogs that have earned, or if under 3 years of age, is actively being trained and in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working, or other title from a registry or association approved by the Department. The report from the Board of Animal Services Commission indicates that few exemptions have been provided under this section, but they expressed concern about the qualifying guidelines for the registries and the fact that are no accepted professional standards or licensing procedures for animal training that can be used to validate an exemption request. No proof has been provided that these exemptions are being abused in any way, nor that the requested exemptions lack legitimacy. Further, all organizations who administer these types of competitions and events have performance-based standards. The animals participating in these events must demonstrate specific physical prowess or skills in order to compete. The fact that they are trained by owners or others who are not licensed is immaterial. Many service animals are owner-trained in the same way that children may be homeschooled with success. Requires that an animal be sterilized upon a 2nd impoundment without exception. This would mean that even those owners in possessions of an intact animal permit and/or a breeding permit would be forced to sterilize their animal. The AKC does not believe that this is a reasonable standard. A dog could get out as a six-month old puppy and then again five years later when a gardener or meter reader left a gate unlocked. This is not truly indicative of an irresponsible owner. Requires holders of breeder permits to submit to inspection by the Department. AKC opposes warrantless searches of private property and does not believe animal owners should waive their constitutional rights simply because they choose to own an intact animal or breed a litter of puppies. If evidence of animal neglect or cruelty exists then a warrant can be obtained under the current law. A warrant is required to search the homes of those suspected of major felonies, the standards should not be less for dog breeders. Further, no standards for breeders are specified in this legislation or in the current code so it is unclear on what basis breeders would be judged. Requires breeding permit holders to implant each offspring with an animal identification device identifying the breeder and owner of the animal. Upon transfer of ownership, the identity of the breeder must remain listed along with the identity of the new owner. This section demonstrates a lack of understanding about how microchips and microchip registries operate. Microchips themselves do not contain any information, rather when scanned they display a unique number which can be used to access the owner’s information in the database of a microchip registry. According to AKCCAR (the largest microchip registry in the world), if the chips are purchased directly by a breeder then the system will retain their information as the point of sale. However, if the chip is purchased from a veterinarian, shelter or public group then no such record will exist. A breeder could register the chip initially but the new owner would be able to remove that information at his/his discretion. The breeder has no control over the information and therefore it is not reasonable to require that their contact information remain associated with a specific microchip. Directs the department to periodically clarify and publish definitions for terms such as “registry,” “recognized national association,” “actively used to show and compete” and so forth. The AKC believes that terms should be clearly defined within the statute and not subject to arbitrary changes at the department level. Providing definitions within the statute provides a consistent framework for resident pet owners and allows them to provide input to elected officials should changes to these definitions be proposed. Provides that an owner may request an administrative hearing if they object to the decision to require the animal to be sterilized. This section contains references to fines and impound fees accruing during the period from the notification to the hearing. It appears that an owner would not be able to reclaim a dog that is intact until the hearing is complete. This is unreasonable for both parties as it contributes to overcrowding in the shelter and does not allow the owner to care for their animal in their own home. Even in the case of rabies animals are allowed to quarantined at the owner’s home. AKC believes that these provisions need to be clarified to allow an animal to be returned to the owner until a final decision is reached or be deleted in their entirety. (It should be noted that the latest draft shortens the holding periods and fees, but that does not alleviate AKC’s concerns.) Provisions Supported by AKC Requires that owners be liable for fines and penalties even if they transfer or abandon the animal. The AKC supports this provision as current law incentivizes abandonment by irresponsible owners who seek to avoid paying fines. This policy would encourage owners to reclaim their pets. Additional Provisions Establishes additional requirements to qualify for a medical exemption. Establishes additional requirements for qualifying registries. Removes references to the Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee which completed its work in 2009. Adds a section requiring any impounded dog be sterilized by the department before release or by the owner’s veterinarian within 7 days. Members of the Los Angeles City Council Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa 200 N. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-0600 [email protected] District 1 – Ed Reyes 200 N. Spring St., Room 410 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7001 (213) 485-8907 Fax [email protected] District 2 – Paul Krekorian 200 N. Spring St., Room 435 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7002 (213) 978-3092 Fax [email protected] District 3 - Dennis P. Zine 200 N. Spring Street, Rm 450 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213)473-7003 (213) 485-8988 Fax [email protected] District 4 – Tom LaBonge 200 N. Spring Street , Room 480 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 485-3337 (213) 624-7810 Fax [email protected] District 5 – Paul Koretz 200 N. Spring Street, Rm 440 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7005 (213) 978-2250 Fax [email protected] District 6 – Currently vacant District 7 - Richard Alarcón 200 N. Spring Street, Rm 425 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7007 (213) 847-0707 Fax [email protected] District 8 – Bernard Parks 200 N. Spring Street, Rm. 460 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7008 (213) 485-7683 Fax [email protected] District 9 – Jan Perry 200 N. Spring Street, Rm 420 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473.7009 (213) 473.5946 Fax Web Contact Form here District 10 – Herb Wesson, Jr. 200 North Spring Street, Room 430 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7010 (213) 485-9829 Fax [email protected] District 11 – Bill Rosendahl 200 N Spring Street, #415 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7011 [email protected] District 12 – Mitchell Englander 200 N. Spring St., Room 405 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7012 (213) 473-6925 Fax [email protected] District 13 – Eric Garcetti (Mayor-Elect) 200 North Spring Street, Room 470 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7013 (213) 613-0819 Fax Web contact form here District 14 – Jose Huizar 200 North Spring Street, Room 465 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 473-7014 (213) 847-0680 Fax Web contact form here District 15 – Joe Buscaino 200 N. Spring St. Rm 435 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213)-473-7015 (213)-626-5431 Fax Web contact form here
Posted on: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:19:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015