CA AB1634–Revised–ELIMINATES PET OWNERS’ RIGHTS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST COMPLAINTS

CA AB1634: Revised Bill Eliminates Pet Owners’ Rights to Defend Themselves, Encourages False Accusations with NO Right to a Hearing–will Create Huge Costs–Will NOT Save $

 by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

asda@csonline.net  *See petdefense note at bottom

SACRAMENTO, CA – Animal rights extremists would be given unchecked vigilante powers to attack dog owners under a revision to AB1634, which is now before the legislature.

The Senate Local Government Committee  heard the bill this Wednesday, June 25th.  Originally  a statewide mandate for spaying or neutering almost all dogs,  it was defeated last year, but has been given new life through an agreement by its primary sponsor, Rep. Lloyd Levine, and Senate Local Government Committee Chairman Gloria Negrete McLeod.

On the surface, the revised legislation removes mandatory spay and neuter, which has lulled some dog owners into thinking that this issue has been dropped.

However, an analysis of the legislation by the American Sporting Dog Alliance (and others including attorneys and lobbyists) shows that the revised bill approaches mandatory spay and neuter through a backdoor approach that is perhaps far more devastating to dog owners than the original version.

The legislation empowers anyone to make a complaint alleging that any dog owner is in violation of any law or local ordinance. The complaint does not have to be proven, and it appears dog owners are denied the right to challenge a complaint  through an administrative review process.  Those who show dogs realize that a dog show info might open up a can of worms for the AR faction because they could obtain the personal name, address and perhaps phone number of dog owners with intact dogs. (The bill does not say complaint must be from one living in the same county; theoretically, it would appear to give rise to complaints by those having intent on revenge such as ex spouse, ex co-worker, ex roommates, disgruntled employee, disgruntled neighbors, et al)

A simple complaint might establish guilt under the revised legislation.  This legislative sleight of hand would allow animal rights activists to act as vigilantes by searching the state and reporting any dog owner who does something they don’t like, even if their complaints are pure fiction.

The only exclusion is that a complaint about barking dogs does not trigger the enforcement actions of this legislation. All other alleged dog law violations are included. 

Already written into the existing law is the provision that THE GOVERNMENT IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CIVIL SUIT THAT might arise out of the mandated altering. So, if we take a bogus complaint, levy a fine, log the bogus complaint–it means in essense that the complaints COUNT, and that the OWNER of the pet has NO ABILITY TO CONTEST the complaint, AND then has NO ability via the LAW to redress any civil wrongs since the law has built in immunity. [See FN below]

 In fact, some believe that the poorly written bill actually makes OWNING an “intact” pet a separate offense!  It is believed that the Appropriations committee will review the bill on 7/14/08, and at that time, PETPAC and others will no doubt bring up the excessive costs that would result from the man hours needed to handle/log/act on/fine/impound animals. [Although advocates of the bill claim it would save millions of $$, the actual time it would take to follow up on every complaint, impounding, and probably killing the pet when owner won't redeem it--is fairly obvious--resulting in more killed pets, more man hours expended, and more unpaid fines!] 

Still another example would be if an animal rights activist trespassed on private property, and a dog acted defensively by snarling and jumping. Such a dog could be accused of being a dangerous dog, simply for protecting its home against a stranger.The legal trick is to call an alleged violation an “administrative” issue, rather than a crime or a violation of civil law. For crimes or violations of civil law, a person is entitled to defend him or herself in court, and the burden of proof is on the state.                  

[*Original posting by J. Yates has been modified/updated by Petdefense blog]

 

Senator Michael Machado
State Capitol, Room 5066
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4005
Fax: (916) 323-2304
Senator.Machado@sen.ca.gov  

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net

 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.

  **Note:  Petpac lobbyist and another attorney will be working on the issues they have found to be objectionable in this bill.  One of the updated problems is that a case from 2003 found that Section 30804.7 (which this bill amends) did NOT confer immunity on the city/county against civil suits, because there was no mention of mandated altering in the code section. That immunity provision was not removed, SO if AB1634 DOES mention mandated altering, the existing immunity provision may then be impliedly enforceable, since the 1998 version of the bill had mandated altering when first written.  This means that a frivolous attempt to take out one’s pet through a complaint, if acted upon, with no process for contesting it, could end up with an unjust result where pet owner could not sue the city/county due to the immunity provision. The case which brought up this issue at the Appellate level [4th DCA, case from San Diego] involved a dog that was altered by the city or county program, and it died because due to the stitches not holding up, the dog bled to death.   

 

 

 

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS