Taking Command Blog!
Welcome to our new Taking Command Blog!
The first six months of 2008 marked the most active period for canine legislation activities in the Government Relations (GR) Department's 17-year history. Specifically, we addressed well over 750 state bills and local ordinances. Because of this overwhelming number and its incumbent workload, the publication of our Taking Command newsletter became irregular. A couple months ago, we promised that, in our quest to communicate regularly with you, we would change Taking Command into a blog. So, here it is - our first post to the Taking Command Blog!
The Taking Command Blog will cover many topics, including insights into the inner workings of the Government Relations Department, our grassroots efforts, policy developments, and, of course, the legislative issues we address from across the country. Additionally, as a replacement for our newsletter format, the Taking Command Blog represents a giant step forward in providing you with continual communications.
We hope you enjoy this latest offering of the Government Relations Department. As always, we welcome your comments! E-mail them to doglaw@akc.org.
July 21, 2008 | 4:45 p.m.
Our message today comes from Sarah Sprouse, our Government Relations Manager. Sarah is the proud owner of two pugs, Clarence, who competes in agility, and Thatcher who excels at chasing his tail. Sarah spent several years working in the California State Legislature before moving to Raleigh and joining the AKC Government Relations team.
California Continues the Fight
Many of you have been following the saga of California Assembly Bill 1634 since its introduction in February of 2007. The bill began its journey as a mandatory spay/neuter bill which passed the full Assembly and stalled in the Senate Local Government Committee last July.
In June, the Senate Local Government Committee accepted amendments which completely gutted the original bill language and replaced it with a measure that would increase fines for those with intact animals, including requiring the spaying/neutering of an animal on a third impoundment.
Additionally, the new bill contains a section which allows animal control officers to require the spaying/neutering of a dog on the third complaint. This section of the bill is very poorly worded, does not provide clear due process for animal owners and is unacceptable in the AKC’s view. We attempted to address these concerns with the Senators, but were unsuccessful in gaining amendments.
The Senate Local Government Committee passed the bill adding only a minor amendment and sent it on to the Senate Appropriations Committee. At this point the process gets a little confusing. Assemblyman Levine offered further amendments to the bill which remove Section 5 of the bill. This clause would have prohibited the State Controller from reimbursing local governments for the costs of impounding stray animals unless they complied with state reporting requirements. These amendments will be in print on August 5th once the Senate has returned from their summer recess.
Although some have suggested that the amendments are being kept secret and that is why they are not yet available online, it is actually a function of the California State Legislature’s rules. A physical copy of the bill travels around and as it is amended new copies are stapled into the original file jacket. This document must be physically present anytime a committee discusses or votes on it, and the original must be presented to the Governor for signature or veto. Changes and amendments can only be added when the Senate Desk is open, when the Legislature is in session. Therefore, the amendments will not be officially processed until the Desk reopens when the Senators return. It’s an archaic system, but interesting! There is even a story about a couple of bills becoming law without the Governor’s signature because they were left next to a copy machine under a pizza box!!
Due to these amendments and the evaluation of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill was judged to be without cost to the state. In this instance, Senate Rule 28.8 allows the bill to be sent directly to the Senate Floor without being heard by the Appropriations Committee.
We have developed sample letters for individuals and clubs to send to their state Senators and ask that this be done immediately. To access these letters and to read our most recent alert on the bill, please see our most recent Legislative Alert.
July 15, 2008 | 9:50 a.m.
This first blog post is authored by Phil Guidry, the GR Department's Legislative Analyst. His primary responsibilities include statute, bill, and ordinance analysis, and development of legislative strategy. He holds a Juris Doctorate in Civil Laws from Loyola University-New Orleans, and a BA in Sociology from Nicholls State University. He's also a breeder-owner-handler of Cocker Spaniels.
A LESSON IN PERSEVERANCE
As of late, I have become a regular visitor to Dallas. In early June, a colleague and I assisted our Dallas-area fanciers in preparing for their challenge against the city's onerous mandatory spay/neuter and permit proposal; and only two weekends ago, I attended the dog shows hosted by the Texas, Greater Collin, and Trinity Valley clubs. Without question, not only do I hold these Dallas fanciers I have worked with in the highest regard, but also now consider them dear friends. However, when writing about these friends, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention all they have recently been through and how they have responded. Simply put, their perseverance is inspiring.
Before the whole ordinance issue came up, I knew only a handful of these people from many years of dog shows back in Texas and Louisiana. However, when we were all blindsided by the Animal Shelter Commission's proposal, local clubs and fanciers contacted us for assistance. Through those contacts and the work that followed, I came to know more of Dallas' responsible breeders and owners.
These Texas soldiers fought a valiant and respectable fight against the proposal. They conducted countless hours of policy analysis, implemented significant grassroots outreach, and participated in many meetings with Dallas' council members, all the while remaining respectful of both the process and the offices held by the officials they met. Unfortunately, the overwhelming political odds they faced proved insurmountable, and the ordinance was approved by a vote of 10-3.
For many, such a loss would have ended their advocacy activities. That's not the case with these folks. Truly honoring the concepts of liberty, independence, and pride often espoused by Texans, these people have continued educating their city council members about the overbearing, unenforceable, and unsuccessful nature of mandatory spay/neuter laws. In fact, when several council members attended this weekend's shows, these fanciers took every opportunity to help their elected officials understand the roles of responsible dog breeders and owners in Dallas, how mandatory spay/neuter laws truly affect only responsible dog breeders and owners, and how alternatives like funding and enforcement of reasonable animal control laws is key to addressing animal population issues.
Will their continued efforts prove successful in repealing the ordinance as approved? Only time will tell. However, with as much dedication as these Dallas-area fanciers have shown, I am discounting neither their chances of ultimate success, nor their example that local politics is a dynamic, ongoing process, where individual battles may be lost, but wars are most often far from over.
