AKC throws California dog owners under the bus
By Christie Keith
August 14, 2008
(Update from Gina: The California State Senate has adjourned for the day without voting on AB 1634. They will reconvene on Sunday. And thanks to reader Jennifer for putting together a PDF list of AKC e-mail contacts.)
**
In a stunningly stupid PR move, the American Kennel Club has once more demonstrated just how tone-deaf they can really be, by going neutral on Lloyd Levine’s multiply-gutted-and-amended-and-amended-again bill to turn what should be a private decision between a pet owner and his veterinarian into a state-mandated punishment for being bad.
That’s right. Today, while California’s state senate is supposed to be discussing AB 1634, the AKC reversed its opposition to the bill, choosing to characterize its position now as “neutral,” but approving some of the new language.
Gina has already blogged about why this bill, amended or not, is a bad idea for dogs and cats. In addition to all those reasons, most of which are completely unaffected by these amendments that made the AKC so happy, there’s the fact that they just gave Lloyd a big ole’ cookie and “Good dog!” to reward him for nearly crushing the life out of the dog fancy in California — those of us who are supposedly AKC’s constituency. Does that seem like a good idea to anyone? That in the end, Lloyd gets to say he got even the AKC to sign onto his feel-good, do-nothing legislation?
Why would the AKC seem to be warming up to an animal rights cause when they’re the same folks who brought us the infamous Petland agreement, the one that prompted all the AKC parent club delegates, even some judges and a former president of the AKC, to revolt and put an end to it? How do you support commercial breeding — and the registration dollars it brings you — on one hand, and also support, or at least, not oppose, a piece of legislation like this?
I mean, no matter how you stand on either of those issues, they’re not exactly coming from similar philisophical places, are they?
But the more I thought about it this afternoon as I chased down the rumors that AKC was going to go neutral on the bill, the more it started to make sense to me. It’s about creating a position that doesn’t threaten people’s mainstream, middle of the road, uninformed beliefs. Sure, they say, you can get a nice dog at a pet store at the mall — and be sure to send in your AKC registration papers!
You can pay lip service to spay/neuter, looking good for your photo ops and sound bites while behind the scenes propping up the commercial dog breeding industry for your own financial gain.
And in the middle are the “responsible hobbyists” who are being squeezed at both ends, hated by the animal rights folks who say we’re greedy breeders, and hated by the commercial breeders because we believe what the AKC has been telling us for all these years, that there really is something different and special about small, home-based, serious hobby breeders, and those of us who are dedicated to improving and preserving our heritage breeds.
And who are apparently being abandoned by the AKC while they nonetheless trade on our existence to justify theirs.
I am truly appalled.
I wonder if anyone at AKC will reply to my email.
What will it take to get through to them.. whether it’s this disaster, or sanctioning shows in areas where AKC breeds are banned, or well, you name it.
I love to show my dogs, and compete. But I wonder what’s the point of participating in AKC events…
Comment by EmilyS — August 14, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
from the AKC site (Gina, your link is broken)
CA AB 1634 Amended Again
[Thursday, August 14, 2008]
California Assembly Bill 1634, now known as the “California Responsible Pet Ownership Act,” has been radically amended. The bill is now a responsible dog ownership act and addresses two major issues resulting from irresponsible dog ownership - dogs that are found roaming and dogs that are not licensed. Existing California state law already requires all dogs to be licensed.
The previous version of the bill contained provisions which would have required an owner to spay/neuter their pet if it was the subject of three complaints. The bill defined a complaint as any written or oral allegation. AKC maintained that this wording would have pitted neighbor against neighbor by allowing dog owners to be fined on the basis of potentially unverified complaints. Further, it did not provide a process for the owner to appeal or even require that the owner be cited for the original complaint. AKC believed that this language could have been used by individuals to harass otherwise responsible dog owners. This language has now been completely deleted.
AB 1634 As Amended August 12, 2008
The new provisions in the amended AB 1634 are as follows:
Establishes fines for intact dogs that are impounded for roaming at large:
1st offense - $50 fine. If the owner voluntarily elects to microchip their dog, $30 of the fine shall be waived by the local jurisdiction and the jurisdiction may waive the entire $50 fine.
2nd offense - $100 fine and requirement that the dog be microchipped.
3rd offense - owner must pay to have the dog spayed/neutered upon third impoundment for roaming at large.
Establishes fines for intact dogs that are not licensed:
1st offense - $50 fine. If the owner voluntarily elects to microchip their dog, $30 of the fine shall be waived by the local jurisdiction and the jurisdiction may waive the entire $50 fine.
2nd offense - $100 fine and requirement that the dog be microchipped.
3rd offense - owner must pay to have the dog spayed/neutered when cited a third time for not complying with California state statute and local jurisdiction requirements that a dog be licensed.
The amended language further states that any dog owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from the requirements of the bill if the dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful reason.
For both the impoundment and failure to license provisions of the bill, the requirements to microchip and/or spay and neuter are not required if a veterinarian certifies that because of age, poor health or illness such procedures are not appropriate.
Based on the latest amendments the AKC has moved to a neutral position on AB 1634. The AKC Board of Directors unanimously concurred with the staff recommendation that if certain proposed amendments were included in the bill, the AKC would take a neutral position. The AKC’s lobbyist was able to obtain draft amendments that spelled out the proposed changes. A neutral position does not signify that AKC is in support of the bill or that we encourage legislators to vote in favor of the legislation. Individual legislators can weigh the merit and anticipated effectiveness of the bill and cast their vote accordingly.
The American Kennel Club has long been a driving force behind encouraging responsible dog ownership. This means that dog owners need to properly contain their dogs on their own property and comply with state and local laws that require licensing. Owners who allow their dog to habitually run at-large and be impounded and those who do not comply with existing licensing laws are behaving in an irresponsible manner.
We choose not to oppose the bill because we believe that responsible dog owners should obey local dog ordinances, such as licensing, already a law in California, and not allow their dogs to roam. AKC will not support the bill because there rightfully remain questions about the need for the legislation and whether the bill, if enacted, would increase compliance with leash law and license requirements and although we appreciate the positive changes, AKC maintains its position that spay neuter choices should be left to individual dog owners.
[end press release]
——————
what a load of hogwash… what unmitigated politically naive cr**
Comment by EmilyS — August 14, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
So if your mean neighbor lets your dogs out 3 times or if Animal Control *thinks* it was 3 times or has it in their records mistakenly as 3 times or your name is similar to someone else’s who has 3 times or… whatever other scenario one might dream up - the result is mandatory spay-neuter without consent of the owner. AKC is so hollow. They don’t care about dogs, only making money for themselves. Boo!
Comment by slt — August 14, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Spay/neuter is a medical decision that should be made by a pet owner and his or her veterinarian, NOT a punishment! This is a terrible precedent. I can’t believe AKC can be this naive.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 14, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Bottom line - this bill won’t impact AKC’s puppy mill friends (large and small) ability to generate registration income for AKC and who cares if the owners and their pets suffer later - AKC will already have their precious cash in hand.
Comment by slt — August 14, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Oh UGH.
So….. anyone have the address to write to for a copy of UKC’s obedience rules? I see a new venue in my dogs’ future.
Comment by Cait — August 14, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Obviously, there should be a penalty for letting your dogs run at large. I think most of us agree with that.
Don’t they have laws to enforce around licensing and running at large already in place in most munis?
I just don’t see the connection between running at large and reproductive status, unless Senators (and the AKC) still believe the pet overpopulation lie.
To me, the AKC just seems gutless, as usual. They’re no better than the HSUS - spin, spin, spin while you cover your duff and leave everybody else swinging in the wind.
It’s bizarre that this law has changed so much - from mandating neutering at 4 mos for every dog/cat in the State, to what now reads like a municipal bylaw but still contains the real goal of sterilization without owner consent.
Can’t the senators see that all that is happening here is a snow job? That Mrs Levine’s little boy wants to get something, anything, passed using the most Orwellian name possible?
Comment by Caveat — August 14, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
It is the use of a medical procedure as a legal penalty that’s making my head explode. I just have this aversion to having the government making medical decisions for my pets… it’s so against everything I believe in.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 14, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
We choose not to oppose the bill because we believe that responsible dog owners should obey local dog ordinances, such as licensing, already a law in California, and not allow their dogs to roam.
Well that sounds very nice. Problem is, millions of Californians are faced with a host of draconinan local laws, including very restrictive pet limit laws, breeding restrictions, local MSN ordinances, intact permit fees, breeder licensing, kennel licensing, very high differential licensing fees, and a host of other crap. These are a good part of the reason why compliance with dog licensing is estimated at only 20% in California.
That AKC has agreed that forced sterilization is an appropriate punishment for California’s dog and cats if their owners do not or cannot comply with these draconian local laws. Yup, they threw us under the bus.
Comment by LauraS — August 14, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
It is the use of a medical procedure as a legal penalty that’s making my head explode.
Removing body parts as a punishment reminds one of cultures where they cut off the hands of thieves. I thought we don’t do those things in America.
Comment by LauraS — August 14, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
AKC = A K9 Commodity
Comment by Dutch — August 14, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
A neutral position does not signify that AKC is in support of the bill or that we encourage legislators to vote in favor of the legislation
No, and it doesn’t mean you oppose it either - wimps!
Head explosions are becoming a daily occurrence, truth be told. Somebody put the ass-hats in charge when we weren’t watching.
So, if teenagers are out past their curfew or are taking the car around the block without a licence and get caught three times, do they go under the knife too? Not that I’d have a big problem with that :>)
Comment by Caveat — August 14, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Why do they need this law?
Aren’t licensing laws pretty much everywhere? And don’t fees and fines also fall in the same laws. Generally when a pet gets picked up by AC, you have fines to pay and if they are unlicensed, you have to license them before you can retrieve them, right? Licensed dogs where there tags, so owners uncomfortable with microchipping still have ID on their dog. Yes, collars can come off, but equally, not everyone wants to microchip.
Comment by straybaby — August 14, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
um. WEAR THEIR tags, lol!~ Oy.
Comment by straybaby — August 14, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
CFA is still opposing the bill.
Comment by Moira — August 14, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
I thought CA was in the middle of a budget crisis. Something like $15 billion in the red? How the H do your legislators expect to fund this? The costs are not going to be recovered by the fees. I disremember whether it it was Patrick on his blog or Bernie who used the phrase “Cranial-Rectal Inversion”, but it’s a perfect description of what the individuals behind this bill are experiencing.
As for AKC, I have a dilemma here. My old dog, a retired AG champion in AKC and USDAA has found himself a new calling; Rally Obed. I have until tomorrow morning to decide to please my old dog by sending off a check for $50 to enter two days of Rally Novice A ( our first venture) and support the local club, or tell AKC to sit on it and rotate. Expletives deleted!
Now to go find that list of AKC email addresses I have stashed somewhere, and start letter writing!
Comment by Anne T — August 14, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
CFA is still opposing the bill.
CFA has always been infinitely better on all legislative issues than AKC has ever been.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 14, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Gina likes to ask “Why is anyone still listening to PeTA?” Good question.
I’ve been asking “Why does anyone believe the AKC would stand for anything but its own corporate interests?” since forever.
Sunday? What’s up with that?
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 14, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
my understanding, per Bill Hemby, is that the only thing the senate will discuss Sunday is the budget.
he says with the National Conventions coming up, Monday-Thursday of next week is do or die for most bills:
“Time is running out for every bill on the file. There are two weeks until end of session. August 31st. But, Democrats will want to get a start at their National Convention in Denver on Monday the 25th, so they will want out on Thurs evening the 21st. They will be gone (no business conducted) until the 28th. But probably wouldn’t be back until the 29th. The Republicans leave for their Convention on the evening of the 28th - it starts Monday, Sept 1st in Minn.
so, no business will be conducted.
That leaves next Monday, Tues, Wed, Thurs. to conduct all of the Senate’s Business.
That Could change if the Pro Tem keeps them in over the weekend, but that rarely happens.
Look for AB 1634 to come up any of those days. ”
Bill Hemby
Comment by JenniferJ — August 14, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
What is CFA?
Comment by Caveat — August 15, 2008 @ 6:05 am
Cat Fanciers’ Assoc.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 15, 2008 @ 6:13 am
OK - this is off topic, but I do want everyone to know about a good (I think) bill that was signed into law in CA.
I’ve summarized this from the ASPCA web site:
The subprime mortgage crisis that has devastated homeowners and the economy has brought with it a troubling trend: pets abandoned after home foreclosures. Those who assess deserted homes are often directed to leave property—including pets—untouched until the foreclosure process is completed. As a result, many pets have been left to die.
The ASPCA would like to congratulate the California Legislature for addressing this issue with the swift passage of Assembly Bill 2949, which amends California’s Civil Code to require property owners—including banks or other corporate entities—to immediately notify animal control officials when animals are abandoned at foreclosed properties.
So perhaps there are still a few folks in CA government that actually are taking some positive steps for animal.
Comment by 2CatMom — August 15, 2008 @ 6:48 am
I’m sorry if I’ve been giving the impression that I don’t think there are people who care about animals in California.
I think even most of the people who support forced spay-neuter are doing so because “it seems as if it ought to work” — without looking at the reality that it works the opposite of the way it’s intended: More pets are given up and ultimately killed, at more cost to taxpayers.
But I don’t think the bill’s original author, LLoyd “Nanny State” Levine, is interested in anything except a win on his way out. And I also believe there are likely a few animal-rights extremists in this fight who believe the “better dead than fed” mantra, that the only way to end the exploitation of domestic animals is to help them to extinction.
They are minority, though, and most people just want what’s good for pets.
Unfortunately, forced spay-neuter ain’t it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 15, 2008 @ 7:04 am
In his Chairman’s Report to The AKC (June 2007), Menaker states:
Last month in my Chairman’s Report, I reported on a pending threat to purebred dog ownership in California: Assembly Bill 1634 would require the mandatory spay or neuter of dogs 4 months or older unless an intact dog permit is purchased through local authorities. Should this bill become law, I fear it could be a catalyst for other states. As the old saying goes, “As California goes, so goes the nation.”
As many of you know AB1634 passed by one vote on Wednesday in the full Assembly. Despite this recent set back, it’s important to note that this vote was not strictly along party lines. Through our continuing efforts, we were able to convince 6 Democrats to abandon their majority party to vote against this bill in this Democratic controlled body, just as we were able to convince other Democrats to vote against it in the May 16th hearing when the Assembly Committee on Appropriations voted 10-to-6 in favor of the bill.
It is vital now that California dog owners and breeders contact their State Senators as well as the Governor to express their opposition to this bill as it continues its journey through the California statehouse.
While the sponsor of AB1634 has amended the bill five times since its introduction, none of the amendments make this bill an acceptable piece of legislation. AKC vehemently opposes AB1634 and will continue our strong opposition until this bill is defeated.
The AKC/Eukanuba National Championship is scheduled to be held in Long Beach in December 2007 & 2008. Although we have considered making Long Beach the permanent home, I have communicated to both the Mayor of Long Beach and to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that enactment of AB1634 would make that impossible.
Full text of report: http://www.akc.org/about/chair.....cfm?page=6
Looking back on this statement we can assume that the bill, in it’s 10th amendment and name change, is now ” an acceptable piece of legislation” as far as AKC is concerned, because it sure isn’t defeated.
Comment by trucorgi — August 15, 2008 @ 7:52 am
Yeah, well, heaven forbid the AKC moves its big party just to save shelter dogs or protect the rights of people to make medical decisions for their own pets.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 15, 2008 @ 8:01 am
Yes Virginia many “show folks” still believe in the ar crap about “loose dogs” breeding in the streets and firmly believe that the “proper” punishment is castration for loose dogs.. how do i know?/ it was quoted to me on the phone yesterday by the head of a newly formed well funded CA group who is still in oppose mode.. but would be ‘OK” with the “third strike and your dog goes under the knife” rule.. she actually said she sees dogs “breeding on her street corners”.. my answer.. .. enforce the leash laws.. her answer.. who will do that?? and so on..
I predict this.. a merging ( or takeover ) of the akc by the H$U$ in the next ten years.. breeding will be by “special permit” only.. fees will be in the thousands of dollars and rules so stringent tht only a few die hards will be able to meet them.. breeds as we know them wil be gone.. the “shelters’ (those multi million dollars fcilties now being built) will be the main resource for “pets” imported form countries like China, Mexico.. and the Middle east. Commerical breeders will flourish as suppliers to the ‘shelters” and we will be a blip on the radar screen.. UNLESS.,we make our ELECTED officials know that we VOTE and that we PAY then to do OUR bidding..the akc has awakened a sleeping giant.. we have the power…Time for the “sunshine soldiers” to either go home or step up to the firing line.. Where will you be?
Comment by bestuvall — August 15, 2008 @ 8:35 am
The implied economic threat to Long Beach by AKC is a typical kennel club response - weak. They should move it anyway. I would and would go further - decline to sanction any shows or register any pups in CA until this issue is resolved correctly.
I don’t know that the mandate of the AKC is, but in Canada, the CKC is governed under the federal Pedigree Act. They are apparently prohibited from engaging in activism or significantly supporting groups who are on the front lines fighting for dog owners’ rights.
Maybe it’s time to change the rules to match the changed world is all I’m saying.
Oh and thanks for the CFA clarification.
Comment by Caveat — August 15, 2008 @ 9:50 am
This can’t just be about Levine… he’s a lameduck. There were OTHERS who passed this POS out of committee. They are future threats, while Levine is irrelevant.
In political terms, people need to focus on THOSE legislators who are up for re-election in November.
I wish we could un-elect AKC…
Comment by EmilyS — August 15, 2008 @ 10:15 am
AKC’s responses to letters has been defensive “Only bad irresponsible dog owners should oppose this law” etc…
Of course, every dog at a dog show is ‘improperly licnsed’ since they don’t wear collar tags.
Is AKC going to turn over registration info on anyone over the limit in their county or town/ After all, that’s irresponsible.
AKC is having Q&A later to answer questions and edjumacate all us dumb dog owners on how it’s all nonsense and our concerns over the language and interpretation of the terms used in the bill are all just paranoia etc…
Who here thinks LL and Mancuso won’t interpret the damn thing in the worst possible way.
AKC clearly also cares nothing about low-income pet owners, after all, they don’t fund AKC!
So I sit here remembering PAWS and PetLand and the Hunte cooperation and wondering how the AKC Bod sleeps at night
Comment by JenniferJ — August 15, 2008 @ 11:40 am
“So I sit here remembering PAWS and PetLand and the Hunte cooperation and wondering how the AKC Bod sleeps at night”
Probably on expensive mattresses in luxury homes in gated communities to keep out the unwashed masses…
Comment by slt — August 15, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
God, I apologize for my spelling and grammer in posts today. I re-aggravated my herniated disc in my back by trying to catch and hang unto a 50 lb bulldog intent on hanging onto the chewy she took out of another dog’s crate. Vicodin, muscle relaxants and typing are poor bed fellows!
Comment by JenniferJ — August 15, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
How about we propose a bill to neuter all the politicians that are caught roaming outside their marriages…………. 1st offense, microchipping with GPS so their spouses know where they are. 2nd offense, neutering…… maybe they should clean their own house before looking at mine!!! Sure glad I have other places to play with my dogs besides AKC.
Comment by Cheri — August 16, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Cheri wrote:
How about we propose a bill to neuter all the politicians that are caught roaming outside their marriages…………. 1st offense, microchipping with GPS so their spouses know where they are. 2nd offense, neutering……
Well, in all fairness, it seems that only the Democrats are leaving babies in their wakes when they stray.
Except for Strom Thurmond (and that was a long time ago), the Republicans’ preferred form of “roaming” from their White Christian Photogenic Marriages seems to hold no danger of unsanctioned reproduction.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 17, 2008 @ 4:58 am
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 17, 2008 @ 4:58 am
“Well, in all fairness, it seems that only the Democrats are leaving babies in their wakes when they stray.”
Did you have someone in mind? Because it’s my understanding that a certain artfully-coiffed former Democratic presidential contender is willing to submit to DNA testing, but that it is the *mother* of said baby who is refusing.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 17, 2008 @ 5:10 am
The thing that get me about the AKC and their position is their tap dancing.
I stopped attending National events, because when I would see the quote, National leaders, their time was always to valuable to spend a few second with ones who make the the events happen.
My next option is the take a look at none AKC events and take my money where it is respected.
It does not surprise me that they caved.
What’s next????
It is simple, those California people will keep send us money after they cool off.
Comment by James Hawkins — August 17, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
A chance to call again before the floor session starts at 11:00AM. There is a session today, in spite of info to the contrary that was available earlier this morning. Here are the numbers, phone and fax. A quick call to say NO on AB1634 only takes a minute, a fgax to reaffirm your opposition takes maybe two. BUT if you only do one thing, CALL.
—————————————— —————— ——————
DEMOCRATS:
Elaine Alquist 916-651-4013 916-324-0283
Ron Calderon 916-651-4030 916-327-8755
Gilbert Cedillo 916-651-4022 916-327-8817
Ellen Corbett 916-651-4010 916-327-2433
Louis Correa 916-651-4034 916-323-2323
Bob Dutton 916-651-4031 916-327-2272
Tom Harman 916-651-4035 916-445-9263
Shiela Kuehl 916-651-4023 916-324-4823
Alan Lowenthal 916-651-4027 916-327-9113
Mike Machado 916-651-4005 916-323-2304
Abel Maldonado 916-651-4015 916-445-8081
Denise Moreno Ducheny 916-651-4040 916-327-3522
Gloria Negrete McLeod 916-651-4032 916-445-0128
Jenny Oropeza 916-651-4028 916-323-6056
Alex Padilla 916-651-4020 916-324-6645
Don Perata 916-651-4009 916-327-1997
Mark Ridley-Thomas 916-651-4026 916-445-8899
Gloria Romero 916-651-4024 916-445-0485
Jack Scott 916-651-4021 916-324-7543
Joseph Simitian 916-651-4011 916-323-4529
Darrell Steinberg 916-651-4006 916-323-2263
Tom Torlakson 916-651-4007 916-445-2527
Edward Vincent 916-651-4025 916-445-3712
Patricia Wiggins 916-651-4002 916-323-6958
Leland Yee 916-651-4008 916-327-2186
REPUBLICANS:
Sam Aanestad 916-651-4004 916-445-7750
Dick Ackerman 916-651-4033 916-445-9754
Roy Ashburn 916-651-4018 916-322-3304
James Battin 916-651-4037 916-327-2187
Dave Cogdill 916-651-4014 916-327-3523
Dave Cox 916-651-4001 916-324-2680
Jeff Denham 916-651-4012 916-445-0773
Dean Florez 916-651-4016 916-327-5989
Dennis Hollingsworth 916-651-4036 916-447-9008
Christine Kehoe 916-651-4039 916-327-2188
Bob Margett 916-651-4029 916-324-0922
Tom McClintock 916-651-4019 916-324-7544
Carole Migden 916-651-4003 916-445-4722
George Runner 916-651-4017 916-445-4662
Mark Wyland 916-651-4038 916-446-7382
Comment by JenniferJ — August 18, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Some of the senate list above is not accurate, i. e. some are listed in incorrect party. The ones I noticed are Migden is (D), Maldonado is (R). Can someone post a link to the correct list?
Comment by Diane — August 19, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Wiggins, migden, machado, steinberg, torklakson, yee, perata, lowenthal, oropeza, calderon, negrete, Scott, cedillo, kuehl, romero, vincent, ridley-thomas, corbett, simitian, alquist, florez, padilla, correa, Kehoe & Ducheny are the democrats.
Comment by Diane — August 19, 2008 @ 11:44 am