Forced spay-neuter voted down in California … uh … probably
By Gina Spadafori
August 22, 2008
Deceitful right to the end, the pro-AB 1634 forces made much of the AKC’s move to neutral in presenting the bill for the first time this morning. In fact, the AKC returned to strong opposition yesterday, a fact the bill’s backers were well aware of. How prescient the AKC, in stating yesterday:
[...W]e no longer have confidence in the definition of this bill or the credibility of its author.
Update, 11:31 a.m.: The measure was voted down 5-27 the second time, but was also granted reconsideration to allow the Senators to change their votes. The Senate has adjourned, remains on call and is set to reconvene Monday. It’s unlikely many of them will be there, however, especially the Democrats, whose national convention begins Monday.
It appears this fight is over. Maybe.
The vote was 18 ~ NO
5 ~ Yes
The bill is on call.
Padilla, when asked by I believe it was Lowenthal, if AKC was no longer opposed to this bill in it’s CURRENT STATE.
HE REPLIED THAT YES AKC HAS REMOVED IT’S OPPOSITION and IS NOW in a Neutral Position.
Comment by ChrisRL — August 22, 2008 @ 9:49 am
I faxed my senator, but my phone call rolled to voice mail. I left a message.
This is so ridiculous. Imagine if all this energy had been directed towards ACCOMPLISHING something that MIGHT ACTUALLY HELP ANIMALS!
If all the time and money and energy spent on proposing and fighting this stupid legislation had been spent on funding feral cat programs, for instance.
Grrrr.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 22, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Lawmakers: Who cares what the AKC’s position of the moment is?! What are your constituents’ positions? You know, the people you are paid to represent?!
Comment by slt — August 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am
And imagine if the legislators instead spent their time on, oh, the still unpassed state budget.
Comment by Debbie — August 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am
well, did AKC actually contact all the legislators to tell forcefully of their returned forcefull opposition? Or did they just post a press release.
Surely Padilla isn’t lying…
Comment by EmilyS — August 22, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Well, considering that AKC has a lobbyist there (as referenced in their press release), they certainly had the capability of conveying their new-old-new position of opposition. Or what are they paying the lobbyist for?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 22, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Yeah!!! measure voted on and defeated. May come back before the 31st but unlikely. Good job Christie and Gina.
Comment by ChrisRL — August 22, 2008 @ 11:09 am
To use one of my favorite Monty Python lines “I’m not dead yet!” Now would John Cleese please club this thing over the head once and for all?
Comment by JenniferJ — August 22, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Who are the five who voted in favor of it?
Comment by slt — August 22, 2008 @ 11:37 am
Petpac lobbyist Bill Hemby says it’s over.
Comment by s kennedy — August 22, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Probably, but … we thought it was over before. Me, I say it ain’t over until it’s over, it has either been voted down without reconsideration granted or the legislative session ends.
Neither of which has happened.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 22, 2008 @ 11:48 am
and today, Obama selected Hillary Clinton as his VP.
which has not happened either.
Comment by EmilyS — August 22, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Dang, more tenterhooks until Aug 31 or until the losers admit defeat.
Can we be halfway happy?
Comment by Caveat — August 22, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
A friend in Oakland received this from Senator Dave Cox this afternoon. I think it’s pretty safe to break out celebratory beverages!
“Thank you for contacting my office to express your views regarding Assembly Bill 1634 (Levine) relating to pet spaying and neutering. I appreciate hearing from you.
AB 1634 was defeated on the Senate Floor today, August 22. The bill failed by a wide margin with only five Senators voting in favor of the bill and 27 voting in opposition. As I was strongly opposed to this legislation, I spoke against the measure on the Senate Floor. A copy of my remarks can be found below.
In addition to voting against this bill on the Senate Floor, I voted against this bill in the Senate Local Government Committee on June 25. Since no Republican legislator had voted for this measure during its path through the Legislature, I had recommended that opponents focus their efforts on legislators in the Democratic majority. Clearly, that effort was successful. Not a single Republican voted in support of the legislation and we were able to limit the votes in support to only five of the Democratic Senators on the Floor.
During the presentation of the bill on the Senate Floor by Senator Alex Padilla, he made the claim that the American Kennel Club (AKC) had removed its opposition. We were quickly able to refute that claim by distributing copies of the AKC opposition statement that had been posted on the organization’s website. This information helped to persuade several Senators to vote in opposition or abstain.
My opposition to AB 1634 stems from my experience as a County Supervisor. Because every county has its own animal control policies and priorities which may differ significantly from county to county, I strongly believe that such policies should be left to local government discretion rather than dictated by the state. The County of Santa Cruz and the City of Los Angeles have approved local ordinances. I fully respect the local representatives’ decision to implement them, while also recognizing that similar ordinances may not be desirable or necessary in other areas of the state.
While AB 1634 is eligible for reconsideration, it would be surprising for another vote to be pursued given the overwhelming vote in opposition today. If you wish to track the progress of this legislation, you may access the status, votes, bill text and analyses on this and other legislation from my Senate home page at: http://www.senate.ca.gov/cox.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
DAVE COX
Senator, First District
Attachment
AB 1634 Floor Speech
Senator Dave Cox
Mr. President and members of the Senate, today I rise in opposition to a bill that seeks a punishment without a crime.
AB 1634 takes away individual rights replacing them with government authority regarding the health and welfare of pets. AB 1634 is a one-size-fits-all solution.
This is a local government issue rather than a state issue. Each local jurisdiction should be free to set their own animal control policies reflecting the unique problems and scenarios within their jurisdiction. What works for Los Angeles County won’t work and is not needed in Modoc County.
There is no language in the bill referring to due process, leaving the bill open for interpretation by the courts. Therefore, pet owners of unspayed or unneutered pets could be issued a citation or mandatory spay/neuter of their pet without any assurance of an appeal. In Sacramento County, according to their animal control citation, it will cost anywhere from $50 to $500 just to file for an appeal without even having a guarantee of a hearing.
Members, AB 1634 misses the mark by failing to address the issue of feral cats or stray animals which are the chief source of the increased shelter population. Instead, it attempts to target responsible pet owners who choose not to alter their pets.
This is an unnecessary bill that will not work in many parts of California.
I urge a “no” vote”
Comment by Anne T — August 22, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Cheers to Senator Dave Cox!
Comment by trucorgi — August 22, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Update from the AKC website tonight:
“The bill has been granted “Reconsideration” pursuant to Senate Rule 43, which means it can be brought up for another vote next week.”
“The American Kennel Club continues to oppose Assembly Bill 1634, and encourages all California residents to contact their state Senator and urge them to vote no on the bill when it is reconsidered.”
The complete statement is on the AKC website.
Comment by Nadine L. — August 22, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
Interesting comments from Judie Mancuso and Lloyd Levine today.
Source http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....3pets.html
“We want to make a difference. We want to make an impact,” Mancuso said. “The bill, in the end, would not have the impact we were looking for.”
“The Legislature views animal issues as frivolous,” said a disappointed Levine, D-Sherman Oaks. “It’s a serious fiscal issue. It’s a serious moral issue.”
Comment by trucorgi — August 23, 2008 @ 10:33 am
SLT (see above comment) inquires “who” are the five (5) Senators that voted in support of the bill. They are: Alquist, Machado, Negrete-McLeod, Padilla, and Torlakson.
Negrete-McLeod signed on as co-author. She and Machado both supported the bill in 25 June Senate Local Gov hearing. Padilla was floor jockey. Torlakson is Levine’s bicycling buddy and heads the Appropriations Committee. AB1634 bypassed Appropriations with a 28.8 and went straight to the Senate floor despite the fact that Tom Sheehy (Department of Finance) strongly advised Torlakson that this bill is not a candidate for 28.8.
Not really certain why Alquist supported the bill. Any thoughts?
Comment by Brat Zinsmaster — August 23, 2008 @ 12:28 pm