Crunch Time
SENATE BILL 250 IS A HIDDEN TAX ON PET OWNERS
AS PetPAC reported when SB 250, Florez, D- Shafter, was first introduced, this bill is, in effect, a tax against dog owners. The Florez bill adds a new section to the Food and Agricultural Code defining dog licensing: “SECTION 1. Section 30804.6 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read: 30804.6. (a) (1) Every dog owner shall secure a license for the dog pursuant to Section 121690 of the Health and Safety Code or as required by the local licensing agency.”
SB 250 cites as its authority Section 121690 of the Health and Safety Code. This section deals with rabies. Dog licensing came about because of the rabies threat, as a way to track inoculations. The following are companion sections also dealing with rabies in the Health and Safety Code. Section(s) 121635, 121640, 121645, 121650, 121655
“121635. For the purpose of providing funds to pay expenses incurred in connection with the eradication of rabies, the rabies treatment and eradication fund is continued in existence in each county or city in this state. 121640. All money collected for dog license taxes shall be deposited to the credit of this fund with the treasurer of the county or city; but funds now collected from any dog tax may continue to be collected and used for other purposes specified by local ordinances. 121645. Upon the determination by the department that rabies exists in any county or city, a special dog license tax shall immediately become effective, unless a dog tax is already in force the funds from which are available for the payment of expenditures in accordance with this chapter. 121650. This tax shall be levied as follows: An annual tax of one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) for each male, two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) for each female, and one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) for each neuter dog. It shall be collected by the proper authority at the same time and in the same manner as other taxes are collected; except that at the first collection the proportion of the annual tax as corresponds to the number of months the tax has been in operation plus one year advance payment shall be collected. 121655. After this dog license tax has been established in a county or city, it shall be continued in force until an order has been issued by the department declaring that county, or the portion of that county as may be deemed advisable, to be free from rabies or further danger of its spread.”
In as much as SB 250 mandates every dog owner must secure a license under this section, and the above sections require a collection of a dog license tax, SB 250 should be considered a mandated tax. Under the rules of the Legislature, passage of a tax such as SB 250 requires a 2/3rds vote of the legislature. It should be stressed in letters to lawmakers that SB 250 is a new tax on pet owners. The author has tried to hide this fact. Senator Florez says SB 250 is not a mandatory spay and neuter bill, all pet owners have to do, he says, is pay for an unaltered license. That new license is a rabies tax!
SB 250 IS MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER. “If it looks like a duck, etc, etc.”
SB 250 outlaws unaltered dogs and cats. SB 250 outlaws all unlicensed dogs and cats. SB 250 requires mandatory surgical sterilization of dogs and cats at six months of age. The penalty can be a criminal violation. While the author states AB 250 is not MSN, (mandatory spay and neuter) the bottom line is your dog or cat will face sterilization if you violate this law. Mandatory sterilization means castration for males and hysterectomy for females.
THERE ARE NO EXCLUSIONS UNDER SB 250–other than temporary sickness.
SB 250 doesn’t exclude police dogs, working dogs, cattle dogs, sheep dogs, hunting dogs, (hunting groups say amendments do not serve their purposes) service dogs, guide dogs, dogs for the hearing impaired, show dogs which must be left in their natural state, pedigree cats, exotic cats, and feral cats, which make up most of the animals in our shelters. The bill even affects owners of natural dogs brought into California on a visit or to exhibit at a dog show.
MSN DOES NOT WORK.
Studies show MSN will tragically affect the poor; the elderly; the unemployed on fixed incomes and non-English speaking citizens the most. These are people least likely to afford surgical sterilization and elevated intact license fees. *Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Commission 2008 Report.
In every instance MSN has resulted in more owners disavowing ownership of their dogs and cats. More pets are remanded to shelters and ultimately more killing. More killing of dogs and cats. This is not conjecture, this is fact! *The L.A. kill rate went up 24%.
In every instance MSN has resulted in reducing pet license compliance. Statewide, dog licensing compliance is less than 20%. If SB 250 passes licensing will drop like a rock. There is no incentive to license ones dogs. If your dog is picked up, there is no requirement for shelters to attempt to return it to its rightful owner. Chances are that dog will die in the shelter. *Los Angeles dog licensing is down to 5%.
MSN results in pet owners afraid to visit veterinarians out of fear of being turned in. This increases the chances of disease and rabies. *Fort Worth TX, repealed its MSN ordnance when rabies rates went up.
SB 250 VIOLATES CITIZENS RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, RIGHTS OF FREE CHOICE The real tragedy of SB 250, is it will make criminals of hundreds of thousands of dog owners.
SB 250 violates privacy rights; freedom of choice and our rights to be free from government interference. These are issues protected under the Constitution of the United States. Every lawmaker has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say to protect these freedoms unless it interferes with a colleagues' legislation! MSN is a subject that is best decided between the animal owner and veterinarian, not by government edict. Do our lawmakers really want to turn owners of intact dogs into criminals? Is this such a grievous crime that it would allow law enforcers to break down doors, confiscate innocent dogs and cats and castrate them?
SB 250 IS POORLY WRITTEN
An intact dog owner can purchase an “unaltered” dog license---Only if cities and counties offer it. If it is not offered, the only option is forced sterilization. This is a Catch 22 Situation. SB 250 sets up a number of traps that allow local cities to deny, or revoke this special license. SB 250 sets up new fees and taxes, ON TOP OF FEES AND TAXES. Owners of natural dogs and cats; must pay a fee and tax to apply for a special license, pay a fee and tax if the license is denied, pay a fee and tax if the license is revoked, and must pay the license fee and tax itself----which the city can set as high as it wishes.
SB 250 ESTABLISHES AN ENTRAPMENT PROVISION.
SB 250 is entrapment for anyone who feeds an un-owned feral cat by calling them *“custodians” *(1) "Custodian" means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days.
Over 75% of our dogs and 90% of cats have already been spayed or neutered.
SB 250 OPPOSITION IS GROWING
Mandatory Spay and Neuter is opposed by: PetPAC, The California Chamber of Commerce, The California Department of Finance, The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The American Veterinary Medical Association, The California Veterinary Medical Association, 1,900 dog and cat clubs 23,000 individual pet owners Note: The Humane Society of the United States, HSUS no longer supports mandatory spay and neuter.
SB 250 is supported by animal rights extremists, supported by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA. The PETA run animal shelter in Virginia kills over 95% of its animals. *Virginia Dept of Public Health, Veterinary Medical Report
Last year, Assembly Members were misled in voting for AB 1634. Now they are being misled in voting for SB 250. As one member said, “ This is the euthanasia bill that just doesn’t die”.
