We need your help to continue our activities!

Sample Letter #2

Note: The following letter is a guideline for your use. Please modify it to include something personal about yourself, such as what dogs you have or how this legislation will affect you or your family. Also, you may want to shorten this letter by picking out the points most important to you.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

 Sent via facsimile to ________

Assembly Member [name]
[Address]
RE: SB 861

Dear Assembly Member [Name]: 

I am [introduce yourself and say something personal]. I am writing to plead with you to vote NO on SB 861, which will be heard on the assembly floor. This bill will have a direct and substantial impact on my life, as well as on the lives of thousands of California dog owners. It will be taking a step back into the dark ages of breed specific legislation. If you look into other areas that have implemented breed specific legislation, such as Prince George County, Maryland, Ohio, and Colorado, you will see that virtually all of them are now either in the process of repealing those breed specific laws or seriously considering repealing them. Time and time again, breed specific legislation has been proven NOT to work. It harms good owners and good dogs.

SB 861 is currently split into two code sections. It amends Section 31863 of the Food and Agriculture Code. It also adds a section to California's Health and Safety Code. SB 861 seems, on the surface, innocuous. It calls for mandatory spaying and neutering of any breed a community chooses to restrict. It also allows for breeding restrictions. Mandatory sterilization sounds good on its face. However, the bill does NOT mandate reasonable exceptions. Hence, any community may implement a “soft ban” on a breed by calling for mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs of that breed within its jurisdiction (leading to the eventual extinction of the breed). This will furthermore devastate the show community. AKC and UKC show dogs cannot be sterilized and continue to show in conformation events. People will lose their show dogs. This will amount to a taking. Respectable breeders that have dogs with solid pedigrees where they know the health and temperament of each dog in that pedigree will be driven out. The health-tested, temperament-tested dogs from ethical breeders that participate in AKC or UKC events and health test their dogs will become extinct.

In addition, owners of working dogs that are not shown will be severely impacted. Working dog folks generally have lines separate from show dogs (in many breeds) and therefore do not show (in fact, most working versions of breeds look different than their show counterparts). People need Border Collies that can actually herd, for example, and this legislation has no exceptions for such highly useful dogs.

Under SB 861, while the respectable and ethical breeders dwindle or vanish, the backyard breeders will proliferate. This is obvious because, even though a mandatory spay and neuter law will apply to them, no community has the resources to fully enforce such a law. No one disputes that. Communities right now do not even have the resources to enforce the existing license and dog-limit laws that these backyard breeders currently violate with impunity. As a result of this ineffective and prejudicial enforcement, only the backyard breeders that violate the laws will be producing litters (of unhealthy-tested pups, without regard to temperament). In fact, even if exceptions for show and working dogs are written into the law later, the law will still advantage the backyard breeders who do not comply with the additional burdens imposed on breeders and show persons who attempt to comply with the additional requirements. Hence, no matter how the law is worded, backyard breeders will proliferate and responsible breeders will be disadvantaged unless communities somehow find the substantial resources required to fairly, fully, and effectively enforce such breed specific mandatory spay and neuter laws.

SB 861 will, therefore, very likely worsen the very problem it attempts to solve.

If, on the other hand, communities somehow find lots of money and resources to enforce their mandatory spay and neuter breed legislation (and, possibly, drive the breed to extinction within this state), the unethical backyard breeders will simply move on to the next breed. This is not speculation. This has happened in EVERY single community that has implemented BSL. Regardless of whether the enforcement if effective or whether show and working dogs are exempted, backyard breeders WILL start breeding dogs not restricted (while others continue to breed the restricted dogs and sell them at a premium). Hence, communities implementing BSL will start to see a sharp increase in large, powerful breeds that were previously rare or otherwise unrestricted.

For example, Prince George County, Maryland implemented a total breed ban that it effectively enforced (or, at least, made a respectable attempt at enforcing). A few years after the ban, Prince George County commissioned a task force to review the effectiveness of the ban because the county realized it was NOT working out as planned. Suddenly, there were very few Pit Bulls in PGC, but the County shelters were filling up with larger and even more powerful dogs like the Presa Canario that had previously rarely been seen or heard of within the County. The Presa Canario became the new Pit Bull.

Prince George County’s task force recommended repealing the ban and implementing a state law to prohibit breed specific legislation in the state of Maryland.

So, after years of trial and error, and heartache to thousands of families, Prince George County, Maryland is heading to the place California already went over a decade ago: a state law prohibiting any breed specific legislation and a recognition that breed specific legislation does not solve the problem of dangerous dogs and only hurts good owners and good dogs.

In order to effectively target the problem of dangerous dogs, communities need to target irresponsible owners and unethical breeders of all breeds (so that these people cannot just move on to destroy the next breed or breeds). I promise you, without a doubt in my mind, breed specific legislation in California will be proven a horrendous mistake. We have substantial history available that shows us the follies of breed specific legislation. There are alternatives that work, but they involve targeting the problem on a global scale. San Francisco, whose mayor pushed for Breed Specific Legislation, has NOT attempted these alternatives. San Francisco wants to move to what it considers to be a quick fix band-aid to the problem. Carl Friedman, director of animal control in San Francisco, even admitted what is undeniable in his task force report:

"These regulations should be enacted with the understanding that the character of a dog population varies over time, the regulations should allow for the inclusion of additional breeds as appropriate."

Friedman obviously knows, as any reasonable person who has studied breed legislation knows, breed specific legislation balloons to include breed after breed, because backyard breeders who wish to make a quick buck by selling litter after litter will just keep turning to the next breed on the list that’s not subject to the restrictions…until communities then restrict THAT breed, and so on and so on.

Italy started on the path to breed legislation. It now has about 92 breeds restricted. I believe the last two breeds added to Italy’s growling list were the Corgi and the Border Collie. Italy shows us that breed legislation not only fails to solve the problem of dangerous dogs, it actually makes the situation much worse. Instead, effectively enforced laws that regulate breeders of all breeds and have strict penalties for the owners of dangerous dogs have the greatest impact on actually alleviating the problem of dangerous dogs. However, the key to any legislation revolves around enforcement.

SB 861 will also create a host of other problems that will directly and negatively impact thousands of dog owners, including owners of service and search and rescue dogs. Speier believes that by separating the bills, she will avoid causing thousands of dog owners to lose their homeowner's liability insurance (insurance companies will not cover any breed legally classified as dangerous or vicious, and this applies equally to owners of show dogs, service dogs, therapy dogs, and search and rescue dogs). However, she has done no such thing. Section 31863 states that cities may implement programs to control "dangerous or vicious dogs" and removes the prohibition on breed specific legislation. Speier's Health and Safety Code goes on to say that cities may enact breed specific legislation pertaining to spaying and neutering. Therefore, it does NOT prohibit communities from labeling breeds as potentially dangerous or vicious. So, many communities will, in fact, create legislation with language such as, "In order to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, all dogs of X breed within the city limits must be spayed or neutered." (In fact, in virtually all communities that have enacted any kind of breed legislation, statutes implement exactly that type of language). With such language, people will lose their homeowner's insurance. Disabled people will lose their service dogs. You may not believe that will happen, but it has and does happen all over the nation everywhere, even in places without breed legislation.

Mandatory spay and neuter laws will have other, likely unanticipated consequences. Male mobility service dogs, for example, need to remain intact until after they physically mature (to develop the muscles to allow them to perform mobility work). Such laws may negatively impact the ability of service dogs to assist their disabled handlers. This will cause the animals hardship as they will not develop proper musculature and will either be unable to perform the work of pulling wheelchairs and carrying backpacks, or they will develop hip and joint problems after a few years of service and have to be retired early (in addition to costing their disabled handlers money in excess vet care). Finally, some breeds, such as Rottweilers, suffer a 60% increase in bone cancer risk if they are neutered prior to physical maturation.

In conclusion, If SB 861 passes, the only Pit Bulls I’ll be able to find are from unethical backyard breeders. You will destroy all the good that’s left in the Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, and you’ll be sentencing the next “fad” breed to the same fate as the Pit Bull. In addition, many good owners will lose their homeowners insurance, which will also negatively impact owners of service and service dogs. Finally, some breeds, such as Rottweilers, face health consequences from early spay and neutering. SB 861 fails to address these issues.

If this bill comes before you, please vote NO. Target the problem of irresponsible owners and backyard breeders for ALL breeds.
 

Sincerely yours,

[your name and signature]