California Legislation
Mandatory Spay-Neuter Requirements—Senate Bill 250
—DEFEATED August 31, 2010.
Introduced by Senator Florez and amended several times, SB 250 would have required any owner or custodian of an unsterilized dog to do one of the following:
- have the animal sterilized at six months of age;
- obtain a certificate of sterility; or
- if required by local ordinance, obtain an unaltered dog license.
For purposes of transferring dogs, an owner or custodian who offered any unsterilized dog for sale, trade, or adoption at four months of age or older or the age required by the local government would have been required to include a valid unaltered dog license number with the offer of sale, trade, or adoption. Also, the unaltered dog's license number, and any existing microchip number for the dog, would have been required to appear on the document transferring ownership of the dog to the new owner.
Licensing fees would be determined by the municipal city or county animal control agency in which an owner resides. Localities would also have the right to set penalties for violators.
SB 250 was voted down in September 2009, granted reconsideration, and placed on inactive status. It was revived in August 2010, voted down on August 26, 2010, granted reconsideration, and finally defeatedon August 31, thanks to the efforts of the many individuals and organizations, including MSCNC, that took the trouble to contact their legislators to express opposition.
Medical Exemption from Rabies Vaccination Requirement—Assembly Bill 2000
—Introduced February 17, 2010
—Expired with the end of the legislative session on August 31, 2010
Introduced by Assemblyman Hagman, AB 2000 would amend § 121690 of the Health and Safety Code to exempt from the vaccination requirement the owner
of a dog that a licensed veterinarian determines, on an annual basis, may have a potentially lethal reaction to the rabies vaccination. The text of the bill, as amended on 7/15/2010, may be found at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_2000_bill_20100715_amended_sen_v96.pdf.
MSCNC sent a letter of support to the Senate Health Committee, one of only a handful of California dog clubs to do so.
AB 2000 died in Committee when the legislative session ended on August 31, 2010, the victim of the Department of Health Services demanding additional monies as a condition of supporting the bill.
Electronic Pet Licensing - Assembly Bill 2689
—Introduced February 19, 2010
—Enacted; Approved by the Governor on July 6, 2010
AB 2689, as introduced, would have reduced the age for mandatory rabies vaccination and mandatory licensing of puppies from 4 months to 3 months and allowed local jurisdictions to require submission of proof of vaccination by electronic means. MSCNC sent a letter of opposition to the Assembly Committee on Local Government on the morning of April 13, 2010, only 5 days after AB 2689 had been amended to include the provisions reducing the age for vaccination and licensing.
A few hours later, the legislature decided to amend the bill again, to remove the provision changing the age of vaccination and licensing, thus leaving only the provision that would allow local jurisdictions to require submission of proof of vaccination by electronic means.
The text of the bill, as enacted, may be found at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2651-2700/ab_2689_bill_20100706_chaptered.pdf.
Allowing licensing to be done over the Internet would likely be a convenience to many but a mandatory provision might be a problem for those without Internet access.
Federal Legislation
Importing of Live Dogs
Section 14210 of the Food, Energy and Conservation Act of 2008, to be codified as 7 USC 2148
In late May 2008, Congress enacted section 14210 of the Food, Energy and Conservation Act of 2008 (sometimes referred to as the 2008 Farm Bill). Basically, this new provision prohibits anyone from importing puppies for resale at less than 6 months of age, subject to certain exceptions. It was enacted in response to widespread abuses that were occurring in the importing of very young puppies from foreign puppy mills for sale to U.S. buyers over the Internet, through newspaper ads, and through pet shops. Buyers often did not learn that their puppy was imported until after purchase. Some of the puppies die in transit. Others die shortly after purchase by buyers, often for sums in excess of $3,000. Still others survive, but often have multiple chronic, expensive-to-treat health problems.
The new law should not impact serious breeders who wish to import an occasional quality puppy to improve the breed and/or diversify bloodlines. Anyone wishing to do so should contact the USDA and the Customs service to ascertain the current status of enforcement of the law and what kind of evidence needs to be provided to show that the puppy is not being imported for resale.
In July 2008, one puppy importer, Gina Price, was convicted of consumer fraud in a Tennessee federal court. Gina was sentenced to 71 months in federal prison. Unfortunately, many other fraudulent puppy importers continue in business because the USDA has not yet adopted regulations to implement the new law.
The abuses in puppy importing have not yet much affected Miniature Schnauzers. The puppies being imported from overseas tend to be more expensive breeds, primarily Bulldogs and French Bulldogs, but many other breeds are being imported as well. The puppies being imported from Mexico tend to be toy breeds, but we believe some Mexican puppy mill Miniature Schnauzers are being imported and sold through pet shops. The AKC has ascertained that the Chinese Government is working on a plan to help develop a pet export industry. Absent the new law, the problem promised to get much worse.
MSCNC member John Hoffman, a lawyer, has been involved with the issue of abuses in the puppy importing industry since mid-2004 when he was asked by a national French Bulldog rescue group to help the animal control agency in Lake Elsinore with respect to a puppy importer there who was selling sick and dying puppies to unsuspecting buyers. Since then, John has testified before the U.S. Senate on the issue, has appeared on four KNBC-Los Angeles television reports on the subject, and has testified as an expert at the trial of Gina Price in Tennessee. John is currently working with the USDA and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) to try to make sure that the regulations to enforce the new law are as effective as possible against those importing puppy mill puppies for resale, while impacting as little as possible those importing puppies for legitimate reasons, such as those importing to improve their breeds, those importing working dog puppies for Schutzhund competition, and U.S. citizens who have lived abroad and are returning to the U.S. with their own pets. At the invitation of the Centers for Disease Control, John also spoke on puppy importing at the American Veterinary Medical Association annual conference in Seattle in July 2009.
Licensing of High Volume Breeders, S. 3424 and H.R. 5434
In late May 2010, Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Samuel S. Farr (D-CA) introduced companion bills in the Senate (S. 3424) and House of Representatives (H.R. 5434), respectively, titled the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS). This legislation amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), would modify the current retail exemption relative to "high volume breeders" and incorporate new requirements for the exercise of dogs, including facility standards for exercise areas. In introducing the bill, Senator Durbin specifically pointed to the recently released USDA Inspector General's report addressing AWA enforcement by the federal agency, saying the bill "will close the loophole that allows large breeders to sell puppies online, escaping inspection and oversight." PUPS would apply to breeders who sell 50 or more puppies in a year that they have bred.
The Senate and House versions of the PUPS bill were referred to Committee in May and June 2010, respectively, and nothing has happened since then. It is very unlikely that PUPS will be enacted into law during the present Congress because we are entering the last few months of the 111th Congress and election season is near. PUPS would then have to be submitted from scratch as a new bill if the proponents wished to push for enactment during the next Congress that begins in late January 2011.
Home | Meetings/Activities | Dog Shows | Officers/Board | Breed Information | Buying a Schnauzer
Puppies/Rescue | Rescue Dogs Gallery | Health | Publications | Links | Schnauzer Humor