California Legislation
Senate Bill 250
—Introduced February 24, 2009
—Defeated in Assembly, September 9, 2009
SB250's stated goal is to reduce shelter populations. In reality, it would make it easier to revoke licenses for intact dogs and cats in California. This legislation will not achieve its stated goal if enacted. Rather, it will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders. By placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals, SB250 could easily lead to an increase of animals surrendered to shelters.
SB250 is unnecessary to encourage sterilization of pets not being used for breeding programs. Existing state law requires that the fee for licensing an intact animal be double that for a sterilized animal. In many localities these fees already exceed $100, making it cost prohibitive for responsible owners to license their animals, especially for hobby breeders who need more than one intact animal if they wish to both show and breed. State law already provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded. Local governments already have the authority and tools to effectively address problems with owners whose animals are repeatedly at large.
As amended, SB 250 continues to require sterilization if a dog is at-large, if the dog is not licensed, and if the dog violates local animal control ordinances, on a second offense. This is an unreasonable standard as even a responsible owner can have incidents years apart where an animal is let out by a meter reader, neighbor or faulty gate. SB 250 thus unreasonably penalizes responsible dog owners and breeders. We encourage legislators to draft legislation that targets owners who are consistently irresponsible, rather than passing legislation that will harm responsible members of the community.
Mandatory spay/neuter laws are unlikely to achieve their goal of reducing euthasia of dogs in shelters because the animals being euthanized in shelters are for the most part large adult dogs and the predominant demand is for small-breed puppies. The mandatory spay/neuter laws place undue burdens and expense on show breeders, whose dogs almost never are turned into shelters (because most accept lifelong responsiblity for ensuring a quality home for the dog if the initial purchaser can no longer keep the dog), while doing nothing to curb the supply of puppies available from commericial breeders and sold through pet shops and over the Internet. To the extent that the mandatory spay/neuter laws have any effect at all, they will actually exacerbate the numbers of unwanted dogs because, to the extent such laws discourage breeding by show hobbyists, prospective puppy buyers have to turn to commercial puppy sources that do not screen and educate prospective buyers as do show breeders.
MSCNC submitted its letter of opposition to SB250 to the California Assembly Appropriations Committee on July 2, 2009. (Adobe Acrobat Reader, available from Adobe's website at no charge, is needed to view and/or print the letter.)
SB 250 failed to pass the Assembly, losing on a vote of 28–42 on September 9, 2009. Senator Florez says that he plans to try again when the Legislature reconvenes in January 2010.
Assembly Bill 241
—Vetoed by the Governor, October 11, 2009
On Sunday, October 12, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB241 and issued this statement:
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature.
This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals. However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices. Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill. Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
MSCNC submitted its letter of opposition to AB241 to the California Senate Appropriations Committee on August 8, 2009. (Adobe Acrobat Reader, available from Adobe's website at no charge, is needed to view and/or print the letter.)
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.
Pet Uniform Protection Statute ("PUPS")
In September 2008, the House and Senate simultaneously introduced identical bills to require federal licensing and inspection, pursuant to the federal Animal Welfare Act, of anyone who sells 50 or more dogs per year. The licensing and inspection requirements already apply to anyone who sells dogs at wholesale, such as through pet shops. With the ease and low cost of selling over the Internet, many puppy mills have turned to selling directly to puppy buyers through websites and Internet sites with classified ads for puppies, but are currently unregulated under federal law because they do not sell puppies to resellers. PUPS sought to bring those sellers under the same type of regulation as the sellers who sell to pet shops.
PUPS was not enacted during the 2-year Congressional session, which ended with the inauguration in January 2009, because it was introduced so late in the session and in a Presidential election year. It is probable that PUPS will be re-introduced in the future.
Home | Meetings/Activities | Dog Shows | Officers/Board | Breed Information | Buying a Schnauzer
Puppies/Rescue | Rescue Dogs Gallery | Health | Publications | Links | Schnauzer Humor