# California SB 250



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

California SB 250, statewide mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats, passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 28. It now heads to the full State Senate, where it will be voted on sometime during the week of June 1. 

Californians defeated the similar bill AB 1634 last year in the full Senate in large part because there was a huge number of opposition faxes and calls against it -- tens of thousands of them. So far, the response against SB 250 has been only a small fraction of that. If many more Californians do not take action to stop it, SB 250 will pass.

Here's information on what you can do to stop SB 250
<http://saveourdogs.net/2009/05/29/sb-250-full-senate-votes-next-week/>

Under SB 250, a citizen can be permanently denied the right to ever own an intact dog or cat if any ONE of the following things happens:
- a meter reader, yard service worker, friend, neighbor, child, or anyone else leaves your door or gate open, your dog leaves your property, and is picked up as a stray

- you are walking your dog on leash and are cited for having a leash that is too long as specified in municipal code

- you are training your search-and-rescue dog, herding dog, obedience competition dog, hunting dog, agility dog, or any other dog off leash and are cited for it

- you are cited for having an unlicensed dog

- your dog is licensed but you are cited for not having a license tag on your dog's collar

- you are cited for exceeding the maximum number of dogs or cats allowed in your home as specified by your city or county code (often limited to 2 to 4)

- you are cited for your dog's barking

- you fail to notice that your dog defecated on city property and are cited for it

- you are cited for any other minor animal control violation

All of the above are violations of local ordinances and already have appropriate fines associated with them. Government-mandated forced sterilization of every dog and cat a person ever owns now and in the future is a grossly inappropriate penalty. It's the equivalent of permanently banning a person from ever registering a vehicle again because they are caught with a broken tail lamp.

There are NO exemptions in SB 250 for search-and-rescue dogs, police dogs, detection dogs, ranch or farm dogs, guide dogs, service dogs, or any other working dogs. 

There are NO exemptions in SB 250 for dogs owned by responsible breeders. 

Please take action NOW to stop SB 250. 

Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net


----------



## The Stig (Oct 11, 2007)

Ugh. I am so MAD. 

Sounded MY voice, and passed it on to other responsible dog owners.


----------



## Keisha (Aug 1, 2008)

Can people from other states send an email as well? I may very well be living in California in the next year or so and this would effect me as well.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If I were you, I would start my e-mail with something to the effect, my company is concidering a move to CA, and I may be moving there as well, and if this law is passed, this will definitely affect our decision to move the operation to this state. 

Or if the move is not work-related, simply, I am considering moving my family to CA, but this law would definitely affect our decision, and go on to say what you dislike.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Subject: CA SB250 CRITICAL! Calls needed! 


*******Please Crosspost Widely****** **

CRITICAL ALERT!!!!

I have just heard from Diane Amble who has been lobbying at the capitol all day today. Apparently, Senator Steinberg is working closely with
Senator Florez to bring SB 250 to the floor where it is likely to pass. If this happens, this bill will be fast tracked to the Assembly where
it WILL PASS. We will not be able to stop it at the Assembly. So, our only hope is to call in mass tonight and fax the offices of Senators
Steinberg, Florez, Leno, Kehoe, and the other Senate committee chairs. All contact information is provided below.

Senator Steinberg has only received 98 responses (pro and opposition combined) and is under the impression that SB 250 is acceptable to
California's cat and dog breeding community. IT IS NOT! It will absolutely destroy pet breeding and will set up an HSUS driven police
state and artifice.

We must act now. ALL OF US!!! Please call tonight. And then ask your family, friends, and neighbors to call as well. Do not delay. Bill
Hemby mentioned that at least 800 opposition calls must be made to these Senators to make any kind of impression.

We fought off AB 1634. SB 250 is just as bad, perhaps worse than AB 1634. We defeated MSN before. We can do it again!!


If SB 250 passes out of the senate tomorrow, our AB 1634 will mean NOTHING! So-

CALL, CALL, CALL, CALL!!!!!!


Senator Darrell Steinberg

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4006

Fax: (916) 323-2263


Senator Dean Florez

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4016

Fax: (916) 327-5989



Senator Christine Kehoe

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4039

Fax: (916) 327-2188



Senator Mark Leno



CapitolOffice

(916) 651-4003

Fax: (916) 445-4722



Senator Jeff Denham

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4012

Fax: (916) 445-0773



Senator Alan Lowenthal

Capitol OfficePhone: (916) 651-4027

Fax: (916) 327-9113



Senator Lois Wolk

Capitol Office



Phone: (916) 651-4005

Fax: (916) 323-2304



Senator Pat Wiggins

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4002

Fax: (916) 323-6958



Senator Fran Pavley

Capitol Office



(916) 651-4023

Fax: (916) 324-4823



Senator Mark DeSaulnier

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4007

Fax: (916) 445-2527



Senator Mimi Walters

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4033

Fax: (916) 445-9754



Senator Elaine Alquist

Capitol Office



(916) 651-4013

(916) 324-0283 (Fax)



Senator Carol Liu

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4021

Fax: (916) 324-7543



Senator Ron Calderon

Capitol Office



Phone: (916) 651-4030

Fax: (916) 327-8755



Senator Denise Ducheny

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4040

Fax: (916) 327-3522



Senator Negrete Mc LeodCapitol Office



Phone: (916) 651-4032

Fax: (916) 445-0128



Senator Gloria Romero

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4024

Fax: (916) 445-0485



Senator Loni Hancock

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4009

Fax: (916) 327-1997



Capitol Office

Phone: 916-651-4020

Fax: 916-324-6645



Senator Joe Simitian

Capitol Office

Phone: (916) 651-4011

Fax: (916) 323-4529



Senator Roderick Wright

Capitol Office

Fax: (916) 445-3712

(916) 651-4025 

__._,_.___


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

-- please cross post widely --

SB 250 has already been voted on today. It did not get enough votes to pass... YET. It's now ON CALL, which means a re-vote later today. Florez is making the rounds, twisting arms.

Here's the list of those who abstained or weren't present. We need to flood their offices with calls NOW. GET ON THE PHONE! This is really easy:

"Hello, my name is <your name>. I live in <your city's name>. I'm calling to ask the Senator to please vote NO on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats, when it comes to the senate floor for a vote."

Moreno Ducheny (916) 651-4040
Leno (916) 651-4003
Pavley (916) 651-4023
Wolk Phone: (916) 651-4005
Wright (916) 651-4025
Yee Phone: (916) 651-4008
Negrete-McLeod (916) 651-4032
Liu (916) 651-4021
Desaulnier (916) 651-4007
Corbet (916) 651-4010
Simitian (916) 651-4011

Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net/


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

-- please cross post widely -- 

Today's second vote on SB 250 was 16 yes, 15 no. It needs 21 yes to pass.

The following democratic senators voted to abstain on SB 250 in the second round of voting:

Correa (916) 651-4034
Moreno Ducheny (916) 651-4040
Pavley (916) 651-4023
Wolk: (916) 651-4005
Wright (916) 651-4025
Yee: (916) 651-4008
Negrete-McLeod (916) 651-4032
Simitian (916) 651-4011

The above senators will be getting a LOT of pressure from Sen. Florez — SB 250 author and Senate Majority Leader — to change to a Yes.

If you haven't already called, Californians should call the offices above and politely say:

"Hello, my name is [your name]. I live in [your city's name] California. I'm calling to thank the Senator for abstaining on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats. I'm asking the senator to continue abstaining when it comes up for a reconsideration vote later this week."

This will make them understand that we are still watching, and that we are also appreciative of their position.

Understand the process in the California state legislature: Abstaining is JUST AS GOOD for our side as a No vote, but is politically easier for a senator to do on a bill that he/she opposes but is sponsored by a member of his/her own party. 

Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

FORWARD AND DISTRIBUTE WIDE!

REPORT FROM SACRAMENTO as the lobbying efforts against SB 250 continue-- staff of senators report an overflow of SUPPORT FOR SB 250 calls coming in throughout the night and this morning since the bulletin went out by Judie Mancuso that SB 250 is in trouble.

We need to continue letting the senators who abstained know that we SUPPORT them and their efforts. Please call them this morning even if you called yesterday.

Correa (916) 651-4034
Ducheny (916) 651-4040
Pavley (916) 651-4023
Wolk: (916) 651-4005
Wright (916) 651-4025
Yee: (916) 651-4008
Negrete-McLeod (916) 651-4032
Simitian (916) 651-4011

Californians should call the offices above and politely say:

"Hello, my name is [your name]. I live in [your city's name] California. I'm calling to thank the senator for abstaining on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats. I'm asking the senator to continue abstaining when it comes up for a reconsideration vote."

Some have asked me to unsubscribe you from the lists and the best way to get rid of me is to get rid of SB 250. Please forward to friends and family and ask them to call as well. We need volume and politeness. 

Thank you!

Laura Finco


----------



## mspiker03 (Dec 7, 2006)

Thanks for all the updates.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

SB 250 passed today in the California state senate. It required 4 separate votes over the course of two days, promises of amendments, and much heavy arm-twisting by Senate Majority Leader Florez in order to get the bare minimum 21 votes needed.

SB 250 now goes to the state Assembly, to a policy committee. We will convey information as we learn it.

Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net/


On a personal note, I have never heard so many of my friends talking about moving out of this state. My answer to them is, why don't we stay and vote these IDIOTS out of office? I sure hope that happens soon, before they finish off what they have done so far.


----------



## lcht2 (Jan 8, 2008)

glad i dont live in california..i would be cited for almost all of those


----------



## Keisha (Aug 1, 2008)

This is very frustrating. Sorry for anyone who lives in California that this passed. I agree with you Anne, stay and vote them out. There needs to be more widespread education on this subject. There are many people who would not support it that are just ignorant about what it really means. 

People who are not breeders or are not heavily involved with dogs would probably not even know this was being voted on. I wish there was something I could do internet wise to get people to call and complain. I could technically, but I live on the opposite coast, and anybody that I could get to call would not be in California. 

With the economy the way it is you would think they would have better things to do than to pass bills like this.


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

OMG this is stupid!! So it passed?!?


----------



## mspiker03 (Dec 7, 2006)

It passed the Senate....now on to the Assembly. The group (who oppose SB250) felt they had the best chance of defeat this bill in the Senate, if I remember correctly.


----------



## GSD4LIFE21 (Mar 8, 2007)

why cant they focus on commercial breeders rather than the ones who truly care for their dogs?? the government is heartless.


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

> Quote:It passed the Senate....now on to the Assembly. The group (who oppose SB250) felt they had the best chance of defeat this bill in the Senate, if I remember correctly.


So there's still a chance that it wont pass right?


----------



## mspiker03 (Dec 7, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: mjbgsd
> 
> 
> > Quote:It passed the Senate....now on to the Assembly. The group (who oppose SB250) felt they had the best chance of defeat this bill in the Senate, if I remember correctly.
> ...


Technically...yes. But the last Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill (AB1634) that was defeated last year passsed the Assembly, but was defeated in the Senate. So, I'm sure that is why the group felt the best chance to defeat the bill was in the Senate.


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

Ok good, I hope this does not pass.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Forwarding with Permission.

Permission to forward and cross post.

Please read this entire e-blast for information about SB 250 and the next steps. This is very important that information get out to dog (and cat) lovers throughout the State of California and that each of us makes a personal commitment to get this bill finally defeated.

SB 250 was heard by the California Assembly Business and Professions Committee. There was a quorum in spite absences of committee members. Senator Florez did not have available the promised amendments although he stated that he had them mocked up. The chairperson declined to accept any mock ups and said that the committee would consider the bill as is--

After testimony from both sides, those attending the hearing were allowed to stand and state their name and position. There were about a dozen people present in favor of the bill and decades present against the bill. Testimony opposing the bill was straight forward and factual. Bill Hemby from PetPAC spoke about the Department of Finance report and the fact that the AVMA and ASPCA do not support mandatory spay/neuter nor has HSUS supported this bill. Dr. John Hamil was brought in by CDOC and spoke about the intrusion this bill presents to veterinarians and about the process of sterilization as well as the risks associated with using MSN as a punishment. Representing NAIA was Dr. Kay Henderson who presented graphs as well as factual information about the Santa Cruz model.

In spite of solid testimony, a petition with over 20,000 names presented, and an overwhelming presence the vote was 6-3 with Ira Ruskin casting the deciding vote. Ruskin originally did not vote and if he had stayed the course, the bill would have failed-- but again, granted reconsideration Florez was able to convince the lone democrat stand-out to cast a supporting vote. The three Republicans present voted against. One Republican from what I understand was not present but that would not have changed the outcome.

People who especially live or work in Ira Ruskin's district need to contact him and professionally request that he change his vote if the bill gets to the Assembly Floor. Ruskin's is the 21st District and covers: all or part of 13 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, including San Carlos, Redwood City, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, the Almaden Valley of San Jose, and Stanford University. Call his office today==(916) 319 - 2021 if you are a constituent or pass this information on to those who live in his district. 

SB 250 now goes to Appropriation and we are fairly sure that Florez is going to fast track this bill. 

ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT-- LETTERS REGARDING SB 250 WERE LARGELY IN FAVOR OF THE BILL. SUPPORT LETTERS OUTNUMBERED OPPOSITION LETTERS 10-1 and there were fewer organizations and dog clubs writing official letters. I have heard that fax machines were turned off over the weekend which simply means we need to have a show of power quicker. 

Although no amendments have been published, letters can be started to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and to individual Assembly members. If everyone who receives this e-blast writes a letter to each Appropriations Committee member and to their own Assembly member and then gets five additional people to do the same, we would almost double the number of letters received for the Business and Professions committee. WE NEED TO TELL SACRAMENTO THAT THE USE OF SPAY/NEUTER EITHER AS POLICY OR PENALTY MAKES THIS A MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER BILL. Florez keeps saying that this is not a mandatory spay/neuter bill because people can pay to keep their pets intact.

Remind your assembly member of the following points:

1) It is not currently illegal to own an intact pet. SB 250 would make it illegal to own a "natural" animal.

2) To be able to keep your pet intact, you would have to apply for, qualify for, and retain a license. However, that license can be denied or revoked for a number of reasons and many not having anything to do with the animal's reproductive ability. 

3) Once a license has been denied or revoked, an owner MAY NEVER own another intact animal FOREVER and all intact pets owned or cared for by this owner will be required to be sterilized.

THIS IS A $5000 PENALTY FOR A 25 CENT INFRACTION

4) Even though the costs of this mandate would be the responsibility of the local governments, the Department of Finance came out in opposition of SB 250 because it will be very expensive be it to the local governments or to the State. Go to http://www.sb250.org and download the report. Send this to every member of the Appropriations Committee and especially to your own assemblymember.

5) Another reason the Department of Finance opposes SB 250 is because of the failed track record of mandatory spay/neuter. The costs increase. The euthanasia rate increases. The number of impounds and surrenders increase. The use of mandatory spay/neuter either as policy or penalty does not decrease animal deaths. Ironically, animal deaths increase as does overall costs and expenses.

Focus your letters on the following points:

1. Local control
2. Increasing costs/mandates during a time of financial crisis
3. The lack of evidence (Santa Cruz) that the program works

Laura Finco
CDOC Communications

The following are members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee; phone numbers and emails. I will get mailing addresses and fax numbers out as soon as possible.

Kevin de Leon - Chair 
Dem-45 
(916) 319-2045 
Assemblymember. [email protected] ca.gov

Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair 
Rep-2 
(916) 319-2002 
Assemblymember. [email protected] .ca.gov

Tom Ammiano 
Dem-13 
(916) 319-2013 
Assemblymember. [email protected] .ca.gov

Charles M. Calderon 
Dem-58 
(916) 319-2058 
Assemblymember. [email protected] assembly. ca.gov

Joe Coto 
Dem-23 
(916) 319-2023 
Assemblymember. [email protected] ca.gov

Mike Davis 
Dem-48 
(916) 319-2048 
Assemblymember. [email protected] ca.gov

Michael D. Duvall 
Rep-72 
(916) 319-2072 
Assemblymember. [email protected] ca.gov

Felipe Fuentes 
Dem-39 
(916) 319-2039 
Assemblymember. [email protected] .ca.gov

Isadore Hall III 
Dem-52 
(916) 319-2052 
Assemblymember. [email protected] ca.gov

Diane L. Harkey 
Rep-73 
(916) 319-2073 
Assemblymember. [email protected] ca.gov

Jeff Miller 
Rep-71 
(916) 319-2071 
Assemblymember. [email protected] ca.gov 

John A. Pérez 
Dem-46 
(916) 319-2046 
Assemblymember. [email protected] assembly. ca.gov

Nancy Skinner 
Dem-14 
(916) 319-2014 
Assemblymember. [email protected] .ca.gov

Jose Solorio 
Dem-69 
(916) 319-2069 
Assemblymember. [email protected] .ca.gov

Audra Strickland 
Rep-37 
(916) 319-2037 
Assemblymember. [email protected] assembly. ca.gov

Tom Torlakson 
Dem-11 
(916) 319-2011 
Assemblymember. [email protected] assembly. ca.gov


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

I emailed all of them to Oppose but I fear this bill will pass.








They are all condeming our domesticated animals to become nonexcistant.


----------



## Keisha (Aug 1, 2008)

I am going to email them in the morning. I'm encouraging family and friends to email as well, even though they don't live in California. I'm not sure how much good it will do, but we'll try. 
How, in the face of all of the evidence against it, can they pass this bill? I really am baffled, and I'm not afraid to admit that the bills that are passing scare me.


----------

