On April 5, 2005 I attended the initial hearing of the reading of AB418 at the CA Assembly Public Safety Committee. The members of the fancy were seriously outgunned, but I have hopes that we will eventually defeat this bill when it hits the Assembly floor. Below is the text of an email I posted to both CyberDobes and ShowDobes. This is simply my assessment of the
First let me say that I was really disappointed yesterday - in the lack of support from the purebred dog fancy, the way the opposition to the bill was treated, and the fact that we were so poorly organized. That being said, there were 15-20 dedicated owners/breeders/handlers/judges at the hearing, including one Rottie person and (I believe) a Dachshund breeder.
The group that attended met in the cafeteria at 8:00 (Robin Schliefer and I were circling the capitol building looking for 2 2-hour parking spaces together to park my motorhome - NOT easily found, so we were a bit late.) I missed the beginning of the discussion, but the lobbyist who was "helping" us, Jim Houston, was not officially hired by the DPCA/AKC or whomever. It appeared we didn't have anyone except the dedicated few, most of us having no idea of the process.
The Public Safety Committee hearing started at 9:00, and we saw many people with "Ears Are For Flopping, Not Cropping" badges. I brought red, white & blue ribbons for our group, and some of the boxer people in attendance had nice buttons with cropped and uncropped dogs and a "Freedom of Choice" theme. (Melissa Bates offered the buttons left over from the last go-round, but we didn't get to Sacramento until late Monday night so had no way to get them.)
Although there was an official agenda, there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the order of bill reading that the uninitiated (me!) could see. Koretz had 2 bills in committee, and his other bill (of course a HUGE hot button, with lots of passionate defenders and opposition) used up over an hour of time. By the time AB418 was begun at about 11:10 AM, most of the committee members had left the room. Koretz read his position statement, mentioning some of the following as arguments:
-- UC Davis Vet school doesn't even teach ear cropping
-- "Battle cropping" is just another form of the cruelty that the fancy practices, with the innuendo that fighting is the next step after cropping
-- CVMA hasn't ratified the bill, but he fully expects them to support it
-- AVMA states that the "procedure causes pain and distress" to the dogs (this was a direct quote - can someone find where that may have been published?)
-- 70% of vets in CA support a ban on the practice (as mentioned in other posts, he mentioned the Zogby International survey. The odd part is that in the analysis prepared by Ms. Horiuchi, I did not find that reference.)
-- There is no difference in the ear health (this point was belabored)
-- The "tradition" argument, referring to the breed standards, was compared to bullfighting and slavery (!)
-- The "rights" argument (our only argument) was invalid, as no one has a right to treat animals any way they see fit. He then mentioned that anti-cruelty statutes apply, which overrides our rights.
-- It is a "cruel practice" that should be stopped.
At this point, two vets (from the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, the sponsor of the bill) made statements. They both reiterated the cruelty, and lack of necessity. Each of the attendees that was in support of the bill was then allowed to come forward, state name and affiliation, and sometimes make a brief statement (both sides were SUPPOSED to be limited to just 2 speakers.) I counted 21 people that offered support, with about 8-10 of them cute young 1st- or 2nd-year vet students from UC Davis and Western. There was also one Great Dane owner, which surprised some of us.
Next was the opposition's turn. Leno, the chair of the committee, stated again that he wanted it to be brief. Steve Kaplan focused on the fact that as prior military, he has spent his life in defense of freedom, which includes freedom of choice. Marj Brooks spoke on her extensive experience with cropping aftercare, and how puppies are not in severe pain, etc. Robin Schleifer, who is an RN, was prepared to also offer a statement, but we were limited to just 2 speakers. The opposition attendees were then allowed to state their names and affiliations. Unlike the proponents, we were not allowed to make any statements, and Mr. Leno was vehement in his defense of this. He banged his gavel and accused one of our group (I'm sorry I can't remember his name) of showing "disrespect" to the committee by trying to state more than his name and affiliation. It was patently obvious that we were the bad guys in his view.
Finally was the vote. By this time only Leno, Kohn and Ruskin were in the room (of the 7 committee members.) Leno and Ruskin voted "Aye," and Kohn did not vote. We all met outside to discuss the morning, and Mr. Houston said that there would be a decision by the end of the day. Many of the members of our group went to visit Dymally, Spitzer, Kohn and Goldberg in their offices to try to persuade them to vote "No." Marj posted her analysis of that visit. (Robin and I headed back to the motorhome for our 7-hour return to LA, so missed that part of the day.) As others have posted, it passed committee and we need to marshal the troops for the next battle.
To those of you that belong to all-breed clubs: please, please speak to your clubs about this bill. There are many other cropped breeds that WERE NOT REPRESENTED! Dobes and boxers are not alone, and should not be fighting this alone. The cropping aspect, as we all know, is only the first step in this slippery slope of AR legislation. The docked breeds need to be involved, also, and we can help spread the word through affiliations with other clubs.
My understanding is that the next step in the process will happen sometime in May, and I will plan to be there again. I will once more extend the offer of cheap transportation and free lodging (RV) to anyone from the Southern California area who would like to attend. I won't belabor the point that we need to be visible with opposition to this bill, but please understand that we are looking at a future of crossing state lines to get ear crops if we don't act now. Within a few years we'll be in the same place as Australia, England, Germany and so many other countries that have banned ear cropping altogether.
If you would like to read the analysis of AB418 prepared by counsel (Ms. Horiuchi,) I have posted it where all can read. It is at http://www.CLARiiONdobes.com/AB418/AB418Analysis.htm. The last page is quite interesting in that is shows a list of registered support and opposition, with only 22 private citizens mentioned. Also conspicuously absent is the DPCA, and all the Doberman clubs in California (although the San Fernando Valley DPC is mentioned as one of the groups under section 10(c), Arguments in Opposition.) I'm glad to hear that there were, in fact, MANY letters that apparently didn't get mentioned in this analysis.
Any mistakes in the assessment of the day's activities are mine.
The next round of the hearing will occur on April 13, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Because there is no financial impact, it is expected that the bill will pass easily. After that, it is on to the Assembly floor. This page will be updated with the date and time of that hearing as soon as it is available. If you'd like to see sample letters to the Assemblyman, you can check out the ones I have written:
UPDATE!! Below is the text of the email regarding AB418 that was sent by the Animal Council:
CA EAR CROP BAN BILL: REGROUPING
April 10, 2005
(Last publication date 4/6/05
Appropriate forwarding encouraged.)
Preserving Our Right To Own And Breed Animals Is Your Responsibility
IN THIS ISSUE:
* CA AB 418 - WHAT NOW?
* CA LEGISLATION FOR "DUMMIES"
* CA AB 418 - THE CASE FOR OPPOSITION
* WHAT TO DO - APRIL 10-12
CALIFORNIA AB 418 by Assembly Member Paul Koretz (D-42) of West Hollywood to
prohibit dog ear cropping in California is now in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations and set for hearing on Wednesday, April 13. Eighty percent of
bills go through the appropriations committee, but those not appropriating money
from state funds such as AB 418 take a very quick trip. However, the bill will
be voted, and it will be helpful to get as few "aye" votes as possible. Thus, we
want to immediately ask the Appropriations members to not support AB 418 to
minimize its support for
the record. There are 18 committee members, 13 Democrats and only 5
Republicans, but they will all be voting on the Assembly Floor as well. If you
or your club has not yet requested inclusion in the Bill analysis opposition
count for the Assembly, do this as well. Contact information is below.
CA LEGISLATION FOR "DUMMIES :" There are 48 Democrats and 32 Republicans in the
Assembly; 25 Democrats in the Senate and 15 Republicans. Animal bills tend to be
partisan based on party of the author. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
and his immediate family have the ear of animal activists as do most of the
Democrats in the legislature. While the partisan numbers are the same as past
years due to non-competitive districting, there are a number of new members
without a voting history. California legislators use the "not voting" option to
avoid recording a specific vote. Critics decry this practice, but this is
reality and the equivalent of voting no. Only 41 and 21 votes are needed to pass
AB 418 the respective houses. The only effective strategy to prevent passage of
Democrat authored animal activist sponsored bill that is moving is to prevent it
from obtaining the required votes. Authors try to avoid a failing vote, and Mr.
Koretz will keep even a failed bill alive as long as possible trying to get the
required votes. Never assume that any vote is a given.
Policy committees of each house conduct hearings on bills assigned subject to
postponement, amendment and an author's decision to not proceed. Each committee
has staff controlled by the chair, all Democrats. Bills are assigned to a
committee consultant, who prepares an analysis including a listing of support
and opposition based on express requests for listing. The analysis is available
on the day of the hearing (or sometimes before) and must be reviewed immediately
to assess the author's and supporters' arguments and rebut these at the hearing.
The Republican Caucuses also analyze bills for their members, but this is not a
public process.
Prior to a hearing, contact with members' staffs or the members should give an
idea of concerns or members' willingness to pursue issues at the hearing. For
example, a member might ask specific questions about a bill with technical or
enforcement issues. Committees schedule many bills on the same day, especially
early in the year, and the bills are heard in the order of author sign in,
usually depending on the author and his witnesses' availability. The author
presents the bill followed by his prepared witnesses, varying in number and
sometimes limited by the committee followed by additional supporters merely
stating name and affiliation. Then the opposition next presents its arguments
and is more likely to be limited in the number of witnesses allowed to present
testimony. Depending on the time of day and other bills, a hearing can be very
rushed. Members may be distracted or out of the room. The tendency is to read
prepared statements, but it is also important to rebut supporting arguments,
particularly when these involve questions of fact. If the author is relying on
experts, their testimony ideally would be rebutted by an opposing expert or
reference to submitted written opposition if the person is not available as is
often the case. Then additional opponents are able to state name and
affiliation. Committee members may ask questions or make offhand remarks that
need response. Simple amendments may be agreed to in committee or the bill
deferred for further work. Otherwise, an immediate vote is taken. If the bill
does not get the required votes, it is placed "on call" with the bill's fate
uncertain. Committee members may be unwilling to commit themselves initially,
think things over, talk to the author during the day, talk with staff or others
including opposition. Committee members also go in and out of the meeting to
attend to other business or may only return to vote. Toward the end of the
hearing, the on call bills are taken off call for an additional vote. What may
have looked promising earlier can change very quickly amid mumbled confusion as
votes change in ways that may or may not make sense. Authors of on call bills
may request reconsideration or not, and if so, the committee usually grants this
unanimously as a courtesy. This means that even a failed bill can come back on a
later date for another vote.
Most bills then go to the house's appropriations committee. Bills without state
money appropriation typically pass without fiscal issues, but votes on
controversial or very partisan bills begin reflect this and are a clue about the
floor sentiment. Bills then go the house's "floor" for a vote of the entire
house. This process can be quick or long, because an author tries to line up the
required votes before the bill is actually voted. If the bill fails on the first
vote, the author may request and be granted reconsideration for another floor
vote before the calendar deadline. The Assembly Floor Analysis for each bill is
prepared and controlled by the consultant for the policy committee that heard
the bill. Senate policy committees have their own consultants who prepare their
own analyses, and the Senate Floor has its own, separate Office of Senate Floor
Analyses. As a bill progresses, each committee vote is included in the
progressing analyses, and these are an indication of strength or weakness. A
strong bill can progress quickly through the entire process, but a weak bill
that survives can struggle through the summer or become a "2 year bill" to be
heard again next year. (This only happens in the first year of the 2-year
legislative sessions, i.e. 2005-06 Legislature.) The veto request process is the
final step for opposition. Each step in the process presents an opportunity for
timely and strategic action by opposition to present, build and strengthen its
position.
All documents and history for each bill are available on the Legislature's web
site, always cited in our footer,
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov . You can also send a message to a bill author's
directly from the bill information page for that bill.
CA AB 418 - THE CASE FOR OPPOSITION must focus on the bill's specific issues and
those likely to convince legislators to not support the bill. The supporting
rationale for AB 418 is that cropping ears is inhumane and must be classified as
a criminal offense of animal cruelty. They argue that ear cropping is not taught
in vet schools, is done by only 10% of vets, carries an unreasonable risk from
general anesthesia, infection and other complications, pain and suffering, is
banned in Europe and has no benefit to the dog.
To rebut this, opponents must argue that ear cropping is a safe and reasonable
procedure and is supported by veterinarians, at least some who are experienced
with this. Individual veterinarians must step up to the plate, so that this
issue is one of opinion and not fact. This is crucial in order to support a
rational argument for choice. Once something is considered cruelty and a crime,
there is no argument for choice.
Dr. Franklin McMillan of the VCA Miller Animal Hospital in West Hollywood was
Koretz's rebuttal witness for some opposing arguments as follows:
1) traditional: so is bullfighting;
2) aesthetically pleasing: like putting a Star Trek character's ears on a baby;
3) government intrusion on individual rights: local and state government regulate many rights;
4) broad protection of animals under Penal Code 596-600;
5) improper government control of vets: health professionals are not exempt from regulation, for example, abortion (his argument, not ours) and declawing of non-domestic cats;
6) Penal Code 599b - pain and suffering is cruelty unless necessary, cropping is not necessary.
Dr. McMillan is an author on "mental and emotional health" and
quality of life of animals.
Next, the opposition must challenge the criminal classification and its impact.
How would this be investigated, charged, prosecuted, defended and punished and
with what consequences? Do the legislators understand that the offenders would
be regular folks and not the serial killers touted by the activists? Should this
be a crime even though no confinement is provided and a conviction results in a
criminal record? Should the policies of foreign countries or veterinary trade
groups be the bases for criminal offenses in the United States? By what
standards other than "infection" would the medical exemption be determined, for
example trauma or hematoma complications? Since many of the cropped breeds are
also working breeds, performing to the highest levels of activities of any dogs
including law enforcement, why has cropping not prevented them from doing so?
ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE VOTE began with only 2 audible aye votes -
Chair Mark Leno and Ira Ruskin with Rebecca Cohn expressly not voting. Four
votes of the 7 members were needed to pass. The bill was placed on call and came
off around 4:15 when Cohn changed her vote to aye, Jackie Goldberg asked whether
and how she had voted and then said to record her as aye. The final recorded
vote for the record is 5 ayes - all the Democrats, with Republican Todd Spitzer
not voting and only Republican Vice Chair Jay La Suer voting no. The opposition
has much work to do.
WHAT TO DO - APRIL 10-12?
1. If you have not done so, ask the ASM Public Safety Counsel to include you
(numerical count for individuals) or your organization (by name - use
letterhead) on the Bill Analysis in the Assembly. You must actually ask and you
can use the following format. Fax, mail or deliver. Legislative staff work long
and hard on many confusing bills and slow computers. Always treat staff
respectfully.
Fax 916-319-3745
Assembly Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street, Room 111
Sacramento CA 94814
Attention: Kimberly A. Horiuchi, Committee Consultant
Re: AB 418 - Dogs: animal cruelty: ear cropping - OPPOSITION
"I/the ABC Club/XYZ business, etc oppose AB 418,
Please include me/ us, organization/business in the listed opposition for the
Bill Analysis in the Assembly. Thank you."
2. Since the Assembly Committee on Appropriations will vote on AB 418 on April
13 and there are "only" 18 members, we can immediately begin our Assembly Floor
effort with these members. The bill itself is self-funding locally from the
criminal fines, so there are insignificant fiscal issues. We want to ask the
members to not support AB 418 based on ear cropping as a safe, humane procedure
that should not be a crime but a legal choice in veterinary practice between
veterinarian and client.
NOTE: Email is a last choice option in California. It is better than nothing but
completely uncertain. FAX is the quickest, easiest and effective tool other than
hand delivery or mail when time allows. This is
why we always provide complete addresses, fax and phone numbers. PLEASE
USE CAUTION in deleting any types of contact information from forwarded or
copied material. We want every effort to count. Telephone calls are also an
important tool. If nothing else, California residents call your own legislators
- even the local office is better than no call.
If using email, the Assembly Link page is an effective tool to determine whether
the member has a direct email address or uses a feedback page on the member's
homepage, and you can either paste a message by clicking on each address link or
go to the home page for the feedback option. <http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm>
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS:
The Honorable Judy Chu (D-49) Monterey Park Chair
State Capitol, Room 2114
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0049
(916) 319-2049
Fax (916) 319-2149
assemblymember.chu@asm.ca.gov
The Honorable Sharon Runner (R-36) Lancaster
State Capitol, Room 6031
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0036
(916) 319-2036
Fax (916) 319-2136
Assemblywoman.Runner@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Karen Bass (D-47) Los Angeles
State Capitol, Room 2117
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0047
(916) 319-2047
Fax (916) 319-2147
Use link
The Honorable Patty Berg (D-1) Santa Rosa
State Capitol, Room 4146
Sacramento, CA 94249-0001
(916) 319-2001
Fax (916) 319-2101
assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Ronald S. Calderon (D-58) Montebello
State Capitol, Room 4016
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0058
(916) 319-2058
Fax (916) 319-2158
Assemblymember.ron.calderon@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Bill Emmerson (R-63) Rancho Cucamonga
State Capitol, Room 3149
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0063
(916) 319-2063
Fax (916) 310-2163
assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Mike Gordon (D-53) El Segundo
State Capitol, Room 2137
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0053
(916) 319-2053
Fax (916) 319-2153
Use Assembly Link
The Honorable Ray Haynes (R-66) Temecula
State Capitol, Room 4158
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0066
(916) 319-2066
Fax (916) 319-2166
Assemblymember.haynes@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Betty Karnette (D-54) Long Beach
State Capitol, Room 2176
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0054
(916) 319-2054
Fax (916) 319-2154
Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Johan Klehs (D-18) Hayward
State Capitol, Room 5150
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0018
(916) 319-2018
Fax (916) 319-2118
Use Assembly Link
The Honorable Mark Leno (D-31) San Francisco
State Capitol, Room 3146
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
(916) 319-2013
Fax (916) 319-2113
The Honorable Alan Nakanishi (R-10) Lodi
State Capitol, Room 5175
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0010
(916) 319-2010
Fax (916) 319-2110
Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Joe Nation (D-6) San Rafael
State Capitol, Room 5119
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0006
(916) 319-2006
Fax (916) 319-2106
Joe.Nation@asm.ca.gov
The Honorable Jenny Oropeza (D-55) Carson
State Capitol, Room 2148
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
(916) 319-2055
Fax (916) 319-2155
Assemblymember.Oropeza@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-48) Los Angeles
State Capitol, Room 3152
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0048
(916) 319-2048
Fax (916) 319-2138
Assemblymember.ridley-thomas@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Lori Saldaņa (D-76) San Diego
State Capitol, Room 3132
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0076
(916) 319-2076
Fax (916) 319-2176
Use Assembly Link
The Honorable Mimi Walters (R-73) Laguna Niguel
State Capitol, Room 4116
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0072
916) 319-2073
Fax (916) 319-2178
assemblymember.walters@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Leland Yee Ph.D. (D-12) San Francisco
State Capitol, Room 3173
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
(916) 319-2012
Fax (916) 319-2112
Assemblymember.yee@assembly.ca.gov
*****
THE ANIMAL COUNCIL has created a backup distribution list through Yahoo Groups.
If you are a direct recipient of this message, please help us through this
process and conserve our resources on clerical work by joining the list. Paste
this URL into your browser and follow the instructions to
join. At present, the Yahoo list will only be used if or when this
service is unavailable. Select "Individual Emails." <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheAnimalCouncil>
*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Contact us at <TheAnimalCouncil@aol.com>
Incorporated 1991, tax exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(4) Online news updates
published sporadically since 1997. To be removed from the original distribution
list only or change address, reply to this message. Legislative tracking subject
to change. CA bill and law information http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
Page last updated on April 27, 2008.