SB 250, the mandatory pet sterilization bill, is dead for this year! The California Assembly said NO to SB 250 by a 28-42 vote on Wednesday. The author of the bill, Senator Dean Florez has turned SB 250 into a two year bill meaning he can bring the bill back up to be revoted on in January. But we promise you PetPAC will be ready and waiting to defeat mandatory sterilization once again.
Supporters of SB 250 have credited PetPAC with being their chief opponent causing the defeat of the bill. While we don’t agree with much our opponents have to say, we appreciate them giving us credit for our work in killing this bill.
PetPAC, an organization of 65,000 pet owners, is announcing a petition drive named “10,000 Thank You’s.” Our goal is to have 10,000 of our supporters sign a Thank You to the Assemblymembers who voted against SB 250. PetPAC will personally deliver these Thank You’s to the State Capitol.
By defeating SB 250 in California, pet owners in California and across this country sent a strong message; we will fight to protect our dogs and cats from irresponsible mandatory sterilization laws which will result in more dogs and cats being sent to animal shelters and euthanized, and cost taxpayers millions.
Please join us by signing our Thank You.

Sincerely,

Bill Hemby
Chairman

I realize all members of petpacpac recieve this e-mail, just thought it would be nice to post for all to see.

Thanks for posting this! I can cross "True's testicles" off my Worry List, for a while at least.

I'm guessing True's thankful Sarah.

Just when we thought we'd won! Here is part of an email from PetPac (I know everyone registered received it). Looks like the war isn't over yet, my friends.

I too believe that we need a way to keep the backyard breeders and puppy mills away for good, but this most certainly isn't the way.

"Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, author of SB 250, the Mandatory Sterilization Act, announced that SB 250 is on hold until January, and he has urged his supporters to use this “halftime” to try to gain the 13 votes necessary for passage in the California State Assembly.

Well if it’s halftime on SB 250, let me share a pep talk with OUR supporters. Help PetPAC defeat mandatory sterilization by contributing to our “No on SB 250” fund. The fund will be used to continue to build opposition to this irresponsible and unfair legislation which will result in more dogs being relinquished to shelters and euthanized and cost taxpayers millions.

Senator Florez, who is running for Lieutenant Governor, claims PetPAC is falsely labeling this bill as mandatory spay and neuter. He also claims “no responsible pet owner has to worry that the ‘puppy police’ will come knocking at their door. No one is going to force you to get your dog fixed if it gets out of the yard once. This bill is a tool for local animal control...”

Apparently Senator Florez thinks we are all stupid and can’t read. Let’s look at the facts.

The official title of the bill states: SB250, as amended, Florez. Dogs and cats: spaying and neutering. Here is exact language in SB 250, “no person shall own, keep, or harbor, except as specified, an unsterilized dog, as defined.” SB 250 does require mandatory sterilization of dogs and cats unless you can afford to pay for an intact permit which may or may not be granted by the city or county.

Also the California Department of Finance analysis states, “The bill would also require sterilization of dogs (even with intact permits) upon the first violation of specified infractions...” Apparently, Senator Florez is now arguing an amendment he entered will only allow the “puppy police” (his words) to come knocking at your door and force you to get your dog fixed if your dog gets out of the yard twice.

Furthermore, language inserted in SB 250 strips away your rights by changing the term pet owner to “custodian” (a.k.a. guardian). This tactic is being spearheaded by animal extremists groups across the country. Under current law, the term guardians are considered merely temporary caretakers whose ownership can be revoked at any time and the state has authority to be involved in all aspects of guardianship.

SB 250 is not only about mandatory sterilization it is about forever changing the definition of pet ownership in California. And our opponents hope, as California goes so goes the nation."

It will never be over - politicians answer to no one these days, and many show openly contempt of their own constituents.
They will merely sneak the same legislation into some other bill and keep trying to pass what they think is needed, with no thoughts about what the people ( their bosses ) desire.

Whatever happened to "representative government"?

I just wish our victory could have lasted at least a little longer. I'm trying to get everyone I know to write to Assembly members and I can't help but feel discouraged that it won't matter, and those 13 people will vote yes for SB 250 and I'll have to move to somewhere I can have an intact dog.

Side note - in one of my classes tonight we talked about corporate social responsibility and how Revlon donates to PETA to prevent animal testing. I wonder if Revlon truly believes PETA to be an honest organization or if they know what they're really up to and support it anyway.

 Quote: Katie Finlay

I just wish our victory could have lasted at least a little longer.

Petpac said in the first email that the bill would likely be back up in January. (Kerri posted a copy of it here.)

As Will said, this stuff is never just over. It's only over for a given session. We had a bill here in TX that got tacked on to something unrelated. Luckily it was caught and we defeated it this year.

I know it can get frustrating, but try not to feel discouraged!

Yep! You're right, they did say that. I even got the email myself. You'll have to excuse me, my memory is often similar to that of a goldfish.

I won't get too discouraged, there just aren't many people I know who really care about what happens with animals or not. It's a sad thing. And most just don't buy from reputable breeders. I know that most quality animals come at higher prices, but I've met a lot of people who've spent thousands at pet stores or from backyard breeders who breed the "designer breeds." Funny thing is to me I don't recognize them as the "breeds" they are. I'll ask, "What mix is she/he?" Then the tell me it's a Chiweenie, like I should so obviously know that.

As a general rule, the politicians that are on our side in this fight are generally the ones who strongly support our 2nd Amendment rigts.

In last years' fight against California's AB-1641, the NRA proved very helpful. They recogonize we are fighting a common foe.

So, look at which issues are important to you and vote accordingly. More important, let the politician know why they got your vote.

There's always more than meets the eyes ....For example: Last year when we sucessfully fought the MSN bill in Mass. there was quite a bit more attached. Items such as each city/town would be responsible for regulating mandatory vaccinations! Not sure about any of you, but I for one will not be dictated to on what my dogs need for shots. PETA and other supporters of this bill primary reasoning is to reduce the amount of dogs in shelters, yet PETA championed the cause Save the Sato(slang for stray)which enabled the funds for U.S. shelters to start importing strays primarily from Puerto Rico. New England is one of the largest importers. There are also two documented cases of these dogs coming to the U.S. with rabies.Something smells, If you ask me. Another interesting tidbit..PETA hires Legislative and outreach Specialts to develop and maintain relations w/ legislators in jurisdictions that have passed/are considering/or try to pass MSN laws. This position also requires maintaining relations w/ canine bahavior specialists/animal control officers who can testfy to the humane and public safety advantages of MSN legislation and chaining laws.
Just thought I'd share these facts.
Warm Regards