Concerned Dog Owners of California was established for the purpose of educating owners, legislators and policy makers regarding responsible dog ownership. We support permanent identification especially as a means of reuniting lost pets and owners as well as tracking habitual roamers. We support the enforcement of current ordinances including license regulations where required. We support enforcement of leash laws. We support the availability of voluntary spay and neuter programs and are working diligently with Senator Padilla and Assembly Member Mendoza to find innovative ways to fund those programs.
We do not support last minute amendments that circumvent the legislative process by not allowing enough time for expert analysis and public testimony and response. Concerned Dog Owners of California was not included in any of the discussions, but we were provided sections of the new language on Monday evening. The actual bill is much more involved than the snapshot sections shown to us; so much so that we find we cannot support it.
While the newest version of AB 1634 with the removal of the complaint section is dramatically improved, we believe that without proper analysis and discussion the remaining issues in the bill cannot be properly addressed. We agree with the premise of the newest version of AB 1634 but are reserved regarding much of its content in the development of the penalty schedule for noncompliance with license regulations. Language such as “improperly licensed” and “at large” have not been defined and are vague. There exist many situations where a dog is legitimately “at large” or “improperly licensed.” Search and Rescue teams with licensed, intact dogs could be considered “at large” during training. Dogs competing at shows or agility trials without tags on their collars could be considered “improperly licensed.” Are these dogs in violation? Are dogs running loose due to natural disaster in violation? Currently, enforcement officers are allowed the discretion to recognize situations and make the determination whether or not any violation actually has occurred. The language of AB 1634 eliminates this discretion stating that there SHALL be a penalty.
The Appropriations Committee was assured the bill would not have a financial impact; however the Finance Department opposes the bill because of the fiscal risk it imposes on the State. AB1634 will now be a new animal mandate requiring the State of
With more time and input, we believe this bill could meet the needs of all the stakeholders. We agree with Senator Negrete-McLeod about amendments “on the fly” and believe that a reasoned review with input from all parties simply cannot occur in the few days remaining.
Opposition letters should be sent to to your own Senator. We would also like as many letters from constituents as possible to
Dean Flores (D)
State Capitol, Room 5061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4016
Fax: (916) 327-5989
Shiela Kuehl (D)
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4023
Fax: (916) 324-4823
Jenny Oropeza (D)
State Capitol, Room 4074
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056
Mark Ridley-Thomas
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Fax: (916) 445-8899
Leeland Yee (D)
State Capitol, Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Fax: (916) 327-2186
Denine Moreno Ducheny (D)
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4040
Fax: (916) 327-3522
Lou Correa (D)
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4034
Alan Lowenthal (D)
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4027
Fax: (916) 327-9113
Abel Maldonado (R)
State Capitol, Room 4082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4015
Fax: (916) 445-8081
Alex Padilla (D)
State Capitol, Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4020
Edward Vincent (D)
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4025
Fax: (916) 445-3712
Patricia Wiggens (D)
State Capitol, Room 4081
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4002
Fax: (916) 323-6958


