Most dogs in unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County will have to be spayed or neutered
and implanted with an identifying microchip under an ordinance approved today by the Board of Supervisors.

The final discussions on the S/N ordinance in Los Angeles County has been set on the
agenda as Item 109 on May 2nd. You may watch this live on the website if you cannot attend.

UPDATE 4-18-06

Supervisors unanimously backed the proposed ordinance, and are expected
to give it final approval when they reconvene in two weeks. Residents in unincorporated
parts of the county will be required to spay or neuter their dogs in order to curb
the canine overpopulation. This will affect approximately 1 million people

UPDATE 3-2-06

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
869 Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Contact: Tony Bell, Communications Deputy
Office: (213) 974-5555 Cell: (213) 215-5176
E-mail: tbell@lacbos.org
March 1, 2006
For Immediate Release



Los Angeles – A public hearing on the County’s proposed dog breeding and spaying /
neutering ordinance for all breeds of dogs will be held at the Board of Supervisors
meeting on April 18, 2006, Mayor Michael D. Antonovich announced.

Prepared by the Department of Animal Care and Control, County Counsel and Chief
Administrative Officer, the ordinance provides breeding restrictions and mandatory
spay/neuter programs of all dog breeds.
The ordinance will also reduce overcrowding in County shelters.

On February 21, 2006 the Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation by the director
of Animal Care and Control to include all dog breeds in the mandatory spay/neuter
ordinance and continued this item until the public hearing on April 25, 2006.
since the Board of Supervisors’ annual meeting in Washington, D.C. is on April 25, the
item was moved up one week to April 18.

In addition to reducing stray dog overpopulation and euthanasia in county shelters, this
ordinance will protect the public safety and increase enforcement to encourage
responsible pet ownership.


It has just come to my attention that the meeting today in Los Angeles County
about the mandatory spay and neuter of specific breeds being BSL "Pit Bulls"
(Am-Staffs, Staffy Bulls, APBT) & Rottie's has been tabled.
The bill did have a provision in it saying if you were a breeder that you would half
to have a breeder license,
the bitch or dog had to have all heath certificates,
titles, CGC and so on.
The new proposed bill that is now in discussion is
mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs
so it is not BREED SPECIFIC
anymore in Los Angeles County.
A lesson in "careful what you ask for", folks!!!


 LA CountySupervisors to Vote on BSL Ordinance 
[Thursday, February 16, 2006] 
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote February 21st on a proposal to enact a $150 unaltered animal license for "restricted breeds." Restricted breeds are Rottweilers and "pit bulls," defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Stafforshire Bull Terriers or any dog that exhibits the physical characteristics of these breeds. Breed determination will be made by Animal Care and Control staff using a "breed determination checklist." It is critical that fanciers and concerned dog owners attend this hearing, as officials have recommended that the board waive its traditional three-readings procedure and immediately adopt the ordinance! 

The proposed measure includes an unaltered license provision for owners of "restricted breeds." To qualify, an owner must: 
     •     Prove that the dog is registered with AKC, UKC or valid registry 
     •     Comply with mandated health screenings 
     •     Allow an inspection by Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control 
     •     Obtain an AKC Canine Good Citizenship certificate or pass an American Temperament Testing Society test 
     •     Microchip the dog and provide the number to the county 

Further, the ordinance states that the county will determine whether a dog's lineage, age, temperament and health make it a suitable candidate for an unaltered license. The license may be revoked if the county receives one complaint, if the owner is cited for any violation of the animal control ordinance, or the dog is found to be dangerous. There is no process for appeal. The county currently requires that breeders purchase a $175 license to breed and limits breeders to one litter per year. 

Other provisions include the following: 
     •     Prohibits the breeding of any "restricted dog" less than two years of age 
     •     Requires breeders of "restricted dogs" to report all litters and provide the names and addresses of puppy purchasers 
     •     Further requires breeders to microchip all "restricted" puppies and provide the microchip numbers to the county 

Animal Care and Control recommends spending $668,077, including adding 6 new staff members, to enforce the ordinance. This estimate appears to be based on pursuing the owners of already licensed but unaltered Rottweilers and "pit bulls" and having those owners purchase the new license. No funds appear to have been allocated toward pursuing animals at large, animals about which the department has received complaints or unlicensed animals. 

This proposed ordinance will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners continue to make problems for the community and local shelters. Concentrating their efforts on the dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community would be a much better use of taxpayer funds. 

What You Can Do: 
     •     Attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting February 21st at 1pm. 
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 
500 W. Temple Street 
Los Angeles, CA90012 
The ordinance is agenda item #65 
     •     Contact the CountyBoard of Supervisors to express your opposition. Find out who represent you on the Board of Supervisors. 

Supervisor Gloria Molina (District 1) 
856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 
500 West Temple Street 
Los Angeles, CA90012 
Phone: (213) 974-4111 
Fax: (213) 613-1739 
Email: Molina@bos.co.la.ca.us

Supervisor Yvonne Burke (District 2) 
866 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 
500 West Temple Street 
Los Angeles, CA90012 
Phone: (213) 974-2222 
Fax: (213) 680-3283 
Email: seconddistrict@lacbos.org

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky (District 3) 
821 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 
500 W. Temple St. 
Los Angeles, CA90012 
Phone: (213) 974-3333 
Fax: (213) 625-7360 
E-mail zev@lacbos.org 

Supervisor Don Knabe (District 4) 
822 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 
500 West Temple Street 
Los Angeles, CA90012 
Phone: (213) 974-4444 
Fax: (213) 626-6941 

Mayor Michael D. Antonovich (District 5) 
869 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 
500 West Temple Street 
Los Angeles, CA90012 
Phone: (213) 974-5555 
Fax: (213) 974-1010 fax 
Email: fifthdistrict@bos.co.la.ca.us 

For more information please contact 

California Federation of Dog Clubs 
Susan Gioia, President 
800-949-3746, ext. 106 
760-471-5277 (fax) 

Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs 
Joan Gibson-Reed, Legislative Coordinator 

AKC Canine Legislation Department 
(919) 816-3720 

Lest we forget on this issue...COMPROMISE got us SB861...this will be just as damaging to ALL breeds as SB861... Acceptance of this is NOT good. Breeding permits, etc..will NOT stop the biters nor will it stop the overflow of ANY BREED in the shelters...it will NOT effect the BYB's who are not complying now...nor will they comply after all the compromise and acceptance is over and this becomes law.
This may be crossposted... Leisa Boysen



Recap/Summary of Meeting with Director Mayeda (February 8, 2006)

Today, Loren Chiever (Holly House Rottweilers), Leri Hensen (California K9 Services) and
I met with Ms. Marcia Mayeda, Director of the Department of Animal Care and Control
for the County of Los Angeles. The meeting was previously scheduled and ran from approximately 1:30-4:00 p.m.

Director Mayeda was charged on January 31, 2006 with the responsibility, in conjunction
with County Counsel, to return with an ordinance by February 15, 2006 to the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors to implement mandatory spay/neuter for specific breeds and to enact
other breed-specific legislation. What follows is my summary of today's meeting (sans opinions, for the most part)
and some pertinent dates for action/attendance.

Overall, it should be noted that Director Mayeda was polite, professional and receptive
to the __expression of concerns we voiced on behalf of persons: in the fancy, involved
with rescue, concerned about abrogation of rights and others. Director Mayeda allowed
ample time to discuss the issues and agreed with us on several points.

At present, there is a draft ordinance which is on County Counsel's desk (Ms. Mayeda was
unable to provide us with an advance copy) to enact breed-specific ordinances targeting
"pit bull type" breeds and rottweilers. As related to us, the ordinance would require
spay/neuter of every dog/bitch unless:

- the animal is under 6 months of age (the draft ordinance was for 8 weeks)
- an exemption license is obtained (more on this below)
- breed determination is under appeal
- there is some medical reason which makes spay/neuter a threat to the animal
(heart murmur was given as an example).

The exemption license contemplates an annual fee of $500 and satisfaction of a multi-part

- the animal must be registered with AKC, UKC or some equivalent purebred registry;
- the animal must be be microchipped
- the owner's home must pass a home inspection by Dept. Animal Care and Control
(suitable ventilation, area for animal, security, etc.)
- the animal must have passed health test (OFA given in the draft)
- the animal must have passed the AKC CGC test or American Temperament Testing test
- the owner must be in compliance with all applicable laws.

In response to the question of whether this would be forward-looking or expost facto
legislation, the Director stated that it would be expost facto, which more simply put
means that there would be no "grandfathering" of unaltered dogs already

The $500 fee was discussed at length; that fee is being considered because the County

mandates that the Department recover the full costs of the resulting legislation
(recovers the costs of enforcing, etc.).

Loren, Leri and I addressed concerns arising from the overview of the proposed ordinance
together with many outlined prior to the meeting which, in no particular order, included:

- the discriminatory nature of BSL, impact re: insurance, difficulties with breed ID
, fiscal impact re: shows (we urged that if spay/neuter legislation be made, it be made
to include all breeds and breed mixes, subject to exemption for those showing,
competing in sanctioned events, etc.).

- the conflict between the introductory paragraphs of Mayor Antonovich's motion and
the "empowering" or directive clause, which does not specifically identify pit bulls or

- the requirements of Code of Ethics clubs, such as GSRC and ARC
- what constitutes a "registry"
- why it is inappropriate to provide a profit-monopoly to any organization by making
it the provider of testing
- the timing for spay/neuter
- what should be included in the list of "satisfactory activities" i.e., obedience
courses, courses offered by ASPCALA, working titles, show titles, training by
individuals, etc.
- the timing (window) that should be allowed to complete certain actions such as CGC
or other training/testing
- that not every person who shows is a breeder; that certain persons may wish to
compete with their unaltered animals but may never breed
- that the people who license, microchip, and train/socialize their dogs are not
contributing to the overpopulation.
- the ordinance as proposed doesn't consider that we don't get OFA certifications
until after 24 months, while requiring spay/neuter at 6 months.
- where a dog is considered to be domiciled and whether the legislation would impact
those traveling to and from shows
- legislation and exemptions considered in other areas (i.e., showing in sanctioned
event x times per year).
- that the popularity of a particular breed shifts from time to time and that this
would undoubtedly become a lengthy list of breeds
- fiscal impact

It was apparent that the instruction given by the Board to Director Mayeda is in conflict
with the stated purpose of the ordinance. Director Mayeda repeatedly stated that the
ordinance was not to address "dangerous and vicious" dogs - but, today, in pertinent part,
a letter I received from Mayor Antonovich stated:

"The ordinance would implement a spay and neuter program and place other breeding
restrictions on specific breeds of dogs that have statistically shown a high propensity
for vicious attacks on humans and other domestic animals."

We discussed the fact that the attacks being used to herald this ordinance were by
neutered and mix-breed dogs.

The Director agreed that she could readily foresee additions to the list (Akitas, Chows,
etc.) and that she would prefer, and last year advised that Board to allow, non-breed
specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinances.

While agreeing that those of us who license, train, socialize and compete with our dogs
are not contributing to the problem, Director Mayeda plainly stated that she must return
with the requested ordinance per the directive of the Board of Supervisors
(which we understood, given the nature of her employment). We implored her to:

- recognize the flaws in the draft ordinance that we discussed
- state to the Board that she met with us, that several concerns not previously been
addressed arose which require additional time to address and incorporate, and to request
the Board to table the vote until such time as a second revision could be drafted

- refrain from penalizing the responsible owner and to consider some of the many
alternatives we discussed which were directed toward solving the problems associated with

Director Mayeda has informally agreed, subject to our presence at the February 21st Board
of Supervisors meeting, to state that she met with us and believes it appropriate to
table voting until a second revision can be drafted.

This is not to say that the Board will accept and grant that request; it is only to say
that Director Mayeda did appear to be sensitive to our concerns and to addressing some of
the flaws in the draft (or at least what we deemed flaws). She also added that
there will be a public meeting on the 15th of February with the deputies
to each L.A. County Supervisor; this would be a good opportunity to have voices and
concerns heard.

We also obtained and discussed certain statistics for fiscal year 2004/2005 regarding pit
bulls and rottweilers in LA County shelters. Notably, the populous was 16.4% pit/pit mix,
5.5% rottweiler, 9.7% labrador and 20.8& GSD (the Director added the caveat that
many of the breeds are mis-identified or lumped into one category or another in the tally).
The statistics provided were for shelters serviced by LA County;
they did not include incorporated cities unless those cities contracted with the
County for services. The statistics are not published and require some explanation
regarding their presentation.

In sum, what we learned is that:

the current ordinance is admittedly flawed and will impose financial and other
restrictions and mandates upon owners of unaltered pit-bulls and rottweilers (and mixes)
if adopted as-is;

while receptive to our concerns, there is insufficient time to have the concerns
expressed incorporated into a "second revision" of the ordinance or to have a second
revision prior to presentation to the Board of Supervisors at the meeting on February

that our action is necessary with respect to the pending ordinance if we expect to get it
modified in any way.

If any of you have been told you should not attend meetings or take any other responsible
activity (letter-writing, calling, etc.), let me assure you that was bad advice;
this isn't over but will be unless you act and join with others, especially those
involved with breeds other than those targeted initially) to make your concerns and voices heard.
If you want one opinion, it is mine and as follows:

Mayor Antonovich requested this ordinance targeting pit bulls and rottweilers to appease
his constituency knowing that by limiting the ordinance to these two breeds initially,
voter impact would be manageable; if enough voters involved in many breeds come forward
to be heard and present a sufficient voting block to make 3 supervisors nervous,
the ordinance will not pass as drafted and we will have opportunity to have fair,
balanced and non-breed specific laws enacted to address the problem of
overpopulation (while reminding Mayor Antonovich that, pursuant to the opinion
of the Director of Animal Care and Control, there are already ample laws and precedent
to address dangerous and vicious dogs, but not enough resources within the Department).

I will write more later on what you can do but, in the meantime, please clear your
calendar for the LA BOS meeting on February 21st (let's say that's the most important one
of two) and, if possible, for the meeting with the Supervisors' deputies on the 15th.
Also clear some time for phone calls and letters - unless you simply want to sit
back and watch your basic freedoms be abrogated or extinguished. $500 a year to own a pet and compete?

Permission to cross-post as-is is granted.

Jeremy Schuster