Tag: pet legislation

Posted on

Woman sues to prove animals are ‘living souls,’ not property by Ed Boks

“Today Show” contributor Scott Stump recently reported on a New Yorker named Elena Zakharova who filed a civil suit in a New York court against an Upper East Side pet store. The store, Raising Rover, sold Zakharova a puppy that developed numerous medical complications. The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, and medical bills, as if the dog were a person rather than an inanimate product.

New York law considers pets “property,’ but the complaint wants to change that definition. The goal is to help shut down puppy mills that often mass-produce animals sold in boutique pet stores like Raising Rover, where “Umka” was purchased.

“Umka is a living soul,’ the suit reads. ” She feels love and pain.’

Ownership of Raising Rover has changed since Zakharova purchased Umka.

“I know nothing about the sale. The prior owner has the records. We are careful about where we get our puppies,” Raising Rover’s new owner Ben Logan told the New York Daily News. Logan declined to provide information about the prior owner.

Zakharova is seeking compensation for surgeries and medical treatment for Umka totaling about $8,000. She also wants a full return of the dog’s sale price plus interest since the date of purchase in February 2011. Zakharova intends to donate any award to an animal charity, Lask said.

New York state has a “Puppy Lemon Law’ that allows buyers to return sick animals to a pet store within 14 days for a full refund. The law is meant to slow puppy mills’ mass production of dogs with inherent medical problems. However, Umka’s medical issues did not become apparent for months after Zakharova purchased the dog.

“The Puppy Lemon Law doesn’t cut it,’ Lask said.

If the definition of a pet is changed from property to a sentient being, it could substantially change the amount of damages awarded when an owner buys a defective dog born in a puppy mill. That could have a chilling effect on pet stores buying animals from puppy mills fearing large payouts from lawsuits.

“It’s going to put a number on my dog’s broken hips that you created because you’re negligent, you’re greedy, and you’re mass-producing puppies,’ Lask said. “Right now, even if you return it, they just kill it, which is so inhumane.’

Lask is an animal lover who owns a Chihuahua named Lincoln who was found to have a hole in his skull months after her purchase. That discovery led her to investigate the practices of puppy mills. She waited six years to find a case to help correct the larger issue.

“It’s much bigger than this case,’ she said. “I am looking to shut down the puppy mill world.’

The main issue will be proving to a judge that pets are living souls who experience feelings of pain and emotion. “Human beings have treated other humans as property in history before recognizing it was wrong,” said Lask, “so it’s not too much of a stretch to ask the courts to change the definition.”

“It’s already a felony to abuse an animal. If animals have criminal rights, why not put rights on a damaged leg or a heart condition? If we’re not equating (an animal) to a human being, and we’re not equating it to a table, there has to be something in the middle.’

The suit brings to light the practices of puppy mills and their damaging effects on animals and their human owners. A 2011 investigation by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that Raising Rover, where Umka was purchased, was one of 11 upscale pet stores that purchased animals from Midwestern puppy mills with horrendous conditions.

The moral of the story is buyer beware! Experts agree consumers should opt to adopt from shelters to avoid the trauma that comes from paying exorbitant fees for pet store animals with hidden defects.

Posted on

Assembly Bill 1634 – A Bill Whose Time Has Come by Ed Boks

I want to thank the City Council for its unanimous support of Assembly Bill 1634 – The California Healthy Pet Bill – legislation designed to end the incalculable suffering of unwanted homeless and lost dogs and cats in the State of California. This April 17 vote places the City of Los Angeles officially on record in support of the legislation and could be a difference-maker in the contentious debate up in Sacramento.

This bill is particularly important to the City of Los Angeles and, in fact, was originally given birth by the staff of LA Animal Services working closely with legal experts, animal control professionals and key activists from all over the state.

Over the past several months, with the extraordinary help of California Healthy Pets Coalition director (and volunteer) Judie Mancuso and many others, this bill has taken shape and garnered the support of the California Veterinary Medical Association, the California Association of Animal Control Directors (representing over 100 animal control agencies across the state of California), the State Humane Association of California, the Humane Society of the United States, In Defense of Animals, The Animal Protection Institute, the SPCA-LA, the Rescue Humane Alliance LA (which represents 65 LA animal welfare organizations), thousands of activists and organizations, and dozens of other animal welfare and control organizations in LA and across California.

AB 1634 is a bill whose time has come. Several years ago, the City of Los Angeles became a national humane leader by committing itself to ending euthanasia as a methodology for controlling pet overpopulation. This commitment was built upon the resounding voter approval of nearly $160 million to construct seven animal shelters to manage the crushing number of lost and homeless animals taken in by LA Animal Services every year (over 50,000 animals in some years). Over the past six years the City Council had to increase Animal Services’ budget by 36%, with a 28% increase in the current fiscal year alone, even in the face of an extremely tight City budget.

In the hardball world of politics, numbers such as these can be important. Other important numbers in the AB 1634 debate include the $240 million a year in taxpayer dollars it cost the state’s public animal control agencies to care for, then kill approximately 430,000 animals last year. Then there’s the $120 million the state government has had to pay local agencies to fund the extra days of animal care required by the “Hayden Bill,” approved in 1997. This reimbursable mandate is growing at a rate of $30 million annually.

Numbers like these remind us that trying to solve the pet overpopulation problem from the back end is expensive. It is like trying to mop up a flooded basement without first turning the water off.

Over the last few years, we’ve made some progress in Los Angeles, using licensing incentives, stepped-up adoption programs and alliances with the rescue community to bring down our kill rate by about 20% since 2000 to around 40%. We’ve also reduced the number of impounds by a similar percentage by employing aggressive voluntary spay/neuter programs. But many jurisdictions around the state aren’t doing nearly as well, with kill rates ranging from 50% to as high as 90%.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. AB 1634 provides us with an elegant, but simple tool for ending the insanity of escalating budgets and body counts. Combined with public awareness education and outreach and even more spay/neuter services, this legislation can help other animal control agencies get a handle on the problem for the very first time, while agencies like Animal Services can use it to strive for the even lower euthanasia rates our animals deserve and our constituents demand.

On behalf of the nearly 400 employees of Animal Services and the hundreds of volunteers and partners we have throughout Los Angeles who feel the brunt of pet overpopulation everyday I want to thank everyone who made this vote possible.

Mahatma Gandhi told us that the best way to evaluate the morality of a community is to look at how we treat our animals. Our City Council has risen to the occasion again by accepting our collective responsibility for a tenacious problem while at the same time helping to save the lives and end the suffering of countless generations of unwanted animals. They did that by supporting AB 1634, the fiscally prudent and humane solution to LA’s, and California’s, pet overpopulation problems. It is my hope that all our representatives on both sides of the aisle in Sacramento will be just as fiscally prudent and humane as the bill continues its journey toward passage and Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature. This one’s for the animals!

For more information on this life saving public health and safety initiative visit http://www.cahealthypets.com/

Posted on

Humane Transport of Animals and SB 1806 by Ed Boks

Every year animals die due to inappropriate transportation methods by air and car. The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services recommends that animals not be transported during extremely warm or cold temperatures. When necessary to do so, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure the health and well-being of the animal.

When traveling by air, only reputable airlines that have a written policy on animal transportation should be used. Transportation should be scheduled when ambient temperatures are more likely to be within animal health and safety margins. When traveling by car, an animal should be confined within a crate or restrained with a seatbelt. No animal should be transported in the back of a pick up truck or allowed to hang out of a window without being secured. It is cruel and inhumane to keep an animal in a parked vehicle without air-conditioning for any amount of time when outside temperatures represent a risk to the health and well-being of the animal.

In keeping with this position, LA Animal Services worked with Senator Liz Figueroa and Assemblyman Lloyd Levine on Senate Bill 1806. Thanks to the hard work of LA Animal Services’ staff and the tireless efforts of LA Animal Services’ volunteer Judie Mancuso, it appears this life saving legislation will soon become state law with broad bi-partisan support.

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle ran the following article on the successful passage of this legislation so far:

Bill on leaving pets in cars goes to governor
Measure makes it a crime to subject animals to the heat

08-15) 04:00 PDT Sacramento — Attention pet owners. You might want to think twice before you leave your pooch in the car on a warm day while you run into the store for a few minutes.

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs a state Senate bill headed for his desk, it will be a crime to leave pets in unattended cars under conditions that pose a danger to the animals.

The Assembly on Monday gave a 64-7 thumbs up to pass SB1806 written by State Sen. Liz Figueroa, D-Fremont, that also seeks to impose a fine of up to $500 and as much as six months in jail.

But perhaps more importantly, the legislation would empower animal control officers to remove pets in distress even if it means breaking the window of a car to gain access.

“We hear incidents (about pets dying in locked cars) just about every summer, and you’ve all seen dogs left thoughtlessly in the car. This is not to just punish those who are offending, but to save the animals,” said Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-San Fernando Valley, who presented the bill Monday.

However, actually breaking into a car to save an animal will be the last resort, said Ed Boks, general manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, the bill’s chief supporter. Animal control officers will first try to locate the owner and then try picking the lock to open the car door, he said.

Nevertheless, under the existing law, forcibly gaining entry into a vehicle is illegal for animal control officers, so they must call police to do it, Boks said. In many cases, by the time police officers arrive, it’s too late, he added.

There are no statewide statistics on how many pets die each summer, Boks said. However, animal-control agencies across the state get many calls every summer, especially when a heat wave sets in, he said.

But Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Riverside, argued that existing laws against cruelty to animals are sufficient.

“This is criminalizing negligent behavior,” he said. “If you intentionally leave an animal in a locked car on a hot day to endanger it, then we already have cruelty to animals laws. But if we’re just talking about leaving your dog in a car for a few minutes, that’s just negligence.”

But Boks said too often pet owners horribly underestimate the amount of time they think they’ll spend running an errand while their animal is in the car.

“You go into the store thinking you’re just going to buy a gallon of milk, but you run into your friend, have a chat, and it ends up being 15 to 20 minutes,” he said.

Boks said most healthy pets could not withstand much more than a few minutes of 107 degrees body heat before suffering brain damage or death.

The LA Times ran the following article today:

State Assembly Approves Bill Aimed at Saving Pets
Measure would make it a crime to endanger animals by leaving them in locked vehicles.

SACRAMENTO — People who endanger their pets by leaving them in cars could face up to six months in jail under legislation approved Monday by the state Assembly.

The measure would bar people from leaving or confining an animal in an unattended motor vehicle with conditions that could lead to suffering, injury or death. Those conditions could include lack of ventilation, extreme hot or cold weather or an absence of food or water.

First offenders could be fined up to $100 if the animal is unharmed, and as much as $500 and half a year in county jail if the pet incurs “great bodily injury.” Repeat violators would face the more stringent punishment regardless of whether an animal was hurt.

The legislation notes that even when vehicle windows are left slightly open, a car’s interior can heat to as much as 102 degrees within 10 minutes on an 85-degree day. Even a dog in good health can only withstand a body temperature of 107 or 108 degrees for a brief period before suffering brain damage or death, the legislation states.

The bill would allow a police officer, humane officer or animal control officer to remove an animal from a vehicle if they believe it is at risk. It would then be taken to a shelter or veterinary hospital, and the owner could not reclaim it until after paying all costs associated with its care.

The measure, SB 1806, sponsored by state Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), passed the Assembly, 64 to 7. It previously was approved by the Senate, 31 to 3. Before being sent to the governor, the measure will return to the Senate for final approval of amendments added by the Assembly.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.