A Nonvoting Group Shows Political
Clout
There is no lack of
state legislation to protect animals.
By Carla
Hall, Times Staff Writer
This could be the year that ferrets win their freedom in
California. No more sneaking into the veterinarian's office or supping
surreptitiously on cat food. If state lawmakers approve, ferrets may be granted
amnesty in the last place on the North American continent that still outlaws
them.
And it's not just ferrets that could get new
protection.
This also could be the year that California lawmakers ban the
declawing of cats, prevent unweaned birds from being sold by pet stores and bar
shelters from sending animals to research institutions. Another bill would make
it a crime to keep calves and pregnant sows cramped in crates. And one piece of
legislation would toughen the existing law against cockfighting, ratcheting up
the maximum fine from $5,000 to $20,000.
Every year, the Legislature
tackles a small complement of animal welfare bills. This year there have been at
least 10, although some have already died in committee. And though the issues
may be more quirky than weighty, they stir passions and provoke ribbing among
lawmakers. Even howling, on occasion.
A couple of years ago, when
Assemblyman Ken Maddox (R-Costa Mesa) presented a bill regulating dog breeding,
he was greeted with bi-partisan barking on the Assembly floor. "It sounded like
the inside of a kennel," he said. "Hey, as long as I got their votes." He
did.
'Baseline Protection'
California is an animal-rights
activist's dream. Measuring by legislation getting governors' signatures,
"California is far and away the best state in the country," said Sara Amundson,
deputy director and legislative director of the Doris Day Animal League,
headquartered in Washington, D.C. "As far as baseline protection for animals
goes, California is the best."
Last year, California became the second
state to pass a bill requiring that anti-freeze contain a bitter-tasting agent
to discourage pets, wildlife and children from drinking it. . A bill passed in
2000 made the state the first to bar manufacturers and testing companies from
using animals for testing when a scientifically valid alternative method of
testing is available.
"Very few states regulate research animals, circus
animals, sanctuary animals, dealers and breeders," said Nicole Paquette, general
counsel of the Animal Protection Institute, which is headquartered in Sacramento
but lobbies for animal legislation across the country. Paquette said that when
her group gets turned down in other states, "what we always hear is, 'Only in
California.' ''
This year, if the ban on declawing passes, California
will be the only state in the country with such a statewide restriction. If the
bill banning confining crates for pigs and calves passes, California will be the
only state to outlaw them for both kinds of animals, according to Gene Bauston,
president of Farm Sanctuary, the group that brought the bill to its author,
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley). New Jersey is considering a ban on
2-foot-wide crates for veal calves, and Florida recently banned gestation crates
for pigs through a ballot initiative.
Usually, Democrats introduce animal
bills. "Republicans are naturally regulation-averse," said Maddox, who owns a
Pembroke Welsh Corgi named Millie. "I fit that category, but I have a soft spot
for animals."
So do a lot of his colleagues. Animal bills cut across
lines of party, gender and age to connect with the one thing that nearly every
member of the Legislature is or once was: a pet owner.
"There's usually a
personal connection," said Richard Katz, a former Democratic Assembly leader who
spent 16 years in the Legislature and watched such bills come and go -- or, in
the case of ferret legislation, never quite go.
This session, the mantle
of ferret defender goes to Sen. Dede Alpert (D-San Diego), a 12-year veteran of
the Legislature who previously sat in the Assembly. "I would hope I'm better
known for work I've done in education than for this bill," she said.
But
the animal lovers who watch her ferret bill and others affecting animals follow
the process intensely and lobby hard. "They are just passionate," Alpert said.
So are the people who oppose such legislation. Hunters were fervently against
Assemblyman Joe Nation's bill to outlaw the hunting of mourning doves and
white-winged doves. "We've gotten pretty nasty e-mails and calls," said Nation
(D-San Rafael).
He hadn't seen his bill as controversial -- "You can't
argue that people go out to shoot them and eat them" -- but he withdrew it
before it reached the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. "I'm a political
realist," said Nation, who estimated he didn't have the necessary committee
votes.
Ellen Corbett, a Democratic Assemblywoman from San Leandro and the
former mayor of that city, introduced a bill prohibiting the sale of unweaned
baby birds from pet stores to the public. "I think how we treat our animals is
part of how we show our humanity," she said. Even before the bill arrived in a
committee, she had received 300 e-mails and letters in support of it, Corbett
said.
She had introduced the measure after hearing "horror stories" of
young birds mishandled by well-intentioned owners lacking the expertise to care
for them. For instance, birds needing to be fed warmed food were sometimes
accidentally scalded. "You're bringing home a very young bird that needs
constant attention," Corbett said. Her bill is headed to the Assembly
floor.
Declawing Cats
The bill this session that could have
perhaps the biggest effect on pet owners -- and their furniture -- was
introduced by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). It would forbid
declawing of all cats in California, from house pets to lions. The procedure,
called an onychectomy, amputates each of the cat's toes at the last joint. "It's
not some aggressive manicure," said Jennifer Conrad, an exotic-animal
veterinarian in Santa Monica who has repaired the feet of big cats, which are
particularly crippled by the procedure, and who opposes
declawing.
Conrad's work inspired the West Hollywood City Council to ban
declawing earlier this month. The councilman who proposed the ban sent Koretz
information about declawing at a time when Koretz, a former West Hollywood mayor
and councilman, had been considering the issue.
"I found out how painful
it could be for small cats," said Koretz, whose Web site identifies him as an
opponent of animal cruelty. "Some cats totally change their behavior. They bite
more, they stop using the litter box -- and it's because of the
pain."
The California Veterinary Medical Assn. opposes legislation on the
procedure, saying it is an issue between cat owner and veterinarian. Many
veterinarians today counsel cat owners to try alternatives to declawing, but
would rather declaw a cat than see its owner get rid of the pet.
"As a
general surgeon who has done numerous declaws, I don't think this is any more
painful than a spay or a neuter," said William Grant II, a second-generation
veterinarian in Garden Grove and past president of the Southern California
Veterinary Medical Assn. "What was done in declaws 30 years ago is light years
away from now. They were doing things with dog-claw trimmers that had the
potential for disfigurement. We use a laser in our practice, and these cats are
walking the day we do the procedure."
Los Angeles veterinarian Elyse Kent
said she insists on a consultation with any cat owner who seeks a declawing. "I
have to know that the cat is an indoor cat. And it has to be for a legitimate
reason. It can't be because they have a new leather couch," said Kent who runs
the Westside Hospital for Cats.
One of the few reasons for declawing a
cat, she said, is the presence of a person in the house who might get sick from
a cat scratch. Normally, Kent simply shows cat owners how to trim nails or
applies Soft Paws -- vinyl nail caps that can be glued over claws.
Koretz
said he has no desire to compromise on the declawing bill. "A cat is a cat. If
you want to have one, your furniture isn't going to be sacrosanct. Mine
certainly isn't. In fact, I have a chair I've completely given over to the
cat."
Koretz's other potentially controversial bill would prohibit
shelters from selling or donating animals to institutions for research. The
practice already is illegal in many cities and counties, including Los Angeles
County.
Some opponents say the bill would double the number of animals to
be killed, because it would mean that research facilities would turn to breeders
for animals, and shelters would probably euthanize most of theirs.
Donald
Klingborg, an associate dean at the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis,
said live animals are essential for veterinary students practicing surgery, and
most survive. A committee has to approve use of an animal for an operation that
will result in euthanasia. "No animal death is taken lightly at this school,"
Klingborg said.
Koretz's third animal bill this session called for a ban
on hunting bears by tracking them with hounds, which force the animals into
trees so they can be shot. That bill didn't survive the Water, Parks and
Wildlife Committee. "I get grief in general because I'm willing to do bills that
might seem frivolous to some," said Koretz, who once introduced a successful
bill to improve wages and working conditions for sheepherders. "I don't think
animal cruelty is small and frivolous."
Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San
Francisco) had no trouble with the resolution animal advocates asked him to
sponsor this year that proclaimed Feb. 25 to be Spay Day USA -- a day for
Californians to either spay and neuter their cats and dogs or contribute to
organizations that provide such services. "It is about education so pet owners
can be as responsible as possible," he said of the resolution, which recurs
annually.
But Leno, an Assembly freshman and the owner of three parrots,
had a tougher time with a bill that would have stiffened regulations on rodeos.
It was voted down in committee.
Loni Hancock's bill making it a
misdemeanor to confine a calf or a pregnant pig not only faces opposition from
powerful agricultural groups, but also ventures into new territory: the
treatment of animals raised for food. Hancock's bill doesn't require that
animals roam free, but it does provide that they get a little more room to move.
For instance, veal calves hemmed into crates -- immobilization makes for tender
meat -- would have to be able to turn around and lie down in a natural
position.
Hancock, who was an official in President Clinton's Department
of Education, gave the Assembly's Committee on Public Safety a statement saying:
"This bill prevents the most egregious cruelties endured by veal calves and
breeding pigs" without prescribing how the animals must be raised. Having passed
that committee, the bill faces the Agriculture Committee this
week.
Beleaguered Ferret
No animal is a more perennial pet in
Sacramento than the beleaguered ferret, which is illegal only in Hawaii and
California. Most lawmakers who have carried the ferret bill have been treated as
comic relief. Former Republican Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith's last-ditch efforts
on behalf of ferrets one year were famously shot down by then-Speaker Willie
Brown. "That bill is deader than that thing on his head," the speaker quipped,
referring to the lawmaker's hairpiece, according to the San Francisco
Chronicle.
Alpert said she recalled that incident well. "My husband is
having a fit that I'm carrying this ferret bill -- because he thinks it only
makes you look silly," she said. In the past, she voted against ferret bills,
heeding the warnings of state Department of Fish and Game officials that feral
colonies of ferrets might ravage farms and wildlife.
Alpert now says that
has not happened where ferrets are legal. That's why she has corralled a
bi-partisan group of senators as co-authors of the bill. It would bestow amnesty
upon ferrets living in California as of July 2004, provided their owners buy
licenses and have the animals spayed or neutered and vaccinated against rabies.
The money raised from the license fees would fund an environmental impact report
on ferrets.
How many ferrets live in the state is unclear. "Some say
100,000; some say 500,000. Of course, we don't know," Alpert said, "because
they're criminals."
"Ferrets, for some reason, have become the cause
celebre for critter law," said Maddox.