California AB 418 – Ban on Ear Cropping

BILL NUMBER: AB 418	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Koretz

FEBRUARY 15, 2005

An act to add Section 597.7 to the Penal Code, relating to animals.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 418, as introduced, Koretz. Dogs: animal cruelty: ear cropping. Existing law makes it a crime for any person to engage in acts that constitute cruelty to animals, as specified. This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to perform, or otherwise procure or arrange for the performance of, an ear cropping procedure on any dog within this state, except if performed by a licensed veterinarian solely for a therapeutic purpose, as defined. The prohibition would not apply to the owning, harboring, selling, buying, adopting, or showing at a dog show or competition of a dog with cropped ears. A person who violates this provision would be subject to a maximum civil penalty of $10,000, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program upon local government.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 597.7 is added to the Penal Code , to read: 597.7. (a) Any person who performs, or otherwise procures or arranges for the performance of, an ear cropping procedure on any dog within this state is guilty of a misdemeanor.(b) (1) This section does not apply to a procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian solely for a therapeutic purpose. (2) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any of the following: (A) Showing a dog with cropped ears in a dog show or competition.

(B) Owning or harboring a dog with cropped ears. (C) Selling, buying, or adopting a dog with cropped ears. (c) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code, may enforce this chapter. (d) (1)Any person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation. (2) The civil penalty shall be payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce this section to offset the costs to the agency related to court proceedings. (e) A person or entity that violates this section may be prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred. (f) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Ear cropping" means the surgical alteration, manipulation, or removal of any part of a dog's ear so that the ear then heals in a pointed, erect, or severed state. (2) "Therapeutic purpose" means a medically necessary procedure to address a disease or injury of the dog's ear or to address a condition that jeopardizes the dog's health. "Therapeutic purpose" does not include the prevention of an ear infection. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Animal Defense League Activists Acquitted; Sue City of Los Angeles

In March, Animal Defense League activists Pamelyn Ferdin and Natalie Norcross were acquitted on charges of illegally demonstrating outside of the home of Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn. Following their acquittal, Ferdin and Norcross announced they were filing a $3 million lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles claiming that it violated their civil rights in arresting them.

As this site noted last summer, the Animal Defense League has targeted LA’s mayor and those who work in the city’s six animal shelters. The ADL wants LA’s shelters to become no-kill, which the city argues would be far too expensive (according to the ADL’s figures, the city kills 50,000 animals annually).

Source:

Animal-Rights Activists Sue City. Blair Clarkson, Daily Journal, March 23, 2005.

San Pedro TWO trial VERDICT IN!. Press Release, Animal Defense League, March 18, 2005.

Peter Young Arrested After Seven Years on the Run

Animal rights extremist Peter Young, 27, was arrested on March 21 after seven years on the run. Young was indicted in 1998 in a number of break-ins at fur farms in Wisconsin.

The government alleges that Young and Justin Samuel broke in to a number of fur farms and released the animals there. In 1999, Samuels was extradited from Belgium and plead guilty to two misdemeanors arising from the fur farm break-ins. As part of a plea deal, Samuel agreed to provide law enforcement with testimony against his co-conspirators, including Young, which made Samuels persona non grata among activists.

Young was arrested at a Starbucks in San Jose, California, after he attempted to shoplift several CDs. Fortunately, an on-duty, uniformed police officer was also in the Starbucks (these activists are brilliant, eh?) and arrested Young.

Young was being held in isolation after his arrest because he refused to have a tuberculosis test because it was not vegan. He was also whining that Santa Clara County corrections wouldn’t provide him with vegan food (though they did offer him vegetarian fare).

An obvious question is where Young has been for seven years and whether or not other activists have helped him hid. As Fur Commission USA’s Teresa Platt told the Mercury News,

I’d like to know who introduce him to this, and who indoctrinated him. And who’s been hiding him? You can’t tell me that nobody knew where he was for seven years.

Samuel served two years in prison for his part in the break-ins, and is reportedly living in San Diego, California.

Young could potentially serve life in prison if he is convicted an all charges.

Sources:

Activist eluded capture for years. Dana Hull, Mercury News, March 29, 2005.

Wanted animal rights activist arrested after 7 years on the run. Associated Press, March 29, 2005.

He’s A Good Boy — He Just Occasionally Commits Acts of Arson!

The Auburn Journal ran an article on March 20 about accused arson Ryan Lewis, 21, who remains in jail in Sacramento while awaiting a trial on federal arson and conspiracy charges.

Lewis, you might remember from our previous coverage of his case, allegedly planted incendiary devices at several sites near Sacramento, most of which failed to ignite. Lewis did allegedly cause about $50,000 in fire damage at an apartment complex that was under construction, but the quick response of the fire department limited damages.

At the site of the attacks, Lewis allegedly claimed the acts in the name of the Earth Liberation Front, allegedly painting “ELF” at two of sites hit by arson.

So the article is a bit odd — the gist of it is that Lewis’ family insisting that he is not a terrorist but simply a low-level vandal.

According to the paper, Lewis’ relatives have been flooding the newspaper with letters making their case that poor Ryan Lewis is simply misunderstood. For example, Lewis’s aunt, Monique Lewis, penned this bit of wisdom about the arsons,

In the ’60s events such as those that Ryan is being accused of would have been considered ‘protesting,’ but now it is labeled ‘terrorism.’

Okay, maybe in parts of the South it might have been considered non-violent to firebomb a Black church or home, but in the rest of the civilized world, such acts were always considered acts of violence. Does Monique Lewis really expect to believe that if someone tried to firebomb her domicile, that she’d just pass it off as nothing more than political protest?

Ryan’s father, Greg, excuses the arsons as simply “political and environmental protest gone awry.” Huh? The only thing that went awry is that most of the devices Lewis planted failed to ignite.

Ryan’s family tries to downplay his connection with any sort of broader Earth Liberation Front conspiracy, but Ryan’s own statement to FBI puts lies to their statements. According to the affidavit filed by the FBI agent investigating the case,

After initially denying any knowledge of the arson attempts, Ryan Lewis admitted to transporting to the Auburn arson scene, components of the incendiary devices knowing that the would be used to commit an arson. These components included six, white, five-gallon buckets containing a mixture of red diesel and gasoline. Ryan Lewis also admitted to having stolen the red diesel fuel from four construction sites in the Auburn area. He also admitted to knowing and being in contact with the individuals who committed the attempted arsons prior to the arsons.

Ryan claimed that he did not have any involvement with the Lincoln arson attempt and that he does not know the identity of the persons who committed that crime or who used his components to commit the Auburn attempted arson. He claimed that following the Lincoln arson attempt, he communicated with the perpetrators of that crime who directed him to deliver the components to the Auburn location.

The statements of Ryan’s friends link him solidly to the first attempted arson, and his own statements link him not only to the other arsons, but to a wider conspiracy involving as-yet-unindicted individuals. By Ryan’s own statements, he’s not some loose cannon running amok by himself, but rather participated in a relatively sophisticated criminal conspiracy that included layers of secrecy to insulate and protect the identities of those involved. Sorry, Greg, but that’s not just “protest gone awry,” but rather a young adult making all the wrong choices.

The Auburn Journal notes that while in prison Ryan has reached out to other extremists,

A posting on the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network Web site, www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk, claims “Eco-defense remand prisoner” Lewis has contacted the North American ELP confirming that he welcomes letters of support.

From other information in the affidavits against Ryan Lewis and his friend, it seems Lewis became infatuated with a violent strain of anarchism and saw himself as some sort of modern-day revolutionary doing his part to overthrow “the system.”

It is understandable that Lewis’ family is concerned about his welfare and future, but the bottom line is that people who run around firebombing buildings out of political animus are a menace, and must be dealt with harshly in order to deter those who might think about emulating them. Lewis had numerous opportunities open to him for genuine political protest, but instead chose arson as his means of expressing his discontent. His family asks us to consider mitigating circumstances and try to understand Ryan — something Ryan himself refused to do for others while he was busing fill plastic jugs with gasoline and spray painting “ELF” on his targets.

Assuming he is found guilty, a long prison sentence is more than justified in his case.

Source:

Questions still remain around arson suspects. Penne Usher, Auburn Journal, March 20, 2005.

Just How Influential Is the California Animal Association?

In January, animal rights groups in California banded together to form a new statewide umbrella organization, the California Animal Association, to lobby the state for animal rights-related legislation. So how effective is the new organization?

Well, in March the California Animal Association sent out an alert asking activists to contact California legislators to support California Senate Bill 662 — a bill the CAA is pushing which would amend California’s animal slaughter statutes to cover poultry. Various animal interests, including the Farm Bureau and California’s own Department of Food and Agriculture in turn oppose the bill on the grounds that it would simply be too expensive to include poultry under auspices of the state’s slaughter laws.

So far, however, the bill’s sponsor, Carol Migden, can’t even be persuaded to hold a hearing on the bill. Twice a hearing on the measure has been scheduled, and each time the hearing has been canceled at the request of Migden.

The bill is such a high priority for Migden that she doesn’t even bother to include it on her website among a list of current legislation she’s sponsoring, though she does such important item as a bill she’s sponsoring to increase fines for traffic violations that occur on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Clearly they’re holding politicians’ feet to the fire on animal issues.

The full text of California Senate Bill 662 can be read here.

Source:

Letters of Support Needed on SB 662. Press Release, California Animal Association,

California Senate Bill 662 – Humane Slaughter of Poultry

BILL NUMBER: SB 662	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Senator Migden

FEBRUARY 22, 2005

An act to amend Section 19501 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to animals.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 662, as introduced, Migden. Animal slaughter. Existing law provides that cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats, fallow deer, and poultry, not including spent hens and small game birds, shall be slaughtered by prescribed methods. This bill would provide that the slaughter of spent hens and small game birds is governed by these provisions. Because this bill would change the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 19501 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read: 19501. (a) Cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats, or fallow deer, or poultry shall be slaughtered by the methods prescribed in this section. No state agency shall contract for, purchase, procure, or sell all or any portion of any animal, unless that animal is slaughtered in conformity with this chapter. This chapter applies to any person engaged in the business of slaughtering animals enumerated in this section, or any person slaughtering any of those animals when all, or any part of, that animal is subsequently sold or used for commercial purposes.(b) All cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats, or fallow deer , or poultry subject to this part, or poultry subject to Part 1 (commencing with Section 24501) of, Part 2 (commencing with Section 25401) of, and Part 3 (commencing with Section 26401) of, Division 12 shall be slaughtered by either of the following prescribed methods: (1) The animal shall be rendered insensible to pain by a captive bolt, gunshot, electrical or chemical means, or any other means that is rapid and effective before being cut, shackled, hoisted, thrown, or cast, with the exception of poultry which may be shackled. (2) The animal shall be handled, prepared for slaughter, and slaughtered in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument. This section does not apply applies

to the slaughter of spent hens and small game birds, as defined by the department by regulation. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.