Lawmakers debate foie gras, other animal measures
SACRAMENTO Animal protection measures scheduled for key votes in the next couple of weeks pose tough questions for state lawmakers, with the answers carrying moral and monetary consequences.
Should hounds be used to hunt bobcats and bears? How long can cash-short shelters be required to keep strays? Will gourmet chefs bid to overturn a looming ban on the forced-feeding of geese and ducks so they can put foie gras back on the menu? And can landlords make tenants declaw pets?
Moreover, a pair of San Diego County legislators are in the middle of what has developed into classic turf battles over two routine pet-owner responsibilities: grooming and teeth cleaning.
“People with pets really do pay attention to what happens up here” in Sacramento, said Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, who has proposed a measure aimed at pet groomers that by his own admission has “gotten some notoriety.”
Assemblyman Martin Garrick, a Solana Beach Republican who has introduced a bill regarding teeth-cleaning practices, agreed that Californians tune in when it comes to their pets.
“People have a close attachment. Dogs and cats are family,” Garrick said.
Animal-rights groups have been winning more than losing lately in the Legislature and at the ballot box. Last year, seven of the nine priority bills sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States were signed into law. Nearly 4 out of 10 (44 percent) of the 120 Sacramento lawmakers earned a 100 percent rating on the group’s score card, and no one was in the opposite corner more than half the time.
“The atmospherics on animal issues are becoming more and more favorable. The culture is moving in our direction,” said Jennifer Fearing, state director for the organization.
The successful strategy Fearing has employed is to push measures that have strong public support, come with small price tags and still produce significant change.
“We’re trying to be solutions-oriented while we focus on stopping the worst abuses,” she said.
Following is a sample of some of the more contentious bills coming up this session:
Foie gras on the menu?
California’s ban on foie gras, set to take effect July 1, has been debated nationwide by chefs, diners, animal advocates and lawmakers.
Supporters of the law suspect some influential chefs will try to overturn the ban by introducing a new bill to overturn it. Foie gras comes from the livers of ducks and geese that have been forced-fed to quickly fatten them — a practice that animal-rights groups decry as inhumane while supporters maintain does not harm the fowl.
Lawmakers adopted the measure in 2004, but delayed implementation to give producers time to adapt. The Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which did not return emails seeking comment, has reportedly hired lobbyists to lay the groundwork for new legislation.
John Burton, a former state senator from San Francisco who authored the original bill, has sent lawmakers a letter accusing the chefs and a foie gras producer of backpedaling from a 2004 compromise.
Actress Doris Day also submitted her own letter: “Foie gras producers are cruel to these animals for no reason other than to produce a delicacy. It is just wrong. This law represents a common-sense measure to prohibit one of the worst forms of animal abuse.”
Groomers in a buzz
Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, sparked backlash when he submitted legislation to force pet groomers to obtain licenses and comply with a laundry list of regulations.
Vargas, in an interview, said his Senate Bill 969 will be “ratcheted down” to call for a voluntary certification system overseen by an appointed council consisting of representatives for the SPCA, groomers and lawyers.
He conceded that licenses are “onerous and expensive.” But he refuses to back down from a number of stipulations in the bill, including insurance requirements, tracking specific information about each pet and owner, proof of vaccinations and cages for animals not being groomed.
San Diego groomer Eileen Hecker, who owns Hot Dogity Do’s, said the legislation still goes too far. One example: the cage requirement.
“I can think of six dogs that if I put them in a cage will go ballistic,” she said. Cage-free “creates a better, happier environment for the dog.”
Hecker said she already has a certificate, spending $4,000 to go to school. “How are most groomers going to afford that? Groomers don’t make that much money. We do it because we love animals.”
Vargas said oversight is necessary because too many pets are being harmed by inexperienced, unregulated groomers.
Putting teeth into the law
Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Solana Beach, has stepped into a long-simmering issue about who is allowed to perform a teeth-cleaning process called scaling. Veterinarians say they should have exclusivity given the necessary training and the risk involved, but mobile pet-care specialists say scaling is safe and they can do it cheaper.
The California Veterinary Medical Board is considering whether to ban mobile cleaners from doing scaling. That’s where Garrick’s Assembly Bill 2304 comes in. He wants to make sure mobile cleaners can use scaling devices.
Veterinarians “are desperate to retain any revenue stream they possibly can. Teeth cleaning is one of them,” said Cindy Collins, president of Canine Care, which has about 600 locations statewide. Putting animals under anesthesia so vets can do extensive scaling is expensive and a health risk, she said.
Contra Costa County veterinarian Jay Kerr counters that most mobile scaling services are rendered without training and can lacerate the animals’ gums or worse.
“There are pets being harmed by this procedure. Pet owners are being misled,” said Kerr, president of the California Veterinary Medical Association. Kerr said going to a vet can also detect more serious health problems early, saving owners money and sometimes the lives of pets.
Andy Jecusco, who runs Breath Savers Pet Dental Care out of Irvine, said he usually works in conjunction with a vet. He charges a $150 flat fee and is in the San Diego area about six days a month.
Jecusco, who said he trained under a vet in Colorado, said he needs the right to use a scaler. That’s because more routine — and less expensive cleaning — helps prevent disease, he said, while owners are urged to bring their pets to a vet if he sees certain problems.
Hounds and hunting
Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, is carrying Senate Bill 1221, which would ban hunters from using hounds when chasing bears and bobcats. Lieu said the dogs can hurt animals other than the intended prey. Or, the bears or bobcats could turn and harm the dogs.
Lieu said he doesn’t hunt. “But I know there are hunters who hunt bears without hounds. It’s doable,” he said.
Joe Sovinsky, director of Wilderness Unlimited in San Diego, does hunt bears without hounds. But he thinks hunters should be allowed to use dogs if they wish.
“The houndsmen who run their dogs (after bears) are respective people. They love their dogs,” he said. An advantage is that a treed bear can be checked first to make sure it is not a cub or a pregnant or nursing female.
That’s one of the points raised by Josh Brones, president of California Houndsmen for Conservation based in Sacramento County.
“Using dogs allows you to catch and release,” said Brones, who estimates that he “can count on one hand” the number of bears he has killed in 26 years.
“It’s very similar to catch and release fishing,” he said. Hunters are allowed to take only one bear per season and only 1,700 can be killed annually statewide.
Ali Crumpacker, director of the Ramona-based Animal Care Center that includes 16 rescued bobcats, is not swayed. She said her primary concern is the danger to the dogs.
“Bobcats fight back. It’s not uncommon to find dogs are injured,” she said. “These cats can be pretty vicious.”
Other key measures
•Repealing a mandate that the state reimburse local governments when strays are kept longer than three days in shelters. The requirement cost the state $46.3 million over the past two years. Gov. Jerry Brown proposes to not cover the extra days, but animal-rights advocates say that will force financially challenged shelters to euthanize animals more quickly.
•Senate Bill 1229 would bar landowners from requiring tenants to have their pets declawed or “devocalized.”
•Senate Bill 1145 would increase penalties for cockfighting, including fines on spectators.