Fields On Mesa Council

Tuesday evening, August 19, the Costa Mesa City Council will vote on a new animal control ordinance imposing penalties on dog owners whose pets make any sound audible at the property line. At the last Council meeting, city staff indicated that they received pretty many calls regarding barking dogs, over seven hundred last year. Of those, ten escalated to formal complaints, three went to mediation and three citations were issued. Guess we need a new ordinance for those three.

While some council members suggested that the ordinance be worded to clearly address sounds normally associated with nuisance animals, such as barking or howling for long periods, Mayor Bever disagreed. He was adamant that the ordinance address any noise made by a dog, including knocking around toys, digging, or pushing his bowl around since those could also “drive you nuts”.

Make Your List

Now that the city is in the business of eliminating anything that could irritate anyone, they can start on my list: People driving 25 miles per hour in the 35 mph zone, and 35 in the 45 zone; people who walk two or three abreast at a snail’s pace down a sidewalk or store aisle; people who park across two parking spaces; power mowers; power edgers grinding and screeching against the pavement; fluorescent lights that flicker or hum; anyone playing Marco Polo for more than six and a half minutes; squealing roof turbines; kids kicking the back of the seat in front of them on an airplane or at the movies; their parents…

I’m just getting warmed up. The problem is, I’m sure I do lots of things that annoy other people. Heck, I even do things that annoy me when I realize I’m doing them.

Is the city going to regulate anything that irritates anyone? Will they make rules limiting how many minutes a day kids can bounce around a basketball in the front yard? Or play ping pong on the patio? What about constant gurgling from backyard fountains? Or pool cleaners? Or noisy skateboard wheels?

Next thing you know, they’ll be making rules against ball games in public parks. Oh, wait. They’re already doing that.

Maybe it depends on who finds what annoying.

Better be careful

If you live near Mr. Bever, be really careful. Don’t let your dog have any squeaky toys, any clunky toys, or anything that might possibly make any audible sound while playing. Stick moleskin on the dog tags so they don’t jingle, though if the city’s so concerned about eliminating any audible sound, they shouldn’t issue metal tags. Eliminate potential crunching noises by feeding only soft food--no Nylabones for your buddy. Get Fido a set of Ugg boots so his toenails won’t click on the pavement, wrap his tail in foam, and don't forget to glue bubble wrap to the sides and bottom of the dog dishes.

Still, just to be on the safe side, get a half a dozen sets of wind chimes in various pitches and timbers to drown out the sound of your dog’s breathing, lest anyone hear it at the property line. Better yet, just leave the leaf blower running.

Creative Financing in Costa Mesa

Recently, spending by the City of Costa has been outstripping revenues, but on July 15, the City Council declined to place any measure on the ballot to increase either the hotel tax or business licenses fees, both among the lowest in Orange County.

But don’t worry. They’ve thought of a new way to raise revenue.

Tonight August 5, the City Council will consider a new animal control ordinance which would result in a first time fine of $250 for a dog that barks for more than a half hour. Fines would escalate for subsequent offenses.

Of course no one wants to listen to a dog that barks for hours on end. Just as no one wants to listen to yowling cats, squawking parrots, or power tools for an extended period either.

But how do they define “barking dog”? Any dog that “barks, bays, howls or makes any noise audible beyond the boundaries of the property on which the dog is situated.” Any noise audible? That could include panting, slurping from the water dish, or even thumping a happy tail against a wall or flower pot.

And why just dogs? The City would retain a part of the existing Code regarding animal noise “to ensure that any noisy animal which creates a nuisance can be addressed”. How is it that the existing code can “ensure” that “any noisy animal…can be addressed”, but cannot adequately address noisy dogs?

In eight years on the City Council I received complaints about noise from boom boxes, dive bars, dance clubs, party houses, leaf blowers, garage bands, the police helicopter, squawking birds, and even kids bouncing a basketball, but I don’t recall barking dogs as an issue. Watching council meetings, this does not seem to have changed much. Apparently our Animal Control officers are doing a good job using the existing ordinance.

It’s Not the Noise

Where noise is an issue, the City’s existing Codes address noise in terms of decibel (dB) levels and time of day. Under the existing Codes, noise over an extended time is limited to 55 dB during the day and 50 dB at night, a level 100,000 times the lowest level audible for people with good hearing. Leaf blowers may only be used during the day and are restricted to a maximum of 65 dB (incidentally a level normally exceeded by all but electric or battery powered leaf blowers).

The proposed ordnance makes no distinctions when the noise is created by dogs. Whether 2 pm or 2 am; 1 dB or 100 dB; it would all be the same. It wouldn’t matter if you kept your dogs inside or even had them de-barked (please don’t), since noise could still be audible.

And let’s face it, if this City Council were really concerned about noise, would we have at least six hours of whistles, pops and house-rattling booms every Fourth of July?

It’s the Economy

On the other hand, assuming that Costa Mesa follows national trends, there are at least 20,000 to 25,000 dogs in town. If even ten percent make “audible noise” for a half hour, that’s at least a half million bucks into city coffers. You’ve gotta admire their creativity, if not their common sense

Disputes between neighbors often play out at City Hall, usually through the venues of Code Enforcement and Animal Control. Often complaints regarding pets have little or nothing to do with the animals themselves and everything to do with problems between neighbors over some other issue. Would this become another hammer with which to beat up a neighbor?

Who Cares

But hey, who cares if the City makes money off the deal? I do. My current canine buddy is pretty quiet, but one can’t predict the future. My greater concern, though, is dog owners subject to draconian fines for even minimal noise, several orders of magnitude lower than noise levels acceptable for any other source.

We already have too many dogs at the shelters, a problem exacerbated by a rise in home foreclosures. It would be tragic if any dog owner felt forced to surrender a dog to the shelter as a result of this ordinance.

That’s sad. I think I’ll go pet my dog. Not too much, though. The thumping of that waggly tail might be audible.

Love for Sale, Cheap

If you’re considering an addition to your household, try a visit to the Orange County Animal Shelter , at 561 The City Drive South, across the street from The Block in Orange.

This Saturday, June 28, the shelter will be holding a pet fair. In addition to dogs, cats, bunnies (lots of bunnies, bunnies doing what bunnies do), and other animals up for adoption, there will be demonstrations and even free stuff.

The shelter has some very nice animals in a range of sizes and types. The shelter is required to accept all comers and therefore cannot be a no-kill shelter. Any animal you adopt will enrich your life immeasurably and will make room for the other guys, letting them stay around until their owners can find them or they find good homes, too.

Summer can be especially bad. Housesitters accidentally leave gates open, and pets get out. Pets panic on the 4th of July and take off. People move, and barbaric as it may seem, leave their pets behind to fend for themselves.

Go to the shelter and do somebody a favor--maybe yourself.

There’ll never be another Old Yeller

Or Shep, or Fido, or Spot, or Puff, or, or Mehitabel. At least if Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has his way. Levine is sponsoring Assembly Bill 1634, the oxymoronically named “California Healthy Pets Act”, more accurately the California Unhealthy Pets Act or Hardly Any Pets Act. http://saveourdogs.net/ or http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=A&search_type=bill_update

AB 1634 would require nearly all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered by the age of four (4!) months. In certain limited circumstances, an “intact permit” could be obtained. And doesn’t that just make you want to cross your legs real tight?

The rationale is that our shelters are so full of unwanted cats and dogs, we must stop making any more. Oddly, this bill is proposed at a time when we seem to be making good progress on this front. Data maintained by the California Department of Health Services indicate that total dog and cat impoundments have been dropping for the last few decades, while the rate of adoption has increased and euthanasia has dropped significantly. In recent years this trend has accelerated. Why propose this draconian measure now?

The bill will force law-abiding citizens with nice family pets to spay or neuter their cats and dogs. Meanwhile feral animals and animals in the underground dog world of fighting rings and drug dealers will continue to breed. Not animals you’d want to take home to the kids.

Local communities may already enact spay/neuter ordinances reflecting local conditions and values. This bill would pre-empt local control. Will cities be forced to create squads of pet police?

AB 1634 is bad for public safety

Speaking of the police, dogs used in law enforcement are typically intact males. AB 1634 exempts dogs used for law enforcement or rescue activities from spay/neuter, but at four months it’s impossible to know which animals will enter law enforcement. They don’t even enter formal training ‘til they’re one, and not all make it onto the force. Breeding programs just for law enforcement would be impractical, since maybe five percent of dogs specifically bred and raised for police work actually make it. Law enforcement dogs usually spend the first part of their lives as pets.

A significant majority of law enforcement and search-and-rescue dogs serving in California are bred in California. The dogs search out missing persons, criminals, narcotics, and explosives. A dog may save an officer’s life at the cost of his own. http://www.vet.upenn.edu/schoolresources/communications/publications/bellwether/49/canine_hero.html Without dedicated, working-dog hobby breeders, the supply of these dogs would dry up. The California Organization of Police and Sheriffs estimates an additional cost to state and local law enforcement of $43 million per year.

And remember, once intact pets were outlawed, only outlaws would have intact pets. Would owners of unaltered dogs and cats be less willing to report crime or come forward as witnesses?

AB 1634 is bad for public health.

If AB 1534 passed, expect fewer people to license and vaccinate their pets. After all, if your pet is unaltered, you can’t get a license. Plus, if your animal’s intact, the vet is pretty much the first person who’d notice. And you wouldn’t dare go the one of those low cost vaccination clinics run by a government agency.

People may even become reluctant to get Tabby to the vet at the first signs of illness—many of which can be passed on to people. It’s not just rabies, either. There are parasites and diseases like leptospirosis and toxoplasmosis which can cause miscarriage and birth defects in people. Problems would be exacerbated if, as was proposed in Sacramento, veterinarians were forced to become the pet police.

Don’t forget about the role of cats and dogs in rodent control, either. While there is an exemption for pure-bred cats which are on the pet show circuit, I doubt if these cats would be out for an evening killing rats

AB 1634 is bad for pet health

There are pros and cons to sterilization of pets. However, when performed at a very young age, problems far outweigh the benefits including urinary incontinence, various cancers, obesity, orthopedic problems, and behavioral problems such as environmental fear and dog on dog aggression. As noted above, AB 1634 could cause owners of intact pets to avoid veterinary clinics.

As time went on, and people could no longer get dogs from small hobby breeders, the void would be filled by puppy mills. Even the best of these are essentially “dog factories” where, even if clean and sanitary which is by no means guaranteed, dogs are kenneled for life, perpetually pregnant or nursing, without play or other stimulation. http://www.prisonersofgreed.org/Commercial-kennel-facts.html

Often, the mills are an absolute abomination http://www.anewstartonlife.com/puppymill.htm. ( You may want to get the kleenex before going to this site.) There is one goal: Produce as many puppies as possible, as cheaply as possible. Three quarters of these are in Kansas and Missouri, with the rest predominantly in the Midwest and east. The U.S. Border Patrol estimates that about 10,000 puppies per year are brought into San Diego from Mexico. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml

Nationally, less than one percent of puppy mill dogs are currently bred in California. Look for this to increase, since breeders with an expensive breeder’s license, and business license or state tax number would be exempt. Obviously they would have to sell more pups to pay for the breeder’s license.

But doesn’t California have rules guaranteeing humane treatment? Under the State law, kennels must be kept sanitary, and animals must have “adequate space”. So what’s “adequate space”? As stated in Health and Safety Code Sec. 122065:

"adequate space"means sufficient space for the dog to stand up, sit down, and turn about freely using normal body movements, without the head touching the top of the cage, and to lie in a natural position.

Plenty of room, like spending your life in a cell the size of a twin bed with a ceiling no higher than a typical door frame—if you’re lucky. You would be performing your bodily functions there, too.

California breeders are required by law to take back pets if health problems arise within a given time, but often problems don’t show up until later. Animals taken back will be unloaded on someone else or disposed of—and it’s not always a “good death”, as implied by the Greek roots of the word “euthanasia”.

Even if the commercial breeders provided heaven on earth, it would still be bad for the pet population. Less than one percent of privately owned dogs meet the intact criteria of AB 1634. Genetic diversity is important to maintaining healthy populations, whether cat, dog, bird, or human. Genetic diversity is important in adapting to changing conditions and fending off disease. The more limited the gene pool, the more likely that a given genetic mutation will proliferate. Do we want our pets to resemble the royal houses of Europe?

AB 1634 is bad for California business

AB 1634 would adversely affect a range of economic sectors. California's $1.5 billion cattle industry and $54 million sheep industry depend on working dogs. The dogs have been carefully bred for generations for their ability. They are not show dogs, and are often not registered “pure bred”. If AB 1634 passed, these lines would be destroyed. Some breeds such as our very own California breed, the McNab http://www.flyballdogs.com/personal/mcnab.html , or http://www.legacyconnemaras.com/McNabHistory.html could be nearly eliminated. Perhaps hardest hit would be small, independent cattlemen producing range- fed beef. A ranching friend told me more than once that a good herding dog is worth four hired hands. Consider the difference in cost. We’ll be stuck with factory feedlot beef and factory dogs. Lovely. And that factory steak will cost more, too.

Hunters too, would face a limited supply of working stock, resulting in a hit to California’s $16 million hunting license revenue, not to mention loss of at least a portion of the $315 million hunters spend in California annually.

AB 1634 is elitist

AB 1634 will not affect the factory breeder who will be able to charge more for inferior dogs, only the small hobby breeder that produces one litter every few years from a high quality animal. AB 1634 won’t affect the wealthy and careless who can afford to plunk down a couple thousand for the flavor of the month in accessory canines and felines, be they dalmations, chihuahuas, or teacup Persians, without regard to the origin of the animal. AB 1634 will affect moderate income families who just want a nice dog or cat to love.

Why do I care? Why should you?

By way of full disclosure, I do not have an unaltered dog, and have no interest in breeding pups, but I’ve been the ownee of a long line of shelter dogs, rescue dogs, and a couple straight from the on-premises mom. They have enriched my life immeasurably.

I also have friends on working ranches and know how indispensable a good working dog can be. I fear that should AB 1634 pass, the only dogs and cats available would be through means that I could not in good conscience utilize or problem animals, whether due to health or disposition.

Dogs in particular have adapted over millennia to live and work with man, as man has adapted in return, creating unique bonds between the species. Let’s not break that bond.

Please contact your assembly member, your state senator, and Governor Schwarzenegger now.