Dana Johnson Legislative Director
Becca Riggs Deputy Legislative Director
Michelle Kramer Deputy Legislative Director for Website Development
Ban the Deed not the Breed Magnets and Donations. Support our cause and speak your mind or donate.
More...
Paws4Laws is a nationwide project to help you communicate with your local legislators about anti-canine legislation
Breed Specific Legislation is Like Racial Profiling
BSL punishes dogs for being a certain breed rather than their deeds. It is designed to place restrictions on owning specific breeds of dogs. The most common kind of breed specific legislation completely bans all dogs of a certain breed. This means that all dogs of the banned breed must be removed from the area or euthanized. More...
Many documents
on the site are published as PDF's. You will need Adobe Reader to be able to view them. If you need to download the software, visit Adobe.
Site best viewed in Internet Explorer v5+
The DPCA Legislative Committee Welcomes You!
DPCA Legislative Committee Mission
Our mission is to become the leading voice for educating the public, as well as civic, community and political leaders, about the importance of reasonable laws and regulations that promote responsible animal ownership and preserve the human-animal bond; particularly where the welfare of the Doberman Pinscher is concerned. To accomplish our mission we are committed to:
(1) Educating the public as well as civic, community and political leaders and providing resources and information about the historic importance of the Doberman Pinscher in the United States and the crucial role that working dogs play today;
(2) Support reasonable and humane animal welfare laws that promote the right to own dogs and encourage responsible ownership practices;
(3) Oppose legislative efforts that would restrict the rights of responsible dog owners;
(4) Actively create societal and legislative awareness that dogs must not to be discriminated against based upon their breed.
Paws4Laws
The American Rottweiler Club has launched a nationwide project to help you communicate with your local legislators about anti-canine legislation. Issues include proposals concerning: mandatory spay and neuter, guardianship, ear/tail docking, breed-specific legislation, and home insurance. These proposals have the potential to negatively impact your life as a dog owner, exhibitor, competitor, or pet owner. More...
Los Angeles Mandatory Sterilization Ordinance
The City of Los Angeles passed a Mandatory Sterilization Ordinance on February 12th. This ordinance will have an unfavorable impact on hobby breeders and pet owners alike.
Similar legislation was passed in Louisville, KY over a year ago and a coalition of dog/cat owners, kennel clubs, and concerned citizens have challenged that Ordinance in federal court. Their expenses so far have exceeded $100.000.00. Their effort has been funded by donations from not only locals but clubs and individuals all over the country.
Seeing the progress and hopefully successful effort in Louisville, some of us in California have decided to mount a similar effort against the City of Los Angeles. This is not a “new group” like PetPAC, NAIA, CA Federation of Dog Clubs, CDOC, or other groups who combined efforts to fight and stall AB1634 (the erroneously named CA Healthy Pets Act) in the 2007 legislative session. This effort is mounted by knowledgeable individuals who are incorporated as a 501c4 in the State of California.
CaRPOC was formed to be "project oriented" and compliment the other hard working groups. The prospect of a lawsuit against Los Angeles was their first "project".
CALIFORNIA
RESPONSIBLE
PET
OWNERS’
COALITION
March 21, 2008
Dear Responsible Pet Owner,
As we indicated in our February appeal, we retained Greenberg
Traurig, LLP to represent us in CaRPOC's pursuit of a possible legal
challenge to the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance recently enacted by
the City of Los Angeles. The decision to retain Greenberg Traurig
was based on the fact that the firm has a successful history of
involvement in dog and other animal-related legislation and was
actively involved in the fight against AB1634 last year. Greenberg
Traurig have 25 years experience influencing government. During that
time, they have represented pharmaceutical companies, consumer
product manufacturers plus other for profit and non-profit entities
in connection with animal legislation and regulation. Their
experience goes far beyond animal issues, including more than 25
years of holding government accountable. They have successfully
invalidated both statutes and regulations when government has
overreached its authority or otherwise infringed on legally
protected rights.
The first task for Greenberg Traurig was to do a comprehensive legal
analysis, research, and recommendation regarding a possible course
of action in Los Angeles. We received a copy of their preliminary
findings and recommendation late last week. We will make available a
summary of the analysis after we've had a chance to study it in
detail. They are also writing an addendum to their initial analysis,
which will also be synopsized after we receive it from them.
Unfortunately, based on Greenberg Traurig's research and analysis,
they do not think we have a "winnable" case at this time. They
recommend against going forward with a lawsuit out of concern that a
loss could establish a detrimental legal precedent to possible suits
elsewhere. This is especially important in light of the American
Canine Foundation v. Sun, November 27, 2007 case
http://www.websupp.org/data/NDCA/3:06-cv-04713-87-NDCA.pdf,
which upheld the Los Angeles County mandatory spay/neuter/microchip
ordinance and which has already set a poor precedent. If we proceed
with a weak case and lose, it will create another judicial opinion
upholding essentially the same language as the L.A. County
ordinance. That would reinforce a dangerous precedent, because
Animal Rights extremists and legislators would herald the ordinance
as a model law that had already passed legal scrutiny. However,
CaRPOC may consider pursuing a legal challenge in the future if the
law is unequally enforced, which could possibly create an
appropriate test case.
Since CaRPOC currently will not proceed with a legal challenge to
the City of Los Angeles’ ordinance at this time, contributors have
the option of requesting a refund of their donations. However, we
hope that you will consider leaving your contribution with us as
CaRPOC has already expended a great deal of money to retain
Greenberg Traurig to do their initial analysis and render an
opinion. We appreciate your support and assistance in helping to
defray these costs.
Florence Blecher, President
Stormy Hope, Vice President
Peri Norman, Secretary/Treasurer
CARPOC - 11301 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD., SUITE #121-596, LOS ANGELES, CA
90064