April 14, 2014. Nathan Winograd has been posting that a proposed California bill AB 2343 will "take cats away from loving homes and give them to vivisectors for profit with no hold time!" This is completely untrue rabble-rousing. I emailed HSUS for clarification and received this official response.
"Thank you for contacting us with your questions about AB 2343 in California.
This legislation is the culmination of a two-year collaborative stakeholder process that sought to identify ways to improve outcomes for California’s homeless animals and reduce euthanasia of pets in shelters. An HSUS representative participated in this 17-member group which also included leaders from other national animal protection organizations, local California shelters (private and public), rescue groups, and veterinary and philanthropic experts. Following a seven-city listening tour and comprehensive comment period on a draft set of recommendations last fall, the stakeholder group released a final white paper in early March 2014. You can read that paper online at http://www.cashelteringreport.org .
AB 2343 first and foremost seeks a pathway to making California’s most important sheltering laws (known as “the Hayden Law”) less vulnerable to state budget woes. These laws requiring shelters to hold animals for longer time periods so they can be adopted or reunited with their families have been suspended for many years due to lack of state funds. By creating a new $10 million a year grant program, AB 2343 would help support local government efforts to save more animal lives. The HSUS believes this is important and beneficial toward achieving our goal – shared by the State of California – to end euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals.
AB 2343 also proposes to offer local shelters the flexibility to move animals through shelters rapidly, an option they could use effectively when shelters get crowded. The ideas for these policies are described in detail in the white paper, and The HSUS supports them because we think these options have the potential to help shelters save more lives.
As the white paper references to statewide data and peer reviewed research make clear, 3 percent of outdoor cats end up in California shelters each year, and of those, only 2 percent are ever reclaimed by owners. Cats are up to 13 times more likely to be returned to their owners by means other than the shelter. Meanwhile, 70 percent of the cats that arrive at California shelters don't leave alive. AB 2343 seeks to save more cats’ lives by making those without identification available for adoption or transfer more quickly. AB 2343 specifically protects cats with any form of identification from being released to transfer or adoption early and protects all cats from euthanasia prior to the expiration of the full holding period.
AB 2343 does not, as has been claimed, add “for-profit” to the definition in California law of a rescue group. That language is already in the state’s legal definition (at Food & Ag Code 31751.3(a) 2.). AB 2343 copies that definition (clarifying that non-profits are those with IRS standing) into other relevant sections of state law to ensure that rescue access is consistent. The term “for-profit” has been included in this definition for many years. We are not aware that this term has led to any harm to shelter animals, but would like to hear if that’s not the case. With many California cities adopting ordinances prohibiting the sale of cats and dogs in retail stores unless those animals come from shelters, some for-profit entities are now providing an important adoption option.
If you have other concerns about AB 2343, please don’t hesitate to contact us or the author’s office directly. Assemblymember Gatto is well known to appreciate constructive feedback from all interested parties."
From Mary Cummins: Below is what Nathan Winograd has been posting on his websites. He was a lawyer, went to college, wrote a book and has written animal bills. He knows what he posted is not true. While I was not too keen about the lack of holding period for some cats I knew that the purpose of the bill was not to sell cats to vivisectors for profit. That is delusional. If there were such a market for cats, vivisectors would be picking up unowned stray cats from the street right now yet they are not. Nathan Winograd likes to use anything he can to attack HSUS and other animal groups. I previously posted a cease and desist letter that PETA's lawyer had to send to Nathan Winograd because of his defamatory lies.
From Nathan Winograd: April 13, 2014
Will California shelter dogs and cats be sold for vivisection? If AB 2343 passes, the answer may be yes.
As I posted on Friday, HSUS has proposed legislation in California to amend our state's shelter standards. If passed, it would allow (and in some cases require) shelters to give dogs and cats to for-profit companies to sell for any reason whatsoever. Moreover, it eliminates the right of people to reclaim their lost cats if the cat does not have identification. These cats can be adopted out or given to for-profit companies right away. The bill was introduced at the request of Jennifer Fearing, HSUS' lobbyist in California.
AB 2343 loses sight of what, in fact, is one of the primary functions and mandates of a taxpayer funded, municipal animal shelter: to provide a safe haven for the lost animals of local people and a place where they can go to find them. Since their taxes pay for these services, families with cats deserve the same amount of time as families who share their homes with dogs to reclaim their companions.
At the same time that the bill immediately divests a family of their cat, it allows shelters to immediately give these cats to others who could then sell them for a profit and sell them for any reason whatsoever, not just for purposes of companionship. This will put animals in harm’s way. (Giving animals to for profits also applies to dogs.)
How does it do this? Sec. 31752(b)(1)(B) of the proposed bill says that stray cats without identification can be adopted or transferred to a “rescue group” immediately. Subsection (g) then changes the definition of a “rescue group” to be for-profit or nonprofit. It can be a 501(c)(3) or an “entity” or a collaboration of individuals who sell dogs and cats. There is no requirement that the sale be for purposes of companionship. There are no standards of any kind for these for-profit individuals.
What might they sell animals for? According to one legal analysis, since state law preempts local laws, AB 2343 would potentially undo local pound seizure laws, thus allowing bunchers to sell dogs and cats for purposes of vivisection.
On behalf of the No Kill Advocacy Center, my organization, I wrote this letter in opposition: http://bit.ly/1hAYwHy
For more information: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=14024
Here is a copy of the bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2343
The bill has been assigned to the Local Government Committee. Please send a polite email urging them to reject the bill: alcl.committee@assembly.ca.gov
Also email the individual members by pasting the following to your "to" line and asking for a "No" vote: Assemblymember.Achadjian@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Levine@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Alejo@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Gordon@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Melendez@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Mullin@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Rendon@assembly.ca.gov; Assemblymember.Waldron@assembly.ca.gov
Finally, please tell Assembly Member Mike Gatto to withdraw his bill: Assemblymember.Gatto@assembly.ca.gov
From Nathan Winograd: April 11, 2014
HSUS is seeking legislation in California to take cats from the families who love them and give them to those who sell them for undisclosed purposes at a profit.
Two weeks ago, I warned about a possible attempt by Jennifer Fearing, HSUS’ California lobbyist, to seek legislation eliminating the right of families to reclaim their cat. You can read that article here: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=14014. I was right. But it gets worse: AB 2343, as amended yesterday, will not only tear families apart, it will allow for the transfer of California’s shelter dogs and cats to individuals who want to sell them for undisclosed purposes. Yes, SELL them.
If HSUS succeeds, stray cats who enter California shelters with no identification either because the collar was taken off, fell off, a microchip scan failed to find a match or the animal never had one, could be adopted out or transferred to individuals and companies that sell them for profit, with no right of redemption by the cat’s human family and no requirement that the individuals disclose what they plan to sell those animals for. If you live in California and HSUS has its way, your lost cat could not only be immediately given to others on the very day he or she becomes lost, but she or he may be given to people who sell them to others for unknown, even potentially harmful, purposes.
Currently, California law makes it illegal for tax-funded and other shelters to kill animals after the holding period (and thus after their families have had an opportunity to reclaim them) when qualified non-profit shelters and rescue groups are willing to save them. The law has been an unqualified success (and not surprisingly, HSUS opposed it). The number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed went from 12,526 to 58,939—a lifesaving increase of over 370%. The law requires that the organizations have a mission of prevention of cruelty to animals and animal adoption and be a not-for-profit.
Jennifer Fearing now proposes to eliminate these safeguards. Under AB 2343, the following would also be considered “rescue groups” for purposes of this law and thus have a mandatory right of access: any individual calling himself an “entity” or two or more individuals, whose purpose includes “the sale or placement of any dog/cat.” Under the express terms of Fearing’s language, they could be non-profit or for-profit. There is no requirement that the individuals be licensed, have any sort of corporate status, or have standards of any kind. As written, they do not even have to sell animals to be companions, but can be in the business of selling dogs or cats for any purpose whatsoever.
Just one month ago, Fearing helped kill a provision in a Minnesota bill which would have empowered non-profit shelters, like SPCAs and humane societies, as well as rescue groups in that state to save animals who shelters were intent on killing. The bill required that the humane societies and rescue groups have a mission of animal protection and adoption. It required them to be an incorporated non-profit organization. It excluded groups with a history of neglect and cruelty. And it required those groups to report “the total number of animals the organization has taken from the agency who have been adopted, died, were transferred, were killed, and are still under the organization’s care.” HSUS joined shelters which claimed this would put animals in the hands of dog fighters and hoarders: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=13947 Similarly, HSUS failed to support and even helped kill bills in other states that went even further by including inspection by the shelter if there was probable cause to believe neglect or cruelty. In one of those states, over 100,000 animals have been killed as a result: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=13686 Yet, HSUS is now willing to give animals to anyone who sells them at a profit in California, while taking those cats from the families who love them.
In short, you do not have a right to your cat if he or she gets lost and ends up at the shelter, but a for profit company does. Why? For HSUS, it is whatever shelters want, shelters get, the animals and people who love them be damned.
The bill has been assigned to the Local Government Committee. Please send an email urging them to reject these two particular amendments: alcl.committee@assembly.ca.gov
Learn more: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=14024
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.
- Mary Cummins LinkedIn
- Mary Cummins Meet up
- Animal Advocates custom Facebook name
- Mary Cummins Real Estate blog
- Animal Advocates on Google maps
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates
- Mary Cummins biography resume short
- Mary Cummins Real Estate Services
- Animal Advocates fan page at Facebook.com
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates Squirrel Rescue
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates on Flickr photos
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates on Twitter.com
- Mary Cummins on Picasa web photo albums
- Mary Cummins on MySpace.com
- Mary Cummins on Google Blogger Blogspot
- Mary Cummins on YouTube.com videos
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates on Classmates
- Mary Cummins on VK
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates on Google+