Ojai Wildlife League

​​​Paw PAC

New address/phone: PO Box 20425, El Sobrante, CA 94820. 510/222-2236

www.pawpac.org. info@pawpac.org  

2011 CALIFORNIA ANIMAL LEGISLATION FINAL EDITION
 
“A dog starved at his master’s gate predicts the ruin of the state.” William Blake
 
PASSED
 
AB 42 by Jared Huffman re: State Parks. Support.  
  Authorizes agreements with non-profit organizations for the care and maintenance of state parks 70 of which may be closed due to budget cuts. Closing them invites trespassers and poachers.
 
AB 109 by Assembly Budget Committee.
  Amends anti-cruelty laws, along with many other codes, to send those convicted of felonies to serve their time in county jails instead of state prisons.
 
AB 222 by Assembly Agriculture Committee.
  Defines “business day” for the purpose of holding periods in animal control shelters to include any day the shelter is open 4 hours.
 
AB 258 by Curt Hagman re: Rabies. Support.
  Allows exemption of rabies shot requirement for dogs with medical conditions as determined by a vet.
 
AB 376 by Paul Fong and Jared Huffman re: Sharks. Support.
  Prohibits possession and sale of shark fins. Shark populations are threatened by the cruel practice of cutting off fins and throwing their amputated bodies back into the sea. Over 73 millions are killed for soup.
 
AB 564 by Cameron Smyth re:  Spay/Neuter Tax Check-Off. Support.
  Re-authorizes the state tax check-off for spay/neuter to be distributed as grants to municipal shelters.
 
AB 634 by Alyson Huber re:  Wildlife.  
  Authorizes the use of carbon monoxide for the next five years in the killing of burrowing wildlife considered “pests”, such as gophers.
 
AB 971 by Bill Monning re: Sea Otters. Support.  
  Extends the Sea Otter tax check-off for five more years to protect sea otters.
 
AB 1112 by Jared Huffman re: Oil Spill Prevention. Support.
  Requires inspection of high risk oil transfers and authorizes the state to increase per barrel fee by 1 ½ cents to help pay for oil spill prevention.
   
AB 1117 by Cameron Smyth re: Cruelty. Support.
  Strengthens existing law on confiscation and holding of animals in cruelty cases and imposes a $1000 fine if the perpetrator violates a judge’s order not to have animals.
 
SB 164 by Joe Simitian re: Endangered Species Tax Check-Off. Support.
  Extends the Rare and Endangered Species Program Tax Check-Off to 2018.
 
SB 425 by Ron Calderon re: Animal Fighting. Support.
  Establishes minimum fines for dog/cock fighting and allows for property forfeitures for cock fighting as is currently provided for dog fighting. SB 425 by Ron Calderon re: Animal Fighting. Support.
   
SB 426 by Ron Calderon re: Animal Fighting. Support.
  Allows eviction of tenants whose property is used for dog or cock fighting.
 
SB 769 by Jean Fuller re: Mountain Lions.  
  Allows exhibition of legally killed mountain lions for education or science.
 
AB 853 by Paul Fong and Jared Huffman re: Sharks. Oppose.
  Allow sales of stockpiles until July 2013 of shark fins possessed before January 2012.
 
SB 917 by Ted Lieu re: Cruelty and Animal Sales. Support.  
  Makes criminal penalties consistent (possible felonies) for animal abuse and prohibits sales of animals on streets, parking lots, highways, carnivals, and boardwalks.
 
VETOED
 
AB 1121 by Richard Pan re: Dog Licenses. Support.  
  Would have authorized animal control agencies to require puppies to be licensed. Requires breeders (selling 20 dogs or 3 litters per year), rescue groups, humane societies, and pet shops to monthly report adopters/buyers’ names to animal control to enforce licensing requirements.
 
SB 168 by Ellen Corbett re: Initiatives. Oppose.
  Would have prohibited signature gatherers from being paid per signature, making it more difficult for animal and other initiatives to qualify for the ballot.
 
SB 702 by Ted Lieu re: Microchips. Support.
  Would have required dogs/cats to be microchipped when adopted/reclaimed from animal control.
 
 
SB 752 by Tom Berryhill re: Hunting. Oppose.
  Would have required Fish and Game Dept, if requested by the licensee, to release contact information to hunting organizations when selling hunting licenses.
 
DEFEATED/DROPPED/POSTPONED (Many of these are expected to be brought up again in 2012)
 
AB 88 by Jared Huffman re: Salmon. Support.
  Requires labeling of genetically engineered salmon.
 
AB 610 by Jose Solorio re: Spay/Neuter License Plates. Support.  
  A pilot program to lower the number of license plate orders from the required 7,500 to 2,500 and allows private donations to the spay/neuter fund.  
 
AB 606 by Mike Gatto re: Hunting. Oppose.
  Requires the Fish and Game Dept to allow hunting and other “wildlife dependent activities” as a priority on land under the Wildlife Conservation Board.
   
AB 1046 by Bill Berryhill re: Hunting. Oppose.
  Prohibits Fish & Game Commission to ban hunting.
 
AB 1162 by Wes Chesbro re: Poaching. Support.
  Increases the maximum fine to $40,000 for poaching wildlife or using artificial light/bait for poaching trophy deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep.  Wild turkey fine is $2,000. Creates new crime of using “signal emitting device” when poaching bears to sell their parts (gall bladders) and fines them $10,000 per part.
 
AB 1279 by Nathan Fletcher re: Animal Shelters. Support.
  Amends existing law to replace “pound” with “animal shelter”, “destroy” to “euthanasia” of injured animals and “unwanted” to “surrendered.”
 
AB 1299 by Jared Huffman re: Fish. Support.
  Declares a policy of the state to conserve “forage fish” (herring, sardine, anchovy, squid, shrimp, plankton) upon whom marine life is dependent.
 
ACA 10 by Mike Gatto re: Initiatives. Oppose.
  Allows the Legislature to amend an initiative after it has passed into law.  
 
ACA 12 by Mike Gatto re: Initiatives. Oppose.
  Allows the Legislature to propose amendments to an initiative. If proponents agree with amendments, it will go on the ballot. If amendments are not accepted, they must be presented in the ballot materials.
 
SB 241 by Anthony Cannella re: Calif Environmental Quality Act. Oppose.
  Sidesteps the judicial review process provided in the Calif Environmental Quality Act.
 
 
SB 580 by Lois Wolk re: Parks. Support.
  Prohibits land acquired for state parks from being used or sold for non-park purposes.
 
SB 657 by Ted Gaines re: Suction Mining. Oppose.
  Repeals prohibition of equipment which sucks up river and creek bottoms for gold, killing fish and emitting mercury and noise affecting wildlife in riparian habitats
 
SB 697 by Bill Emmerson re: Veterinary Medicine. Oppose.
  Sets up procedure to penalize non-veterinarians for treating animals.
 
    Subscribe to Paw PAC’s legislative email alerts by emailing info@pawpac.org or call 510/222-2236.  Your donation (not tax-deductible) to Paw PAC by mail or paypal allows us to publish alerts and our annual Voting Charts, maintain our website www.pawpac.org, make endorsements, testify at hearings, distribute position papers, and host monthly legislative meetings in the Capitol Building to which all animal advocates are welcome.
 
Legislative List compiled by: Virginia Handley, 510/222-2236.

Thursday, August 25 at 7 pm at Theatre 150, 316 E. Matilija, Ojai will be the next meeting of OWL.
We will be joined by Lt. Mike Stefanak, the warden supervisor for the Ojai area, and Andrew Hughan, public information officer. In addition, Marc Kenyon, the DFG bear biologist, hopes to attend. Individuals from local wildlife organizations will also participate. We will be discussing exactly what lead up to and transpired during and after the issuance of a depredation permit to kill a bear on Public Lands and how to avoid such tragic outcomes in the future. We will also discuss the CA Bear Policy, what needs to change and how to do it. There will be information available on how to construct bear proof chicken coops and other bear proofing and bear aversion information.
There is no charge and it is open to the public. Please join us.
The two last “Bear Policies” are posted under ARTICLES on this site.

Recently a mother bear was shot and wounded in the East End of Ojai. It’s cub of approx. 50 lbs. ran away. CA Fish and Game tried tracking the wounded bear, but failed to locate it.
The bear was shot by a resident, according to some sources, because it was trying to get into his chicken coop for the second or third time and when he went outside intending to shoot the gun in the air to scare the bear, he felt threatened and shot at the bear instead. Prior to this, he was issued a depredation permit by the Dept. of F&G giving him permission to kill the bear.
According to our investigation as of now (8/13/11) the DFG didn’t really attempt to educate the homeowner of other non lethal options. The residents thought they had done everything to secure their coop, but after OWL spoke with them it was clear that there was more they could have done. This is not to lay blame on the residents. If anyone should be held accountable it is the DFG, who should require the elimination of attractive nuisances before issuing depredation permits, as well as provide residents with other non lethal steps to take before resorting to killing. No one involved feels good about the wounding of this bear.

If chickens are to be raised in the Ojai Valley, it is incumbent upon people to build a bear proof chicken coop. Basically that requires heavier grade chain link fencing around the perimeter and on top along with cinder blocks in the ground around the perimeter. Any hen house should be well within the fencing. If you need more advice or help constructing a bear proof chicken coop please call us.

There is also a real problem with bears getting into garbage cans in the east end. Bear proof cans are available and there are other ways to discourage bears’ interest in human garbage. This problem needs to promptly be dealt with or there will be more bears needlessly killed in Ojai.

Many others are also raising the question of the wisdom of allowing untrained hunters to shoot in such close proximity to other homes and the street. DFG isn’t clear if the resident who wounded the bear had a hunting permit which would have required proper training in the use of firearms. Even a live bullet shot into the air could kill someone in such a populated area. This is why OWL advocates the use of non lethal shot, paintball guns, slingshots, starter pistols, etc. These are extremely effective. And because not everyone would want to do that, we will volunteer to step in to help.

So if you are being bothered by bears for any reason, please call us. We have information, training and experience in bear aversion and we would be very happy to work with you.

Sue Williamson, coordinator of OWL

With warmer weather upon us, people are wondering where we are with our efforts on making the new Lake Casitas fence more wildlife friendly. Here is an update.

Ojai Wildlife League (OWL) members Suza Francina and Sholom Joshua addressed the Casitas Municipal Water District Board of Directors at their February 9 and March 9 meetings.

We reported observations made by residents who regularly walk the lake area. Several people told us that after the new fence was erected they saw no deer or coyotes in places were they previously sighted them on a regular basis.

We stated that the Board has a responsibility to monitor the impact of the fence and report their findings to the public.

We emphasized that the real impact of the fence will not be known until hot weather hits. It is during the driest summer months that there are also the highest number of people using the lake. We need to remember that increased numbers of people makes it even more difficult for animals to find ways to get water.

In February, Sholom Johua spoke with Jack Collins, our contact in the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) South-Central California Area office. Mr. Collins advised us to send a letter by regular mail to Michael Jackson, Area Manager, and Cheryl Carter, Lands Supervisor.

On February 22, 2011, the Ojai Wildlife League sent the Letter below by certified mail to the aforementioned persons.

Due to the nature of the letter, it is our understanding that by law they are required to respond.

On May 13, 2011, we sent a follow-up letter to the aforementioned persons, requesting a response to the Ojai Wildlife League’s letter of February 22, 2011.

A copy of the Letter follows here:

Mr. Michael Jackson, Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation
Cheryl Carter, Lands Supervisor, Bureau of Reclamation

February 22, 2011
Dear Michael Jackson,
This letter is a request by the Ojai Wildlife League (OWL) for a permit review of the Lake Casitas fence project.
The new fence was erected in November, 2010. It is one-mile long, located next to Santa Ana Road, on the northern side of the lake.
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) gave approval for the construction in September, 2010, following submission of a Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CEC-10-69).
It is the position of OWL and numerous other concerned citizens living in the Ojai Valley/Ventura County area that BOR was given incomplete and misleading information in the CEC sent to you.
The new six-foot chain-link fence with three tiers of slanting barbed wire on top and no opening at the bottom, replaces the original permeable barbed-wire fence built when Lake Casitas opened in 1960. The new fence connects to fences on either side, making a nearly impermeable barrier against deer and other wildlife, the entire length of Santa Ana Road.
Since May, 2010, OWL members and other local residents have informed Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) of concern over the negative impact of the fence on wildlife in the lake area. We have also communicated with BOR about our concerns in the months leading up to the fence’s construction.
OWL has made an extensive study of the fence on the ground, as well as researching all available pertinent records at the offices of CMWD. This includes the communications on the matter between CMWD and BOR.
The Casitas Lake area is pastoral open space with hundreds of deer and other wildlife dependent on the lake water supply. The lake is a sanctuary for wildlife with animals coming down from the hills, crossing the road and, up until November 2010, going through or over the original fence to get to the water.
The essential problem with the new fence is that it prevents wildlife from reaching the lake for a drink of water. Due to its favorable topography, herds of deer are mostly on the side of the lake across from Santa Ana Road. The other three sides of the lake are natural barriers to the lake and not many deer are seen in those areas.
The lands that surround the lake are BOR lands. From the time the lake was formed, BOR has said that one of its priorities was to protect the wildlife in the area. Wildlife needs your protection now.
Prior to the fence going up, deer were regularly seen at the lake. OWL members who visit the lake report that there have been no sightings of deer and other large wildlife since the advent of the fence. OWL receives ongoing reports on wildlife at the lake.
Please note also that instead of spreading out the nightly animal migration to the lake, this new barrier attempts to funnel all of the wildlife into a handful of small inadequate openings. This includes deer, foxes, coyotes, bears, skunks, raccoons, road runners, opossums, squirrels, rabbits, wild boar, feral pigs, feral cats, bobcats and mountain lions, some with their offspring following along.
Santa Ana Road is a busy artery, especially on weekends. Wildlife looking for openings in a fence this close to the road have a much greater chance of being killed or injured and causing vehicle accidents and injury to humans.
In its CEC, The Casitas Municipal Water District states, “In some areas where the existing barbed-wire fencing is still functional across drainages and high points, the barbed-wire fencing would be left in place in order to facilitate animal passage.”
The problem with this plan is that large animals cannot cross at these so called passages. This is apparent to everyone who has actually seen the fence as it traverses the lake’s northern shore. Most of these spots have sharp downward slopes with the fence built at the bottom of those slopes. As for the crossings at high points mentioned in the CEC, these are utterly unusable by wildlife. These high points are actually hillsides cut to accommodate Santa Ana Road. The result is a very steep vertical incline.
Bear and other animals that climb fences cannot climb over the barbed wire on top of the new chain-link fence without severely injuring themselves.
The original fence stood approximately four feet high, allowing for deer and other animals to work their way over or through. It was also a proven deterrent to children wandering off.
The fence itself is a sorry sight. It is more apropos of a correctional institution than a natural recreational area. The idea that this prison-like fence will protect the water quality of the lake is misplaced logic. Since anyone can reach the lake by driving or walking (at no charge) through the main entrance, there is no practical way to prevent someone bent on doing damage from having the opportunity.
OWL is appealing to BOR to intervene and return the lake to its original status as a wildlife friendly resource.
It is cruel to deny animals access to life giving water. Hot dry weather will arrive in a few months and local creeks and other sources of drinking water for animals will dry up. There is additional concern as this Southern California area has a history of wildfires. Access to the lake is critical for wildlife survival.

Sincerely,
Sholom Joshua, Founding member, Ojai Wildlife League
Suza Francina, Founding member, Ojai Wildlife League, Former Mayor, City of Ojai
Sue Williamson, Founding member, Ojai Wildlife League

Here is a link to BOR’s reply to OWL’s letter of February 22, 2011. http://www.box.net/shared/gaz6gfsyqgfjmvcc9bey

Note: We are having trouble posting a link to the BOR Letter which is a PDF file. If above link does not work, please email Sfrancina@aol.com and we will forward you a copy.

New link to BOR Letter: http://www.box.net/shared/8t0rjjpeknrpqqieomsi
(Copy and paste into your browser)
In our opinion, this recent Letter from BOR did not adequately address the concerns stated in OWL’s Letter and provided no new information.

OWL’s response to follow.

The CA Fish and Game Commission is again proposing to increase the bear quota from 1700 to 2000 per year.
They are also proposing eliminating any limit on tags issued for archery hunting of bear. This attempt is a modification of an even worse proposal that was stopped last year. You can review that on this site under the category “uncategorized”.
Now is the time to write, call, email, and attend Commission meetings. Your comments DO make a difference.
Please go to the CA Fish and Game Commission website shown below for information on how to submit comments.

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/submitcomments.asp

Let’s not allow the CA F&G Commission to make the bears pay for our human expansion and ignorance.
Write them today!

Attention California Wildlife Activists,

The California Department of Fish & Game is studying a proposed plan to close 19 California State Game Refuges, and open them up to hunting. The deadline for public comments on this plan is December 1, 2010. Go to the DFG web site http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/gamerefuges/ . The DFG focuses on the additional “hunting opportunities” that this plan will provide to those that wish to kill game such as deer, bear, coyote, and grey foxes. What they do not address is the impact that opening these refuges to hunting will have on threatened wildlife. They contended that the “Elimination of the “State Game Refuge” designation will have no significant impact on the wildlife and ecosystems of these lands.”

Study the maps provided on the web site. Many of these refuges appear to be located in prime wildlife habitat. Besides animals that are listed as game and varmits, these State Game Refuges provide sanctuary to wild animals like the threatened;

Pacific fisher (Maries pennanti pacifica) Status: (CSSC) California species of special concern; (FC) Federal candidate for listing by Endangered Species Act (ESA); (FSS) Region 5 Forest Service sensitive species.

A victim of the current political climate in Washington DC, his listing as Endangered by the ESA is stalled. http://kswild.org/programs/biodiversity/species-profiles/pacfisher

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Status: (FSS) Region 5 Forest Service sensitive species; (ST) State threatened;
(SP) State fully protected

This guy needs a date. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/03/calif-wolverine-looks-in-vain-for-a-mate-nearest-is-800-miles-away/1

American marten (Maries Americana) Status: (FSS) Region 5 Forest Service sensitive species; (CSSC) California species of special concern; (MIS) Forest Service management indicator species.

Don’t underestimate cute. http://www.nature.org/animals/mammals/animals/marten.html

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) listed as a State Threatened but not Federally Endangered species

All these animals are highly susceptible to canine parvo and distemper http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/09/supposedly-extinct-red-fox-discovered-in-yosemite-national-park.html

By law these species are technically protected from hunting. Unfortunately, the dogs that are unleashed to chase and attack “game animals” do not always read the hunting regulations. These rare and endangered animals will be devastated by the inevitable “incidental take” from the packs of hunting hounds. To learn more about hound hunting visit: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/multimedia/?fr_story=e2cc7ec09cf7087516729123499176973dd66a09

We need facts and documentation of the natural resources that are on these currently protected lands. I am asking “boots on the ground” environmentalists to study these refuges and to submit comments directly to the Department of Fish & Game, and to assist our legal staff in making our augments to defend California’s wildlife, and provide them with a sustainable and resilient habitat.

Sincerely, – Richard J. Garcia
CNRCC – Black Bear Task Force – Chair
DFG invites input – from their web site;
If you would like to provide input on the State Game Refuges, you may do so by taking this short survey or by sending your comments via email to wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov. Comments must be sent by December 1, 2010.

The Bureau of Reclamation has completed one environmental
evaluation of the Casitas fence project and has given it a Categorical Exclusion. That means they have approved the installation of a 6 foot high chain link fence with barbed wire on top along Santa Ana Road. However, it isn’t over until they build the fence. We can still contact the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as other government officials to voice our opposition.
It’s disturbing that in their evaluation form they determined that no endangered species would be adversely affected, but there was no category for determining whether or not the general wildlife population would be adversely affected. It also doesn’t take note of the fact that the area where they want to put the fence is the flat side of the lake where wildlife, especially deer, instinctively travel to access the lake.
It’s not too late to make your comments to government officials and request further study of the effects on wildlife. Here are a few people that you could contact:
Ojai City Manager: 646-5581
Steve Bennett, Ventura Co. Supervisor: 654-2703
S. Central CA Area office, Manager, Michael Jackson: 559-349-4544 or 559-487-5116
Shauna McDonald: Biologist, Bureau of Reclamation: 559-487-5202
Dave Hyatt: Bureau of Reclamation: 559-487-5139

ALSO:

LET YOUR LOCAL CASITAS WATER BOARD KNOW YOUR FEELINGS:
Rich Handley
Russ Baggerly
Peter Kaiser

We were just informed that the State of Nevada is considering introducing Black Bears onto the list of Species available for hunting. There are only an estimated 230 Black Bears in the entire state of Nevada. For Nevada to allow hunting of a species that is on the brink of elimination in the state is unconscionable. If you find this as distasteful as we do please contact the commissioners. Here is a link to the contact info for the members of the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife.
http://www.ndow.org/learn/com/members/index.shtm

Let these people know just how you feel about this idea. Please pass this information on to anyone you may know who might be interested in stating their opinion. The first reports on the issue took place on Aug. 13-14. This is only the beginning of this process and the perfect time to state your opinion. Thank you for caring for the bears.

Bear Survey
Ojai Wildlife League

In order for the Ojai Wildlife League to better serve the Ojai Community, we need information only you can provide. Thank you in advance for filling this out and mailing it back to us. You will need to copy the text, paste it into a document, print it, fill it out and mail it to:

Ojai Wildlife League, 1129 Maricopa Highway PMB #90, Ojai, CA 93023
THANKS!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name:
Address:
Description of property:

City/Town:
E-mail Address:
Phone Numbers:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fill In or Circle Your Response:

1. Date/Time of the most recent bear sighting:

2. Was it a mother with cub(s)? How many cubs?

3. Did the bear have a radio collar and/or ear tag? If yes, what color were the ear tags?

4. Bear Activity: Passing Through? Searching for food? Actively Feeding? Other (describe):

5. How many years have bears been sighted on this property?

6. Please indicate the seasons and frequency of bear sightings at this site.

7. Circle items associated with bear sightings:

Bird seed/feeder Garbage Barbeque Grill Pet Food Compost Plants/shrubbery Birdhouse

Circle the property damaged by the bear:

Bird feeder BBQ Doors/windows of garage/outbuildings Screens/windows on porch

Door and/or window of house Garbage receptacles Fence Feed Storage Unit

Ornamental Tree/Shrub

Circle any agricultural damage:

Beehives Poultry Livestock Cultivated Crops Orchards Fencing Other:

(Please describe other items/damage in the later “comments” section.)

8. Did you attempt to scare the bear off your property? Were you successful?

If yes, what did you do?

9. Did you contact police or anyone else for help or advice? Who?

What happened?

10. Would you speak with an OWL volunteer about sightings on your property?

12. Would you be open to other alternatives if a bear became a problem?

Please provide any additional comments here:

The CA Fish and Game Commission again postponed their decision to allow unlimited killing of bears, expand the hunting territory and allow GPS on hunting dogs. The Dept. of F&G requested that no action be taken because they couldn’t have their required CEQA paperwork done, which required them to respond to all the substantive objections made to these changes, which were many, thanks to all the hard work of many groups around the state. To hear the whole very interesting discussion go to the FGC website.
This gives us some reprieve, for a while at least. But this has galvanized many groups who are now considering a ballot initiative to ban all bear hunting and/or use of hounds, which Californians would most likely support. What do you think?