This report has been delayed by numerous factors, but it conveys wonderful and significant news. SAOVA is happy to announce that, through intense effort, animal owners have won a legislative stay of attempts to force sterilization of dogs and cats in California. Due to a combination of circumstances, this measure isn't expected to reappear in the foreseeable future.

SAOVA is especially grateful to, and proud of, our contacts in California who responded to our alerts and rose to the occasion, lobbying energetically, attending meetings, and spreading the wordand to our contacts in the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) who helped us raise awareness among veterinary professionals and generated serious debate on the health consequences of forced, pediatric spay and neuter. CVMA's early sponsorship of AB1634 gave the bill standing in the eyes of lawmakers. The association's reversal of that support early this month, after four months of intense lobbying and three passage votes, doomed the bill. On July 11, 2007, the Senate Local Government Committee questioned AB1634s ever-changing language and refused to accept author Assemblyman Lloyd Levines assurance that all interests would be protected in a future version. Faced with the demand for a concrete text supporting his claims and the CVMA's defection, Mr. Levine withdrew the bill. The courage, determination, and clear-sightedness of our California allies won the day, setting an example for us to follow in future battles.

Californias AB1634, named The Healthy Pets Act, would have forced pediatric spay and neuter on all cats and dogs in the state of California, unless owners were able to qualify for and afford an intact permit of unspecified cost. The purported intent was to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia, despite overwhelming evidence that these are not the result of overpopulation, as alleged. Seven rounds of amendments claimed to respond to opponents' concerns created a variety of exemptions that were in the main unworkable. It appeared that the authors understood little about the uses of animals that, fortunately, legislators and the public consider legitimate, including selective breeding and showing of dogs and cats, and the rearing and training of service, police, hunting, stock, and other working dogs. A more sinister interpretation is that the sponsors, which included all the well-known animal rights groups, desired to undermine these activities while appearing to exempt them.

Passage of such a bill in California would have enormous impact, setting a precedent for sweeping, statewide, anti-animal-owner legislation elsewhere, and damaging several of the animal-rightists highest-value targets. Animal agriculture and hunters have long benefited from layers of protection owing to their importance to the American economy and tradition.  For a state to pass laws seriously infringing the viability of livestock farmers and hunters would open the floodgates. Breeders of quality dogs and cats have been esteemed but attacking their standing in the eyes of the public is a longstanding animal-rightist priority. Shutting them down in large numbers would be a coup.

California has been the almost exclusive home of major, precedent setting animal rightist fights in the past. AB1634 was this year's chief anti-breeder bill. Introduced in February, it was contested over four months, very nearly became law and generated **tens of thousand** of filed comments, rivaling the federal PAWS docket's size. Virtually every dog and cat interest in the country weighed in for or against the bill. Familiar NO-PAWS Honor Roll names joined the CA fight http://saova.org/1139opponents.html and new ad hoc groups were formed. Unlicensed PACs and professional spin specialists made Hollywood-like appearances. All contributed something to our victory. Successful advocacy is far more than generating a taller stack of docket statements or press releases than the opposition. From a working lobbyist's perspective, several non pet groups' contributions were important, California Cattlemen's Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, National Rifle Association and Safari Club International among them.

For its own part, SAOVA posted numerous AB1634 action requests to its California elist members, contacted legislators and filed opposition statements with three different Sacramento committees. The focus of our effort was California veterinarians, who were the key to defeating AB1634. Numerous veterinary professionals in the state challenged the CVMA's original decision to sponsor AB1634 as medically ill considered and procedurally improper. A prolonged and intense struggle to reverse that position ensued. SAOVA took a leadership role here, significantly expanding its CA regional elist by adding all of the CVMA leadership's email addresses and those of many rank and file members. 

Forceful, health and policy-based arguments against AB1634 and other work products of past-CVMA president John Hamil, DVM, UC Davis emeritus professor of veterinary medicine, former UCD Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital Director and sportsman Charles Hjerpe DVM, Karen E. Seibold DVM of the San Diego County Veterinary Medical Association, Sharon Vanderlip DVM of California Veterinarians Against AB1634 and dozens of others were distributed throughout the state. Finally, SAOVA explicitly requested pet owners question their vets closely on this issue and shift their business to professionals with more compatible views of animal ownership, medical ethics and government forced sterilizations. CVMA publicly reversed its support of AB1634 on July 5th and Mr. Levine pulled his bill on July 11th.

This was a wonderful, hard-fought scrambling victory over an anti-breeder measure that shouldn't have seen the light of day, let alone achieved three separate Assembly passage votes. Hopefully, the last four months will serve as a valuable lesson to all. With AB1634 defeated, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and its allies have turned their attention to pursuing anti-owner livestock and pet riders to the 2007 Farm Bill. More will be shared about these animal rightist measures once Congress returns from its August recess.

It's time for some changes at SAOVA. The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) was founded in 2001 and has actively lobbied legislation, analyzed and endorsed political candidates running for federal and state office since then. Most of you learned of SAOVA due to its high profile 2005-2006 anti-PAWS leadership role, http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp or its earlier work for hunting dog sportsmen. Legislators have been taking our calls for years and in my case, before retirement, for decades.

SAOVA serves as the political, cutting edge training ground for sportsmen and animal owners concerned about animal rightist threats. Our approach of getting the facts right, taking an informed position and not compromising is well known to friends and adversaries alike. Few other advocacy groups are as politically attuned, or participate such broad coalitions. Over thirty (30) SAOVA alumni have taken their passion and that experience and become very effective local leaders. Several have run for state legislature. Our record is widely envied and our chosen role as a bridging force between the agricultural and sportsmen-pet owner groups has been extraordinarily effective.

However, it's time to improve on that advocacy model and prepare for the next generation. Our non-partisan volunteer force was severely taxed during last fall's elections and further drained in Virginia, Pennsylvania and California 2007 sportsmen and animal owner legislative fights. SAOVA's in the position where it needs more financial support to continue its advocacy. The opposition has too many resources for us to continue fighting as we have. Our website and communication network are outdated and need professional maintenance. We also require a office manager/point of contact. As dedicated and talented as our part-time volunteers are, SAOVA's advocacy is too reliant on a few people sticking their fingers in dike as the anti-hunting and anti-animal owner waters rise. We should have the resources to be training more pro-animal owner activists and retaining accomplished professionals. 

SAOVA needs a significant ongoing funding level in order protect your interests. Help us plan for the future.