Please electronically sign this petition. We will make sure it gets to the hearing.

If you would like to keep your name private, add your first name and first initial of your last name.


We also encourage you to print out a copy and fax it to:  916-653-5040

And pass around a printed copy to collect signatures. If you do this, please contact us to let us know, so that we can collect your signatures before the hearing!


* Email
* First Name
* Last Name
City
* State
* Zip
* = Required Field
TO:

John Carlson, Jr., Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission

Jim Kellogg, President, Fish and Game Commission

Richard Rogers, Vice President, Fish and Game Commission

Mr. Sutton, Member, Fish and Game Commission

Mr. Richards, Member, Fish and Game Commission

Mr. Benninghoven, Member, Fish and Game Commission

John K. Fisher, Deputy Executive Director – Regulations and Policy

The proposed Fish and Game regulations will affect thousands of California pet owners across the state. The regulations propose to do away with any form of due process in identifying the breed or species of dogs and other pets — giving wardens wide authority to determine that animals are undesirable. Owners of Northern breed dogs (such as Husky, Malamute or German Shepherd) could lose them to subjective assessments that they could be 1% wolf, and the proposed language demands that the more onerous standard of “undesirable” animal be applied, no matter the true nature of the pet.

Complicating matters, thousands of 100% dogs in California naturally look similar to or have been selectively bred to look “wolfy” or “coyote-ish”. Breeds such as Tamaskans, Giant White Shepherds and Northern Inuit Dogs (just to name a few) are visually indistinguishable from wolves. Compliance to the required “higher standard” in the regulations is inconceivably difficult for almost all Californians.

The assessment of the Economic and Fiscal Impact submitted to the Department of Finance wrongly states that there will be no fiscal impact. It specifically states that no financial impact to individuals is anticipated. Substantial costs to both the State of California, California businesses, and California residents will be realized. This issue is very likely to give rise to extensive litigation on many fronts, resulting in additional losses. The devotion and commitment of Californians to their beloved pets has been greatly underestimated and in this case, many of these beloved pets are described in the proposed language as “undesirable”.

Californians insist on fair and reasonable regulations. The proposed rules would entrench powers that can and will result in a morass of unjust seizures, litigation, and escalating protests as law abiding Californians come to understand that their pets can be taken away simply because of their appearance.

The Commission is charged with finding that there is no reasonable alternative, and with identifying the action that is least burdensome to affected private persons. The proposed hybrid language should be modified to address agricultural and invasive species, and to leave our pets alone.

NAME

Stop the California Pet Ban!