California Rabies Bill AB 2689 AB 2689 Assembly Bill - AMENDED introduced by Assembly Member Cameron Smyth, Chair of the Local Government Committee has been referred to the Local Government Committee Assembly Committee Frameset
and will require annual rabies vaccinations and puppies to be vaccinated at 3 months instead of 4 months of age in "rabies areas" (portion of bill text below) as determined by the State Public Health Officer -- violation is impoundment.

It is URGENT that ALL concerned pet owners contact the committee and tell them to reject this bill in its entirety. The Local Government Committee phone is (916) 319-3958 and the members contact information is listed below.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST this notice, please help spread the word and take action to defeat this legislation.


Cameron Smyth - Chair Rep-38 (916) 319-2038
Anna M. Caballero - Vice Chair Dem-28 (916) 319-2028
Juan Arambula Ind-31 (916) 319-2031
Steven Bradford Dem-51 (916) 319-2051
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048
Steve Knight Rep-36 (916) 319-2036
Dan Logue Rep-3 (916) 319-2003
Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069


SEC. 2. Section 121690 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

121690. In rabies areas, all of the following shall apply:

(b) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of three months, shall, AT INTERVALS of time not more often than once a year, as may be prescribed by the department, procure its vaccination by a licensed veterinarian with a canine antirabies vaccine approved by, and in a manner prescribed by, the department.

__________________
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

UPDATE--CA BILL AB 2689 -- Public response has caused Assembly Member Smyth's office to withdraw the language in AB 2689 lowering the age of puppy vaccination from 4 months to 3 months in "rabies areas." However, as the law currently stands, the State Public Health Officer can require annual rabies vaccinations in "rabies areas." Please call (916) 319-2038, (916) 319-3958, or the committee members them an e-mail (contact information below) and ask them to strike the language in the current law (121690) authorizing the State Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations in "rabies areas."

Below is a copy of my e-mail to AM Smyth's assistant, Kevin O'Neill. To access the law in question, go to this link Find California Code , click on "Health and Safety Code" and enter 121690 for the keyword .

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST this notice, please spread the word and take action to change this law.


Cameron Smyth - Chair Rep-38 (916) 319-2038
Anna M. Caballero - Vice Chair Dem-28 (916) 319-2028
Juan Arambula Ind-31 (916) 319-2031
Steven Bradford Dem-51 (916) 319-2051
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048
Steve Knight Rep-36 (916) 319-2036
Dan Logue Rep-3 (916) 319-2003
Jose Solorio Dem-69
(916) 319-2069




----- Original Message -----
From: Kris Christine
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:00 PM
Subject: AB 2689 (Smyth)


Greetings Mr. O'Neill,

Thank you for your e-mail. There is conflicting language within the Health and Safety Code as it stands, and this is a good opportunity to resolve this. What The Rabies Challenge Fund objects to in the proposed amendment is the lowering of the age of puppy vaccinations to 3 months and the authority given (or reaffirmed) to impose annual rabies vaccinations in "rabies areas".

Within the language of the current law as it stands is the following below allowing for a 3 year dog license in "rabies areas" as long as the license period shall not extend beyond the remaining period of validity for the current rabies vaccination -- this does not state period of validity for an annual rabies vaccination.

As outlined in the letter we submitted to you, there is no scientific or epidemiological data supporting the authority given to the State Public Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations for dogs in "rabies areas," and it goes against the recommendations of the Center for Disease Control's recommendations in their Rabies Compendium. While you are revising AB 2689 to keep the 4 month puppy vaccination provision, we respectfully request that you also revise subsection (a) so that there is no authority given to impose annual vaccinations.

Regards,
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund



"121690. In rabies areas, all of the following shall apply:

(g) In addition to the authority provided in subdivision (a), the ordinance of the responsible city, city and county, or county may
provide for the issuance of a license for a period not to exceed three years for dogs that have attained the age of 12 months or older and have been vaccinated against rabies. The person to whom the license is issued pursuant to this subdivision may choose a license period as established by the governing body of up to one, two, or three years. However, when issuing a license pursuant to this subdivision, the license period shall not extend beyond the remaining period of validity for the current rabies vaccination. A dog owner who complies with this subdivision shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of subdivision (a)."

__________________
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

Below is a follow-up e-mail we have sent on AB 2689. Please continue to call Assembly Member Smyth's office at (916) 319-2038 or the Local Government Committee at (916) 319-3958 and request that they remove the authorization to impose annual rabies vaccinations.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter & Kris Christine
To: ;
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 6:35 AM
Subject: California Rabies Bill AB 2689


Greetings Mr. O'Neill,

Regarding The Rabies Challenge Fund's request and conversations with the staff in your office about withdrawing the authorization given under 121690 Section (b) of the current law to the State Public Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations in areas they determine to be "rabies areas" -- this easily could be accomplished in AB 2689 by striking the clause "at intervals of time not more often than once a year, as may be prescribed by the department". No additional language would need to be added, no new bill would need to be drafted or introduced, and the conflict with language contained in Section (g) would be resolved.

As you are aware from the data Dr. Jean Dodds, Dr. Ronald Schultz, and I have forwarded on to you, there is no benefit from annual rabies vaccination, and it goes against the recommendations of all the national veterinary medical associations, which recommend a 3 year booster schedule as the best way to prevent and control rabies.

It is our hope that you will be able to make this one further revision to AB 2689.

Regards,

Regards, Kris
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund


(b) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of four
months, shall, at intervals of time not more often than once a year,
as may be prescribed by the department, procure its vaccination by a
licensed veterinarian with a canine antirabies vaccine approved by,
and in a manner prescribed by, the department.

__________________
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

UPDATE AB 2689: Assembly Member Smyth's Chief of Staff, Kevin O'Neill sent me the following in an e-mail 4/19/10 regarding AB 2689 indicating that although they did withdraw the change requiring puppies that be vaccinated at 3 months in "rabies areas," they would not strike authorization for the State Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations. Thanks to all of the pet owners who took time to contact the Committee members, there has been a partial victory. In order to remove the authorization given to the State Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations in "rabies areas," a new bill will need to be introduced in the next legislative session.

From Mr. O'Neill's e-mail: "The main intent of AB 2689 was to modernize the code to make the flow of rabies vaccinations between owners and local governments more efficient. The only reason we had originally agreed to place the age change from 4 to 3 months for rabies vaccinations in the bill was because it was sold to us as conformity language that would bring California in line with the rest of the country. Once we realized that this piece was controversial and that a lot of disagreement exists about whether changing the age to 3 months is appropriate, we decided to drop that from the bill because our main interest is simply in modernizing the code.

Likewise, changing existing and long standing code regarding the frequency of vaccinations is another controversial issue and is such a large issue that it should really be in a bill on its own, not in a bill aimed at modernizing the code. I would have offered the same advice regarding changing the age of vaccination from 4 to 3 months had I known that significant controversy surrounded that issue. "

__________________
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

Not being in CA, all I can do is wish you good luck with this Bill
Defeat.

The government has gone vaccination NUTZ all over the place....look at
the recent H1N1 fiasco....and the mumps vaccine that resulted in more
folks getting the diseases that GOT the vaccine than with those that
didn't.

Overall, it's simply a money maker for companies that make them and
those that sell them....IMO.

For those that think.....well that's out in CA, doesn't/won't concern
me....yes it will. Bills that pass in CA seem to make their way eastward
over time.

Just posting my opinion here.