Humane Society Targets Oller

The following memo was written by a Republican policy consultant in the Capitol who took the time to research the so-called Humane Society charges:

Humane USA PAC is run by left-wing Democrats seeking to influence
Republican primary elections. It is no surprise that Mary Ose is
their favorite Republican in the Third Congressional District.

They claim that "Paw PAC consistently rated Oller an 'F' on its
annual legislative scorecard." They don't mention that EVERY
Republican Senator received an 'F' rating from Paw PAC and EVERY
Democrat Senator received an 'A' rating (except for two Democrats,
who received 'B' ratings). In other words, Paw PAC rating simply
reflects the fact that Senator Oller is a Republican. If Paw PAC is
now supporting Mary Ose, real Republicans should be concerned.

"Oller was one of just three legislators... who voted against a bill to
strengthen penalties for illegal cockfighting (SB 732, 8/19/03)"
This is certainly true. Senator Oller has consistently stood up for
basic constitutional rights and liberties. Senate Bill 732 increases
the penalty to $25,000 for spectators at cockfights. By comparison,
most misdemeanors carry a $1,000 fine. Cockfighting is abhorrent,
but the punishment should fit the crime.

"He opposed a bill to allow animal shelters to hold some animals
confiscated in cockfights or dogfights for a shorter period... (AB
196, 8/28/97)" Public records prove that Senator Oller voted in
FAVOR of Assembly Bill 196 in 1997, but it had nothing to do with
cockfights or dogfights. That bill provided tax benefits for the
donation of agricultural products to charities and it was supported
by almost every member of the Assembly. (Check the Legislative
Counsel website at www.leginfo.ca.gov)

Perhaps the Humane USA PAC is referring to SB 196 from 1997. How
could the liberals at Humane USA PAC attack Rico Oller for opposing a
bill that would allow government employees to slaughter animals
confiscated from defendants who have not yet been convicted of any
crime? Under SB 196, confiscated animals could be slaughtered after
just 10 days, even if no one was ever charged with cockfighting or
dogfighting or any other crime. What if that was your dog? In
America, punishments are supposed to happen AFTER the defendant is
convicted in court, not BEFORE.

"Oller voted against legislation to permit employees of county child
or adult protective services agencies to report known or suspected
animal abuse or neglect (AB 670, 6/24/02)." In fact, AB 670 did
absolutely nothing at all. Read the text. It actually says:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty to
investigate known or reasonably suspected animal cruelty, abuse, or
neglect." The author started with a bill that would have required
county employees to report animal abuse, but the Democrats forced her
to amend the bill to state only that county employees "may report"
such abuse, which is no different than current law. Senator Oller
and several other legislators objected to this expensive abuse of the
Legislative process, which was done just to allow the author to
pretend that she had done something to improve the law.

As a Congressman, Rico Oller will continue to fight against wasteful
laws that are passed merely to allow politicians to claim credit for
existing law.

"Oller opposed legislation to protect dogs produced on puppy mills
(AB 161, 9/27/01)." This bill never mentioned "puppy mills" but it
did define professional dog breeders as persons who give away three
litters of puppies per year, even if each litter contained only one
puppy. In the midst of a budget crisis, Senator Oller strongly
opposed efforts to squander government resources by tightening
unnecessary regulations on persons who GIVE AWAY three dogs a year.

"He voted against legislation to require a bittering agent in
antifreeze... (AB 2474, 8/27/02)" That bill would have required the
addition of denatonium benzoate, a known poison that breaks down to
form deadly carcinogens when heated inside car engines. Furthermore,
this new law will dramatically increase the cost of antifreeze and
will eliminate competition from out-of-state products. Didn't the
folks at Humane USA PAC learn anything from the misguided requirement
to add MTBE to our gasoline? Just like the MTBE mandate, the
denatonium benzoate mandate will prove to be an outrageously
expensive environmental catastrophe.

"He opposed legislation to require [people training or selling guard
dogs] to obtain a permit from a local animal control agency... (SB
769, 9/6/01)." This bill was "gutted and amended" (completely
re-written in secret) in the last days of the Legislative Session in
2001. Republican lawmakers opposed the bill when the Democrats
refused to allow it to have a public hearing in either house of the
Legislature. Furthermore, this bill represented an expensive new
state mandate for local governments and many of the bills technical
provisions were objectionable. For example, the bill required all
sentry and guard dogs to be equipped with microchips for
identification purposes. The bill defines trainers, sellers, and
guard dogs so broadly that the inflexible requirements might apply to
anyone with a dog - and the fine for any unintentional violation of
this bill's complex provisions would be $1,000 for the first offense.
As another example of the unreasonable provisions of SB 769,
consider the requirement that any person selling even a single guard
dog must provide a telephone number "to a telephone that is manned by
a person 24 hours per day every day of the year so that calls from
the public may be received and answered." How many dog owners can
guarantee that their telephone is manned 24 hours per day, EVERY DAY?
This requirement might make sense for a large corporation, but is it
reasonable to require an individual who trains even a single guard
dog to be "on call" by a telephone for the rest of his or her life?
Clearly, this bill could have been improved if it had ever been heard
in a Legislative committee.

"Oller opposed legislation that requires pet stores to give buyers of
dogs and cats information on the benefits of veterinary care, spaying
and neutering, and licensing (AB 1336, 6/28/02)." Under AB 1336, a
pet store that only sells cats could be fined $1,000 for failing to
hand out a brochure on dog licensing, even in a city or county that
does not license cats! These are the sorts of laws that make the
California Legislature the laughing stock of the entire nation. What
is worse, AB 1336 represents yet another expensive mandate on pet
stores. If our government is going to require private businesses to
hand out literature, then the government should provide that
literature and take full responsibility for its accuracy.

"Oller opposed legislation that would have provided that the owner of
a condominium or common interest development who is 'disabled or
regarded by a licensed psychologist as needing a pet' must be allowed
to have one. (AB 2020, 8/3/98)." This is certainly true. Senator
Oller has been a consistent advocate for property rights and the
right to contract. If a person voluntarily signs a deed to buy a
condominium in a building that does not allow pets, his neighbors
have a right to expect him to follow the rules and keep his promises.
Some people are allergic to cats or frightened by snakes; government
has no business telling them that they cannot live in a building
where such pets are prohibited. Every legislator knows that some
blind people rely on their guide dogs, but the broad provisions of AB
2020 also apply to any "other animal." That's ridiculous!

"Oller opposed legislation to ban the use of carbon monoxide for
killing dogs and cats (AB 1659, 8/17/98)." Public records prove that
Senator Oller voted in FAVOR of Assembly Bill 1659 in 1998, but it
had nothing to do with carbon monoxide. That bill required the state
to reimburse small counties for homicide trials involving peace
officers killed in the line of duty. It received unanimous support
in the Assembly. (Check the Legislative Counsel website at
www.leginfo.ca.gov)

Perhaps the Humane USA PAC is referring to SB 1659 from 1998. That
controversial bill outlawed the euthanasia method used in almost
every animal control center in Rico Oller's Assembly District.
Although the bill represented a very expensive state mandate on local
governments, particularly in rural areas, the bill explicitly
prohibited the state from reimbursing local governments for any of
their costs. As a result, many local animal control centers were
forced to trim their budgets by abandoning adopt-a-pet programs so
that they could afford to switch to more expensive euthanasia
methods. The result? More animals were killed, but fewer were
killed by carbon monoxide.

The liberals who supported SB 1659 pretended to be very concerned
about the pain experienced by dogs and cats being killed in animal
shelters. Senator Ray Haynes proposed an amendment that would have
required doctors to consider the pain experienced by human babies
being killed by abortion, but the backers of SB 1659 killed that
amendment.

"Oller was the main witness against AB 732, a bill to ban high-tech
hound hunting of bears..." As public records will prove, Senator Oller
was not a witness against AB 732 and that bill has nothing to do with
bears or hounds. It never even reached the State Senate. (Check the
Legislative Counsel website at www.leginfo.ca.gov)

Perhaps the Humane USA PAC is referring to AB 342 (Koretz) from 2003.
Senator Oller proudly led a strong, bipartisan effort that
successfully defeated legislation that would have outlawed the use of
dogs in the hunting of "any bear," even bears sought by Fish & Game
wardens for killing human beings. Official government figures from
the Department of Fish & Game prove that the California bear
population is large and growing, despite the widespread use of hounds
in bear-hunting. With generations of experience, the Department has
concluded that the use of dogs to take bears has not resulted in
significant negative effects on bears, other wildlife, or their
habitats. Although dogs have been injured and killed by bears,
actual contact between dogs and bears is rare. Hounds have been
shown to reduce the likelihood of hunters accidentally killing sows
with cubs. Furthermore, because bear hunters normally release the
bears treed by their dogs, this hunting method tends to make bears
more wary of people and thereby saves many bears from becoming
nuisances in populated areas of the state.

"Oller opposed SB 1645 to require that predator and 'nuisance'
trappers be licensed and regulated and that they not be allowed to
sell the fur from the animals they kill (SB 1645, 8/26/02)." Every
Republican in the California Senate opposed Senate Bill 1645. As
reported in the San Francisco Chronicle and many other publications,
Senate Bill 1645 requires every person to obtain a trapping license
in order to kill mice, even at home. According to a story in World
Net Daily, "Scott Paulsen, chief of law enforcement for the
Department of Fish and Game, said the law would not be enforced for
personal use. Nevertheless, he says, the statute is enforced for
commercial use. That means if a citizen hires a gardener or pest
control service to set traps at his house, they could face arrest
without a permit." No one expects the Department of Fish & Game to
start enforcing this crazy law, but any legislator who voted for it
should have his head examined. Even Mary Ose would not have voted
for this silly law!

"Oller opposed legislation to require that animals in live markets be
held under humane conditions... (AB 2479, 8/25/2000)." This
controversial bill eliminated local control over live animal markets
and imposed a one-size-fits-all state mandate on every jurisdiction.
This bill was designed to shut down Asian retail food markets
throughout California, where live turtles, birds, and bull frogs have
been sold for generations. Unlike Western food customs which favor
removal of appendages and which prefer the meat to be long deposed,
some Asian culinary markets favor freshly-killed turtles, birds, and
bullfrogs. Senator Oller has consistently fought for tolerance for
cultural diversity and peaceful co-existence with the long-standing
traditions of minority communities. In a free country, we need to
allow other people to prepare their food in ways that might be
considered unpleasant or unpalatable to the majority in any given
time or place.

"He opposed a resolution asking Congress to continue the moratorium
on new oil leasing off the California coast (SJR 15, 7/12/01)."
Senator Oller has routinely opposed the many worthless resolutions
that the Democrats in control of the California Legislature like to
issue to the Republicans who control the U.S. Congress. As any U.S.
Congressman will admit in a candid moment, resolutions from the
California Legislature are not worth the paper they are written on -
despite the fact that each one of them costs California taxpayers an
average of $18,000! Senator Oller has argued that Californians would
be better served by a part-time Legislature that would not spend
taxpayers money passing silly resolutions that no one ever reads. On
the merits, SJR 15 represented very bad public policy because it
sought to encourage Congress to perpetuate the reliance on foreign
oil. Currently, most oil reaches California in leaky boats from the
other side of the world, which occasionally produce catastrophic oil
spills that create ecological disasters for generations to come. By
contrast, offshore oil drilling has a safety record that is
unsurpassed. What is more, domestic oil production is critical to
American national security and defense. Imposing new bans on oil
production offshore would only serve to further increase the cost of
gasoline in California. Rising gasoline prices hit two categories of
people the hardest: the poor and working class. Wealthy coastal
residents with million dollar homes in Santa Barbara can afford to
pay whatever price the oil companies choose to charge. The people
who work as their housekeepers and gardeners cannot.

If Paw PAC is now supporting Mary Ose, real Republicans should be concerned.

Wonder if they ever changed their flag to hang correctly in her campaign office?

The Charge:
"Oller was one of just three legislators... who voted against a bill to strengthen penalties for illegal cockfighting (SB 732, 8/19/03)"

Oller's "Defense":
"This is certainly true. Senator Oller has consistently stood up for basic constitutional rights and liberties. Senate Bill 732 increases the penalty to $25,000 for spectators at cockfights. By comparison, most misdemeanors carry a $1,000 fine. Cockfighting is abhorrent, but the punishment should fit the crime."

The Facts:
SB 732 increased the maximum potential cockfighting fine to $25,000 only for the totally incorrigible - the recidivists, the repeat offenders, the persons who don't learn their lesson the first time that they are convicted of this offense:

"A second or subsequent conviction of this section, Section 597b, or Section 597j is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine, except in unusual circumstances where the interests of justice would be better served by the imposition of a lesser sentence."

(You can read SB 732 in it's entirety here.)

Mr. Oller's suggestion that the Constitution forbids the imposition of large fines on recidivist cockfighters is, of course, ridiculous.

Mr. Oller is correct about his having been one of only three legislators who didn't stand up to the cockfighting lobby.

And, finally, Mr. Oller's "policy consultant" is correct - "Cockfighting is abhorrent." That's why most legislators aren't afraid to vote against it.

BTTT!!!!!

"Oller opposed legislation to protect dogs produced on puppy mills (AB 161, 9/27/01)." This bill never mentioned "puppy mills" but it did define professional dog breeders as persons who give away three litters of puppies per year, even if each litter contained only one puppy. In the midst of a budget crisis, Senator Oller strongly opposed efforts to squander government resources by tightening unnecessary regulations on persons who GIVE AWAY three dogs a year.

The definition of a puppy mill is a breeder who keeps females and males confined in cages for the sole purpose of pumping out litter, after litter, of pups. The manner of disposition of the dogs makes no difference. The confinement of these dogs is cruel; many of them develop hip and joint problems from the lack of exercise; and most die after five or six years of life, very prematurely.

I know this because I work in puppy mill rescue. Oller failed to do anything to regulate the abhorrent practice of breeders whose only concern is to produce as many dogs as possible. Many who buy these dogs don't realize that, due to massive inbreeding, these dogs will also have hip,joint, and back problems, and will pass these along to any offspring. Puppy mills are a scourge and breeders from these mills are the bottom-feeders of society.

And not regulating cockfighting must be a Mexican thing, as raids on cockfights seem to find a majority of attendees to be Hispanic. So, "Paco" is not going to do anything to hurt the vile entertainment his "bros" enjoy. Just what kind of cretin enjoys watching animals cut each other to pieces? Dumb ones, that's who.

I'm not from California, but I would campaign VIGOROUSLY against "Paco" Oller.

Have you taken the time to read the bills?

Do you understand that there are fiscal repercussions to them?

Do you understand that they only broaden existing legislation?

A conservative often has to make difficult choices. In order to fund those bills, money would be pulled from other areas. Areas that effect HUMAN LIVES.

They were good votes, and Rico is a GREAT man.

Bear hunting is legal.

The entire story that you relish quoting is false.

That was a hit piece put out by an opponent.

Are you suggesting that we just abolish hunting entirely? Is that your "litmus" test for a persons love for animals?

Why stop there. Why don't we abolish ranching as well?

Is makes me so angry when people refuse to look at the FACTS. The fact is Rico is just a terrific man. It irks me no end when people drag him through the mud. Especially when the attacks have NO foundation.

Mr. Oller's suggestion that the Constitution forbids the imposition of large fines on recidivist cockfighters is, of course, ridiculous.

Why should the fine for cockfighting be greater than one paid by a daycare canter who is abusing children?

The crime and the punishment should be consistent.

This is one more example of the rights of an animal having a higher value than the life of a human.

The definition of a puppy mill

Puppy mills were not mentioned in the bill.

Breeders are.

I have stock dogs. I would be forced to abide by the regulations set forth in the bill.

Even if it passed it would do NOTHING to stop puppy mills.

The PACO crap is way out of line.

Typical though, I have never met a liberal who is capable of defending a position without resorting to personal attacks.

HSUS is a militant anti-hunting organization that masquerades as a pet rescue organization. They are also very well organized and finded by people like George Soros and the Tides Foundation.

They are PETA but use 'saner' tactics.

How many kids have died from swallowing anti-freeze?

Good! If you are against him, that means he is a good man.

You love this guy. So your objectivity is suspect.

I'm just not one who thinks that there's anything cool or conservative about cruelty to animals. ;-)

your objectivity is suspect.

You obviously can't stand him, so isn't your objectivity just as suspect?

I am a cattle rancher.

I abhor animal cruelty.

I am sickened by people who neglect or abuse animals, however, I am just as saddened by people who neglect the elderly, or children, or the homeless...

It is a matter of prospective.

You obviously can't stand him, so isn't your objectivity just as suspect?

Not him. I don't know him. But his votes indicate a certain callousness towards animals.

Not him. I don't know him. But his votes indicate a certain callousness towards animals.

If you read the bills in question, you might realize that he had to make a choice between the welfare of animals and the responsible use of local funds.

Funds that would have been diverted from areas that support human life.

Fiscal responsibility is VITAL to the well being of ALL Californian's.

I abhor animal cruelty. . . .

I am just as saddened by people who neglect the elderly, or children, or the homeless...

It seems that you and I agree on just about everything, TatooChick. Soooo, I have nothing to further to say to you, except . . .

Veinte seis y seis iguales uno irlanda. Siempre. ;-)

Click the pic!

Four Green Fields

Pi** off Babs . . . Vote for Rico!