Neuter Laws Postponed
Looks like the Board of Supervisors held off taking any action on the proposed pet neutering ordinance. Makes sense, since two of the five Supes were absent.
A similar proposal on the state level got stalled in committee but should be back in some form before the end of the month.
Regardless of one's feeling on these sort of proposals, do we really want to have both the county and state pass such a law?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:57 AM
43 comments
43 Comments:
Did you see Rodger Rodoni? As always grumpy and useless. It was obvious by his crossed arms that he is against it. The question is what has he done in the 2nd District to address the lack of animal control and the pet overpopulation?
AB 1634 will be voted on April 24th. The Dems are showing strong support. You would think the Republicans would also support this bill. It is all about saving taxpayers money and empowering a smaller government. Each jurisdiction gets to decide on the details of fines etc..
How to enforce is the problem. There have been purebreds at dog pound so even if a breeder got a permit not to spay or neuter that doesn't guarantee a dog they sell won't go to the pound for one reason or another.
Thank God Roger is too old to breed anymore.
The problem with back yard breeders is that Law Enforcement is unable to enforce standards of care against irresponsible pet owners. So if an individual breeds with out any intention to take care of the animals the burden falls on the Humboldt County Animal Shelter and the non-profit rescue groups who spend 1000's of hours a year to clean up after the breeder’s negligence.
FACT:
800,000 animals a year are euthanized in California alone.
It cost CA taxpayers $250 million dollars a year to kill adoptable animals.
Each decade CA spends 3 Billion dollars to euthanize adoptable animals.
To this date 126.1 million dollars have been spent to adhere to the Hayden Bill and it is growing.
LA just spent 126 million dollars to build 4 shelters and more shelters still need to be built to meet current demands.
Breeders DO NOT pay taxes nor do they feel they have to follow local and state ordinances regarding standards of care for dogs and cats. Ex: it is standard practice to crate dogs and use invasive procedures to force them to defecate on command. They do not walk the dogs or give them exercise expected of an animal rescue. No oversight whatsoever!
Is this really a privacy issue? Most would call this animal cruelty. This is not "reasonable standard of care" and most of our society would agree. And Fred this is not about Civil Liberties. It is about humane and responsible treatment. I am tired of paying for breeder’s negligence and tired of hearing about Homo sapiens rights. Animals have the right to be treated with humane treatment not as an object.
Who gives Breeders the right to run a business and not act with in parameters of the law?!
Barbara Shults, RN-Director
North Coast Animal Welfare Advocacy Center
Northern California Coordinator for AB 1634
Thank you Barbara. I hope your input is the last word on whether there is now a public "problem" of uncared for domestic animals.
Anyone opposed to greater regulation is supporting a policy of massive killings of unwanted animals.
Let's hear the percentage of unwanted animals compared to the numbers of pets overall, Barbara.
The VAST number of people are resposible, caring pet owners, with mixed-breed and purebred cats, dogs, hamsters, guinea pigs, rats, iguanas, ferrets, chinchillas, rabbits, goldfish, turtles and much much more.
This proposal is a hideous abomination. Allowing only purebreds ensures weakness and disease. The entire concept is insane.
I am still concerned about how this will be enforced. I agree with a commenter on the previous post that mix breeds can be great dogs. I have had several that I have been great dogs (lab/Australian shepherd, lab/terrier, lab/German Shepherd).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I agree, Carol.100%.
Rose, Yeah you can always make something seem small by comparing it to something large. But its not numbers that matter here, its the impact.
By your logic: Since the vast majority of people behave well, there's no need to have criminal laws to sanction the very few who misbehave.
How about this logic? One bad apple can spoil the whole barrel.
Deal with the facts rather than prejudiced ideology and irrational scare tactics.
This issue of mixed breeds is interesting because it raises the question of how should animals be allowed to breed?
I've seen that most mixed animals arise from uncontrolled roaming and animals mating "on the street". Typically the owner didn't choose the male breeding animal and doesn't even know which one it is. If that's so, is it responsible pet ownership to allow your animal to roam, unsupervised so it can encounter a mating partner?
And lets be frank, many owners of male animals take pride that their pet has fathered multiple litters. Sometimes neighborhood disputes result from a male pet owner knowingly and repeatedly putting their pet out to "prowl".
Is there some way we could use these critters as a resource? Perhaps fatten em' up and sell them to China? Let them get their exercise on power generating treadmills? Pull plows? Sell their fur to Puff Daddy's clothes company? Just thinking of angles.
Eeeew! Sounds like Cruella DeVille is the previous commenter.
Aren't there problems with overbreeding with purebreds?
I had a St Bernard that had epilepsy and had to take Phenobarbitol. Eventually the big guy had seizures one after another and we had to put him down. The veterinarian told us it could be the result of overbreeding. I have a purebred Corgi now and he is a snappy indignant fellow, however a good watch dog. My past mutts have been the best dogs, though some were a little strange looking. Tonka was black lab/terrier, so she was black with a white beard and walked sideways. She lived to be 17. She always had to carry something in her mouth to greet us when we came home. Loved to roll in dead seagulls,too.
Don't mix breeds make better dogs?
What about purebreeds that get knocked-up by another roaming breed?
This law seems ridiculous and I am a Democrat.
Has logic gone completely out the window?
Animals roam, unsupervised! And encounter a mating partner. Yes. It is called nature, a beautiful thing, which you are talking about legislating away. Some of the most amazing dogs and cats come from that "indiscriminate" breeding.
And the notion that only "breeders" will be allowed to have unfixed dogs and cats, and that they are somehow more responsible than you and I is patently absurd. Ever heard of puppy mills?
The real question is why you think we need more and more and more and more laws that intrude into people's very personal decisions just because some people aren't responsible. And in this case a law that is cruel and unusual, unenforceable, and incredibly elitist.
Better to make the case for why it is better to spay and neuter - less fighting, less spraying, less wandering, and less unwanted pets - and make it affordable - all things that HAVE been and are being done and are working.
Better that than criminalizing responsible pet owners, and kids with puppies in a cardboard box in front of Safeway.
Barbara Schultz'll be out of a job, because animal rights advocates will no longer be needed - there will be no more animals, or only the rich will be able to afford the astronomically high prices the "breeders" will be able to charge for increasingly inferior animals. Vets will be out of a job. pet food manufacturers will be filing bankruptcy.
Think it through to its logical conclusion. Dogs are gradually being phased out anyway, with leash laws and denial of access to public places, maybe you're just talking about speeding up the process.
How exactly will this be enforced?I have 2 dogs and 3 cats,as soon as it would go into effect would some county employee have to get paid tax dollars to drive out to my house to check on them,or would I have to take them somewhere to have them checked?And if I bred them,how would the county find out?If this ordinance passes,I have a feeling that Big Brother will be watching me more closely.
By the way,all of my pets are spayed and/or neutered.This is one of those cases where education is smarter than legislation.
Animal Control officers pray to be out of a job, however they know this will never happen. Ask them.
We euthanize millions of animals every year.
Animal Control agencies have been educating for the last three decades and the Nation has seen an increase of the pet population.
Education is not the only answer.
Privacy?!- when my taxpayer dollars stop paying for the pet overpopulation then your argument is valid.
When the Animal Welfare rescue groups and Animal Shelters have no animals to adopt out then your argument is valid.
When animal cruelty stops then your argument is valid.
Do you think Shannon Miranda has privacy with 167 rescued dogs in his care at this time? 30% purebreds
Should we kill all these animals?
People’s personal decisions affect public safety and have created chaos (ex; Katrina) for the millions of animals suffering needlessly because of "privacy issues".
Fact:
Most Breeders do not take responsibility for the animal after it leaves their care.
Barbara Shults
"Allowing only purebreds ensures weakness and disease"
Rose is right. Muts are superior in every way to those awful, yapping, biting, diseased creatures known as "pure-breds."
Tell you what, Barbara, we'll just pass a law that your tax dollars don't pay for it. We'll go back to the way it was, where each individual was responsible for putting their animals down if need be. Somewhere along the line, people chose to abdicate that responsibility, but I'll bet they never dreamed it would be to this end.
Animal Shelters (Pounds) were meant to be a place where people who had unwanted pets could bring them in safely. (kind of like the new law where you can drop a baby off at a hospital and abandon it without penalty.) Where we are now is better than where we came from, Animals aren't left to roam the streets, they have a chance at adoption (and Humboldt's Animal Shelter is amazing.) The animals that 30 years ago would be put down in a matter of days are now given many weeks, maybe longer, and when they have to be put down, it is done humanely. What this ordinance will do is take away that safe depot, and return to the old ways of abandoning animals in the streets. We'll go back to the days where puppies were thrown over bridges in gunny sacks. Worse, you want us to go to a place where there are no pets, no puppies, no kittens, no companion animals. What a horrible world that will be.
Adding an unenforceable law and another level of bureaucracy is not going to fix anything - and people need to think long and hard about the consequences.
I was waiting for Barbara to bring up PETA so we could discuss their sterling record on animal rescue.
Rose, it was a small there is not retroactive birth control as you would be the first one recalled.
Make that "shame". Sorry, it's late.
And, Barbara, Shannon operates a shelter, so he is certainly under a different level of "privacy" than a person with a dog and a cat.
For God's sake, as a supposed animal lover do you not see that you are condemning future Barbaras to a life without pets, devoid of animal companions, if this law goes to its obvious conclusion? The disconnect here is what stuns me.
You're telling kids today that they will never have the experience of seeing kittens born, of raising puppies, of seeing their kids get to do the same. Only if they can afford it will they be able to get on a waiting list to go to the State-sanctioned puppy mill and bring home a sterile pet in a sterile process that has removed all of the magic and life from the process.
I am truly sickened at the inhumanity.
Rose, you take on the subject shows why we have this problem in the first place. You're as bad as the homeless nutcase you told the supervisors that if they took the nuts from his dog, he wanted $25,000 in compensation as it was a taking.
And this ordinance would just further tie up our D.A.'s office which certainly doesn't need to tied up any further than it already is.
to be tied up any further,I should say.
Yeah, 9:47 - I see from the comments here and on previous posts that you seek to "frame the debate" by characterizing anyone who wants to see animals left intact as "low-class" and "under-educated." Demonize and denigrate your opposition. It's worked for you in the past.
That "homeless nutcase" is a human being who loves his companion animal, and sees the insanity of this sick proposal. How dare you ridicule him.
I suppose the pissing match is inevitable, and this is probably a futile attempt, but here I go.
The killing of all those animals at the shelter is terribly sad. As McKnight said in one of the ER articles, go on down to the shelter and they'll train you and have you spend a day killing animals. Then decide what you think about this ordinance they (the shelter people and the rescue people) are trying to pass. I can see no way that reasonable people coud deny there is a real and tragic problem here.
Please ask the Supervisors to take advantage of the momentum and pass a meaningful ordinance that will help reduce the number of unwanted animals. I'm confident we can alleviate any unreasonable consequences from such an ordinance, and the hassle will be worth it if we can cut the numbers of animals shelters are forced to kill.
and yes I know that could is spelled could and not coud. this is for one person in particular.
Your bill at the state level is being proposed by the same nutcase who wants to ban incandescent light bulbs, now he wants to ban kittens and puppies.
Look at the "framing" of this debate, making it all about "breeders" and not about individuals who have and care for their pets.
Politics - Legislation aims to sterilize pets - sacbee.com
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, through a program unprecedented in its size nationwide, hopes to curb the number of unwanted dogs and cats by making fewer capable ...
www.sacbee.com/111/story/136347.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
KPBS > News > Local News
Assembly member Lloyd Levine has introduced a bill that would require state residents to stop using incandescent light bulbs. He wants people to install ...
www.kpbs.org/news/local?id=7244 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
Insanity.
Finding an effective way to address the tragedy of pet overpopulation is worthwhile. Regardless of who is introducing the idea, a good idea is a good idea.
Good intent. Jeff. Good INTENT. HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES.
Anon.R.mous gang neutered by concerned citizens. Film at 11!
What horrible consequences Rose? More horrible than the suffering and death of so many animals?
If you have no more cats having kittens (other than those state approved purebreds), no more dogs having puppies (other than state apporved purebreds in puppy mills) you are essentially relegating all but a very elite few to a life with no pets, Jeff.
Those horrible consequences.
The horrible consequence that no child in any family anywhere will ever experience seeing kittens born and raised, seeing them open their eyes for the first time, seeing them learn to walk and play and wrestle, to see puppies born, ato see their eyes open for the first time, to smell the special smell of little puppies, to see the magic of life, Jeff.
It's worth it all - the pain of losing your pet when it dies - because you have that indescribable magical REAL experience.
The horrible death of diversity, of beautiful, free mixed breeds, the loss of countless traits that are passed from generation to generation...
This proposal is horrifically narcissistic, cynical, shortsighted, draconian and stupid.
You now have a society that wants to allow euthanasia of senior citizens, but wants to stop all pets from ever living for all future generations because you have to euthanize some...
Does it occur to you that you are punishing the VAST VAST VAST majority of responsible loving pet owners because of a few?
And not all people who bring their pets to the promised "Animal Shelter" are irresponsible. Many have come to believe in the concept of shelters as a resposible alternative - a place where they can safely deposit thie unwanted pets to either be adopted or humanely euthanized. If that promise is now to turn so hideously wrong, perhaps the shelters should be shut down altogether.
This is madness.
Showing real love for your pet
The Times-Standard
Eureka Times Standard
Article Launched:04/14/2007 04:30:10 AM PDT
When the Times-Standard's Editorial Board sat down this week to debate the county's proposed pet sterilization law, the initial mood was to ask, “Why such a draconian move?” But after 20 minutes of back-and-forth, we were startled to find we had turned around 180 degrees, and had come to believe that something must be done to curb the unfettered proliferation of unwanted dogs and cats.
An ordinance proposed by the sheriff's department would require that, with few exceptions, residents would have to spay or neuter their pets or face fines -- and possibly jail time. Our first reactions were that it would be hard to enforce. There were visions of pet police going onto private property, inspecting and removing beloved family pets. The criminalizing of what many see as a “right” to breed one's dog or cat seemed over the line.
But the proposed ordinance has plenty of opportunities for exceptions, such as for registered purebreds or for hunting dogs. The sheriff's department says it doesn't want to harass the average pet owner, but wants tools to track the chronic offender. For instance, jail time only comes into the picture with the fourth violation in a year.
The abandonment of 800,000 pets in California each year is a tragedy, with taxpayers spending $250 million to house them and, if a home cannot be found, eventually kill them. Public awareness campaigns haven't worked in stemming the tide of abandoned pets overflowing animal shelters. Maybe the threat of fines will.
Other counties have similar laws, and a bill has been proposed in the state Legislature as well. Opposed are breeder groups like the National Animal Interest Alliance Trust for the Protection of Animals, Animal Owners and Animal Enterprises. Proponents include state and local animal rescue, veterinary and humane groups. We agree with them that a spay and neuter law is the best way to show love for our animal friends.
Are you the same Jim Ferguson who is married to Barbara Schultz, the "Animal Rights advocate"?
No one who professes to care about animals would consider a law which will kill of entire families and bloodlines, and ultimately the entire species, that would "permit" only purebred animals to be born, only state sanctioned "breeders" to have kittens and puppies, to take away that experience from millions and millions, billions ultimately, of children from ever having the experience of seeing kittens and puppies born, of raising them and seeing them open their eyes and take thier first steps.
This is insanity.
There are hundreds of better solutions. Starting with making VOLUNTARY spaying and neutering FREE and offereing incentives, letting people KNOW that the animals they trustingly drop off to the shelter will be killed, - most who listen to "Dogs on Death Row" believe that the new Humboldt County Animal Shelter is successfully placing almost all of the animals they get, they hear about the rescue groups taking the ones who didn't get adopted. Let them know. Give them the option of taking their pets and pet's offspring back rather than have them killed.
Try to come up with a realistic truly HUMANE and rational solution - or accept that the pound is a necessary evil, and that the animlas euthanized are a small fraction of the many loved and cared for and even pampered pets throught the WORLD.
But don't ever present yourself as caring for animals and animal rights again if you are even remotely supportive of this horrific idea.
What is this, because PETA took in a bunch of animals and was caught dumping the dead carcasses in dumpsters, so now they have to cover their pathetic tracks?
This is sick.
Barbara labels herself and her radio show "Animal Advocate" so don't try and smear her with the whole PETA / extremist animal rights brush. And in addition to being with Barbara for years, in my spare time, I ran Virginia's campaign for mayor. I'm a very multidimensional creature.
Rose, as much time as you spend on the Blogs one would think that you would educate yourself by going to AlL the animal welfare orgainizations websites and doing your research.
The argument is NOT should children experience the miracle of seeing animals give birth. Your uneducated response is exactly why we need this law.
yeah Rose, you talk about oranges and apples, then proceed to mangos and papayas, then lose us when you go to bananas. Your a fruitcake!!
Rose, you bring up some good points, and this oridinace as written if taken to it's "logical conclusion" seems like it would result in what you fear. Making outlaws out of families who want to share the long standing tradition of watching a dog or cat give birth does seem harsh. However, I think that if our supes do their job, and all the interested parties are willing to put forth good solutions, we can take advantage of the attention this issue is receiving and come up with something that will reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats. Maybe schools can incorporate birth into curriculum so many children can experience the same birth. Maybe we can have a certain number of breeding permits available at random for family pets given out by random draw. We can't reduce the number of animals housed in shelters and then killed without reducing the number of pets born. There are not enough homes to absorb all the cats and dogs born. Education and fee waivers might reach some who just need extra encouragement to do the responsible thing. But how can we give our authorities (in this case animal control) the tools to deal with the irresponsible who let their pets produce litter after litter?
Post a Comment
<< Home