Fun with fax machines
By Gina Spadafori
May 24, 2007
I haven’t used my fax machine in so long that I had to go buy a new phone cord for it. (Yes, I know I can fax via e-mail, so tell me: Which service do you folks like? I’m going to have to sign up.)
Anyway … faxes to my Congresswoman and both my Senators in Washington, D.C., in support of food-safety measures (here’s a nice cheat sheet, courtesy of the forums on Itchmo).
Faxes … to my Assemblymember and Senator in Sacramento in opposition to AB 1634.
And since I was in such a faxy mood, I faxed each of my three beloved veterinarians:
Dear Dr. [Name],
I’m drawing on our long-time relationship to ask you to contact the CVMA and request that they withdraw their support for AB 1634, the so-called “California Healthy Pets” Act.
Frankly, I’m confused, because if any group of people should understand the difference between reputable breeders and those who fill the state’s shelters with unadoptable pets, that group should be our veterinarians. You know me, and you know others like me. We reputable, responsible dog fanciers are among your very best clients, seeking out the very best in veterinary advice and services every day.
You understand the difference between responsible dog breeders and others – why doesn’t the CVMA? And if they do, why are they supporting the so-called “California Healthy Pets” act, which has nothing to do with health and everything to do with targeting responsible, reputable breeders?
I encourage you to encourage the CVMA to immediately withdraw support, because:
–AB 1634 offers an unworkably simplistic solution that does NOT address the realities of a complex problem of unadoptable pets in a state as large and diverse as ours.
– AB 1634 does NOT offer targeted solutions to what is in fact a shortage of pets people do want, and a surplus of animals they don’t. (Feral cats, large breeds and mixes of dogs with unfairly bad reputations, primarily pit bulls). This imbalance is so real that urban non-profit shelters have set up programs to “cherry-pick” adoptable pets (primarily small dogs and puppies) from rural municipal shelters, while continuing to euthanize the unwanted pets in their own communities.
–AB 1634 will NOT affect commercial breeders (a/k/a “puppy mills”) and clueless, careless and greedy under-the-radar quick-buck breeders who sell for through flyers, the Internet or at swap meets or even in supermarket parking lots. These people don’t properly care for or license their pets now, and won’t if AB 1634 passes.
–AB 1634 WILL affect responsible reputable breeders of healthy, well-socialized pets and working dogs. These breeders are NOT the ones putting pets in the shelters. The bill’s negotiated changes to “exempt” such breeders are ill-defined and insufficient.. This, while AB 1634 specifically exempts large-scale commercial breeders, a/k/a puppy mills.
Thank you so much for your help. We really need it NOW. And if you could additionally fax a letter to your state Assembly member, that would help, too.
Sincerely,
Me
I included smiley faces at the bottom and asked each of them to lunch.
Note on the typewriter: No, I don’t use one. I do have a lot of them sitting around the house, though, for decoration. The first time my nephew came over and saw one, he asked, “Where’s the screen?” I felt very, very old.
Gina,
Thanks so much for covering this issue. I hope everyone will contact their Assemblymember in opposition. There are many good reasons to oppose this bill, but the primary reason can not be overcome by amendments granting more exceptions. AB1634 is a mandatory spay/neuter bill and it has been shown over and over that mandatory spay/neuter approaches to pet popuation problesm are counter-productive. At best they do nothing to reduce shelter populations and euthanasias. At worst they increase euthanasias and increase costs.
This is counter-intuitive, so why do mandatory spay/neuter programs have the opposite results of voluntary spay/neuter programs? A reasonable question.
The increased acceptance of routine spaying and neutering for pets has been a major contributing factor in the dramatic decrease in euthanasias over the past three decades. So the average person thinks - all you have to do is increase the number of dogs and cats s/n’ed and you will reduce the euthanasias. If you have to make it mandatory, so be it. What they don’t
understand is that comparing mandatory with voluntary is comparing apples and oranges.
1) Voluntary represents an attitude of responsibility about pet ownership. It is the result of education. The real issue is responsible pet ownership and forced spay/neuter doesn’t change minds or attitudes, or create responsibility. If anything it creates resentment.
2) Voluntary spay/neuter programs don’t produce the negative side effects of forced spay/neuter.
a) People stop licensing their dogs, which reduces revenues that support animal control.
b) Compliance with rabies vaccination is reduced.
c) Pets will be abandoned by people who fear the fines. In particular, pregnant mothers will be abandoned in fear of detection and fines.
d) There will be fewer homes for dogs and cats because of the cost of spay/neuter and/or the fear of fines. This does not apply to animals coming from rescue organizations, who already spay/neuter, but casual breeders (the person whose pet became pregnant accidentally, the person who wants to breed their pet once to get another just like her, the person who takes in
a stray cat or dog that proves to be pregnant) will have a harder time finding homes for the kittens and puppies, so more will be turned in to shelters.
e) There are fewer well-bred, well-raised puppies and kittens available. More people get their pets from questionable sources, resulting in more abandoned for health and/or behavior issues.
Comment by Linda Hobbet — May 24, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Gina:
You want to REALLY feel old? Mention the word “typewriter” in front of a kid and get the “What’s that?” response.
About electronic email faxes. Ironically, before I started the pet food recall assembly line of faxes I only used my fax machine maybe 10 times a year, tops. Everyone I know except a couple rare dinosaurs, have email which serves to transport documents.
Ironically, just this weekend my fax machine coughed and sputtered and died. No more, I decided. Still - had to do something about it. I checked online. Basically two major fax services and the cost is almost nothing. One is eFax.xom and the other is Faxaway.com
There was a letter of praise for Faxaway.com from someone on staff of the NY Times, so that was a positive. then I read that the spam from eFax.com is horrid. They let you have the service for free for a while, all the time selling your email address to spammers. Faxaway.com promises no spam. So I signed with them. I really have to try it out - been too busy.
But then this morning or last night someone asked me how I was going to handle scanning certain documents that I needed to fax. I have so few of those that I don’t have a scanner - just a good next door neighbor who does. Then my cousin emailed me and told me what a dummy I was - just use my digital camera and upload. So that takes care of that. So we’ll see how Faxaway.com works out.
BTW, during my research I must tell you about a trick I learned from a blogsite. When you get spam in your fax, take an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of DARK BLACK paper and fax it back to the phone number that spammed you. Irritates the hell out of them because you can imagine how long it takes to print [backing up other incoming faxes] AND it seriously depletes their toner!
What goes around, comes around.
Comment by Lynn — May 25, 2007 @ 12:11 am
I contacted both my assemblyman and senator and both oppose this bill.
Comment by Linda — May 26, 2007 @ 10:22 am