PetPAC and the politics of spay-neuter
By Gina Spadafori
July 17, 2007
The Los Angeles Times profiles Bill Hemby, who breeds and shows Borzoi as a hobby and is the savvy professional political operative who built PetPAC into the group that snarled in opposition to California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine’s attack on the state’s responsible, reputable breeders. (With a free pass to commercial breeders for political expediency.) No matter what side of the issue you’re on (and you know what side we’re on here) you’ll find plenty to get worked up over this piece:
What appeared to be a straightforward proposal by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine to neuter California’s dogs and cats instead met massive opposition and may have spawned a potentially powerful lobby that now plans to play a significant role fighting for pet owners’ rights nationwide.
When Levine surrendered last week and withdrew his bill from consideration for this year, it was in front of an overflow crowd of animal owners at the state Capitol, many of whom were wearing lapel stickers bearing the lettering “PetPAC.”
The brainchild of Bill Hemby, a retired San Francisco cop who raises and shows Russian wolfhounds, PetPAC started from nothing three months ago and today has signed up 35,000 supporters. They helped raise more than $200,000 to defeat Levine’s bill that would have required Californians to spay or neuter their pets or face stiff fines.
Tom Hogen-Esch, a political scientist at Cal State Northridge, said the Levine bill woke a sleeping giant.
“That type of legislation Americans find extremely intrusive, so it really sparked a backlash,” Hogen-Esch said. “Pets, for a lot of people, are like a member of their family.”
Hemby said his goal now is to build the membership to 1 million pet owners and animal lovers by next year’s elections and to start a separate political action committee capable of contributing $300,000 to candidates supportive of pet owners’ rights.
Levine is at the top of the list of those legislators who may be targeted for defeat by the group’s political committee, sources said. Being forced out by term limits unless a ballot measure in February extends his possible tenure, Levine is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sheila Kuehl next year.
[...]
However, critics of PetPAC challenge the assertion that the group represents the views of the majority of pet owners, thousands of which supported AB 1634 as a way to address the 454,000 unwanted dogs and cats put to death in California shelters each year. The measure provided exemptions for show, breeder and work animals.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys, and other backers of the bill note that many of the supporters of PetPAC are people who make money from animals, including breeders, trainers and veterinarians.
“It’s ridiculous that they oppose this bill. They are doing it out of selfish interest, for financial gain,” said Ontario businessman Chris Majeska, one of thousands of the legislation’s supporters who flooded the Capitol with e-mails and letters. Majeska has eight dogs, mostly mutts he found roaming the streets.
Levine and others say PetPAC crossed the line in distorting facts and using fear tactics. The group printed posters opposing AB 1634 as the “Pet Extinction Act.” Hemby went on television to allege that the proposed spay rules were part of a campaign by PETA and other extremist groups to “eliminate all dogs and cats in California.”
Here’s the rest. And leave your comments, as always. I just hope Levine — who doesn’t even have pets — learns that sweeping and ill-considered mandates hitting responsible, reputable breeders and owners is not the answer — targeted incentives that address the actual problem are. And animal-rights activists are not a pol’s best friend. You can be darn sure other politicians nationwide are walking away with that message.
And I hope that those who continue to say this was defeated by “commercial breeders” — misinformation now being spread even by the generally admirable Best Friends – will at least try to learn exactly why all those people went ballistic over this.
Search for “1634″ on this blog and you’ll find all the information you need.
I know where you stand on this issue, and I understand your concern for legitimate breeders. HOWEVER, all those “concerned” animal people need to take a good long look at the number of unwanted cats and dogs who never have a chance at a decent life. And they need to take a look at the untold numbers of victims of puppy and kitten mills. And something needs to be done. I’m not here to place blame, but if this organization PetPac is mostly concerned about their financial interests, then they are no better than other groups that put money ahead of animal protection.
We’ve got enough “enemies” to fight ~ seems as if those of us who care deeply about the animals of this world could come together to do a better job of taking care of them. That includes pets, farm animals, zoo animals, wild animals ~ all of them.
Comment by catmom5 — July 17, 2007 @ 10:34 am
omment by catmom5 — July 17, 2007 @ 10:34 am
“HOWEVER, all those ‘concerned’ animal people need to take a good long look at the number of unwanted cats and dogs who never have a chance at a decent life.”
What makes you think we haven’t?
But to treat the topic honestly and fairly, you have to get a lot more in-depth than sweeping, over-generalized statements such as “unwanted cats and dogs who never have a chance at a decent life”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 10:44 am
If you’re stuck on how to move from vague generalities to more useful specifics, try this:
A good starting question for folks who are worried about all the “unwanted cats and dogs who never have a chance at a decent life” is to ask “WHERE did they come from? WHO turned them in?”
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 11:01 am
right on, OTHER Pat: why oh why do the supporters of these bills continually ignore who it is exactly who is abandoning pets to shelters??? That would be THE OWNERS!
excuse me if I suspect their motives.
Is there ANY supporter of mandatory s/n who thinks responsible breeding is a GOOD and NECESSARY thing?
Comment by EmilyS — July 17, 2007 @ 11:04 am
I don’t necessarily suspect ALL of their motives.
Certainly some of them belong to the school of thought that says ALL breeding should come to an end. But not all of them do.
Some of them just have an oversimplified idea of where the problems come from. They’re the ones who keep coming back over and over and over again, and levelling the same “You don’t care about the animals!” accusations at us without putting the time and energy into taking it any deeper than that.
If they did, I’m sure very many of them would come to see that we DO care about the animals, and that we’re more interested in examining the issues to be sure that the solutions put out there are solutions that will actually *work*.
As opposed to sound-byte “feel good” attacks that don’t really address the root problems at all.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 11:15 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 10:44 am
hmmm, where do I fall on the “concerned animal people” front I wonder? I don’t support MSN, yet live with 6 previously unwanted pets and have spent more than my fair share of time working to help homeless and abused animals . . . .
that big ol’ broad brush sure doesn’t help the animals in need.
Comment by straybaby — July 17, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Straybaby, no, that big ol’ broad brush doesn’t help animals in need. And who is it that’s wielding it?
I see MSN supporters claiming “breeders”—all breeders, apparently, or at least they see no need to specify “commercial breeders” or “puppy millers”—are THE problem, opposing mandatory spay/neuter (at four months!) solely out of a concern for their “profits.” (This bill, of course, was carefully designed to have no effect whatever on the kind of breeders who really are making a profit off their animals.) I do not see MSN opponents attacking people who adopt animals from shelters. In fact, many people who oppose MSN have pets adopted from shelters, and/or are involved in rescue work. Such as, um, somebody or other right here, deeply involved in this website we’re posting on. Hmmm. I wonder who that could be…
So, since you agree that that big ol’ broad brush doesn’t help any animals, maybe you’d like to put it down for a while?
Comment by Lis — July 17, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Comment by Lis — July 17, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
me put down the brush?! i’m not the one wielding it, I was trying to show an example of the rather large area that brush leaves out. i SUPPORT responsible breeders/rescue/shelters/homeless pets/adoption. I do NOT think all breeders are the same and would love to see an end to for-profit commercial breeders and establishments. I support S/N programs and EDUCATION regarding responsible pet ownership including where one aquires a pet :)
Comment by straybaby — July 17, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
A good article on this subject was published 7/16 in the San Diego Union Tribune on the deserved demise of AB 1634 (see below).
San Diego has a very effective voluntary program in place that has reduced their shelter euthanasia statistics dramatically over the last several years.
As the article suggests, mandatory spay/neuter will not bring down shelter euthanasia statistics.
Other workable solutions can do that, including voluntary spay/neuter financial assistance, outreach and education, much needed changes in attitudes in shelter culture, attitudes and management, recognition that pet”overpopulation” is a myth, and that education of pet owners rather than punishment of breeders can allow many animals to keep their homes.
Two good websites that have lots of information on how to reach “no kill nation” status (websites that don’t push for mandatory spay/neuter and who recognize that “too many animals, not enough homes is a MYTH) are:
http://www.nokillsolutions.com
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org
The San Diego article follows:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....16top.html
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
A deserved demise
Mandatory pet-sterilization bill went too far
July 16, 2007
Given the passions raised by the issue, members of the state Senate Local Government Committee are certain to be inundated with nasty phone calls, e-mails and letters in coming days over the panel’s decision to effectively kill a mandatory pet spay-neuter law this year in the Legislature. But we believe lawmakers made the right call.
There is no question California has far too many unwanted dogs and cats – and far too many irresponsible pet owners who fail to prevent their animals from breeding and having unwanted offspring. It is appalling on several levels that state shelters euthanize as many as a half-million animals a year at a cost of $250 million. But legislation proposed by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, simply went too far.
Levine wanted all dogs and cats to be sterilized before they are 6 months old, with a handful of exceptions, in particular for breeders of certain specialized dogs. Pet owners caught with an unsterilized dog or cat older than six months would have to comply within 30 days or pay a $500 fine.
But while Levine did weaken his measure in several ways, he never understood why its mandatory nature was an affront to millions of responsible California pet owners – or appreciated that it almost certainly would have been ignored by the irresponsible pet owners it targeted.
These are large, basic problems. So while we welcome Levine saying he will attempt to revise his measure so it can win broader support in 2008, we are unsure if he will be successful.
A promising – and far less controversial – approach is to increase subsidies for spaying and neutering programs. Another idea is to offer tax credits to pet owners who can prove their pets are sterilized and tax breaks to veterinarians who provide low-cost spaying and neutering.
The fact is – contrary to the rhetoric of many of Levine’s supporters – the problem is not getting worse. State animal shelters have reported a decline in the number of unwanted pets over the past decade, thanks to effective local initiatives. That holds for San Diego County, too.
“Our animal intakes in the last six to seven years are gradually going down. I believe it’s because we have such a strong spay and neuter program in the community,” Dawn Danielson, director of the County of San Diego Department of Animal Services, told the Union-Tribune in February. She gives much of the credit to the Spay Neuter Action Project, a nonprofit group that offers inexpensive sterilization services to low-income pet owners.
This shows local initiatives can work. With a little state funding and/or some tax breaks, the Legislature could quickly prompt their adoption and expansion. We hope to see legislation along these lines, and soon. If Levine cannot bring himself to abandon his mandatory scheme, then someone else – perhaps Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, who has worked on pet bills – needs to step in. The mass euthanization of cats and dogs in California is both costly and heartbreaking. It must be addressed.
Comment by Genny Wall — July 17, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
What will keep the uncaring people from breeding dogs that are not adoptable - the large breeds that so many have mentioned here and the pits? Will we just bite the bullet and learn to turn a deaf ear to their pain as we kill away and dump their bodies in the rendering plants? Meanwhile we find homes for the lovable acceptable lap dogs (some are quite handfuls even though they are small).
No need to dish out hostile and angry and defensive remarks please - you are not being accused of not loving animals -
Comment by Jamie — July 17, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
I find the crocodile tears of the supporters of mandatory s/n because of the many pit bulls being killed to be creepy.. yes, even when (or especially when) it comes from pit bull “rescuers” like Bad Rap. They all use hyperbolic emotional language like Jamie above (“kill and dump their bodies in rendering plants”) to promote their cause.. all the while pretending to be the calm logical ones
I own 3 pit bulls.. one a rescue. I would never ever promote the destruction of dog owners rights because my breed happens to be the one that gets killed the most in some areas.
I’m curious Jamie.. do you own pit bulls? Have you supported pit bull rescue? Have you donated to s/n a pit bull?
Comment by EmilyS — July 17, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
well, lack of a consumer base helps against those that are breeding for money. large dogs like labs (pure bred and mixed) are plentiful in shelters and rescues, so if the public would look for their pets there or from reputable breeders, it’s a start. and that is where marketing and education come in. yes, i said marketing ;) we need to get the adoptable dogs/cats and information they are in need of homes out there on a consistant basis. also, breed education. many people may want the little fluffy dog, but a larger dog may do just as well, in some cases better. people don’t always (many times) know enough about dogs, so they go with what they ‘think’ is right. by learning to select the right dog/cat upfront, less turnover in the future, so it solves 2 issues.
i really don’t know why you keep going down the road of the homeless pets being neglected if we don’t have MSN. right now, people are working tirelessly to help these animals and that will not change. the people workng to stop MSN are the ones already aware of the problem, and that is why they want to work on solutions, not turn their backs on the pain of the homeless pets. large commercial breeders don’t work to stop these bills. they get exempted early on more often than not (always by my count) and THEY are the ones turning their back on the problem as they don’t give a crap anymore. doesn’t effect their business.
Comment by straybaby — July 17, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Yes I own pits. Yes I rescue Pits. And the truth of what happens to them is just what it is. Yes I own large dogs. Yes I rescue large Dogs. Yes I volunteer. Yes I give money and time and effort. Yes, Yes, Yes.
My opinion is just as valid as those here that try to force out any dissenting views by attacking ones intelligence or ability to read the fine print or by asking - what do you do for the animal world that gives you the right to have an opinion and even more so - how dare you voice it here on “our” blog.
Comment by Jamie — July 17, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
many people may want the little fluffy dog, but a larger dog may do just as well, in some cases better.
No, straybaby, in my case, a larger dog would not “do just as well.” I do not have the space, the energy, the strength, or the disposition, at this time in my life, to keep a large dog. Until I readjusted my sights to the smaller breeds, I thought I couldn’t have a dog at all anymore, because the sporting and working breeds I’ve loved in the past are no longer a good choice for me.
I love my fluffy little white dog, and I’m tired of feeling bullied because I don’t, at this time in my life, have a home to offer a Big Black Dog With A Reputation Problem.
Comment by Lis — July 17, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
where did i say the little fluffy dog wasn’t right for you? no where.
i have no space in my life for a big black dog with a reputation problem either at the moment, or for another medium sized white dog with black spots that also has reputation problems, but many labs, lab mixes etc are GREAT family dogs. in fact sometimes better than a small dog. period. end of story and no infringement on YOUR rights to live with and love your little white fluffy dog.
you seem to have some misconception about me. i do hope you will not take everything i say as a personal attack on your dog owning rights in the future. that is certainly not my intent.
Comment by straybaby — July 17, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Jamie, they keep breeding them because ALL dogs are cute when they are puppies. Uneducated people buy the puppies (from breeders who don’t screen their puppy buyers) and when they grow into those large, unmanageable adolescents, they dump them at the shelter (because the *breeder* certainly won’t take them back!) and go back and get another cute puppy.
Complex problems are not solved overnight. If we can KEEP those dogs in their homes through the “terrible twos” as well as helping people understand why NOT to support “as long as you have the plastic or your check clears”-type breeders, they will eventually see the market for their “cute little puppies” dry up, and more and more often, the adult dogs will live out their lives as beloved companions to the owners who first fell in love with them as puppies.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
The Other Pat: You have a very good point. Yes. A very good one.
I do believe that Pits are one of the best breeds around and make almost the perfect house dog for size and are a suitable family dog. etc. if raised and bred right. They are loving loyal friends. And maybe the problem can be solved by teaching people how to deal with the the 5 month old puppy stage into the terrible twos until the mature three and fours.
Yes, a very good point!
Comment by Jamie — July 17, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Jamie, it has a HUGE impact. There are shelters that offer “manners” classes to ALL their adopters (some institute it as a requirement for adoption) and also have call-in hotlines for adopters to call with ANY kind of problem or “bump in the road” they’re facing with their dogs/cats. These shelters see their adoption retention rates go up and their euthanasia rates go down.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
The Other Pat:
All that is needed, I suppose, is finding homes that last for these larger dogs or animals that are viewed as an undesirable breed. Whether through education or television ads or training, the tide of opinion requires change. Still with the aging population, some would-be-owners may just not want to hassle the more bully breeds. I think of my brother, who now owns breeds that are quite easy to handle, as he cannot physically muscle the strong breeds, not even on a walk not with his joint problems.
I am for whatever works. I would dearly like to see more of these pits adopted in forever homes and so too the larger dogs - but I do believe that Gina pointed out that shelters ship in small dogs that are desireable - so what happens to the larger dogs or bully breeds? You don’t have to answer that question -
Comment by Jamie — July 17, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Jamie, we both know the answer to that question. And that’s why folks here are so adamantly against implementing things that look like solutions but that actually don’t work. Because all that will do is make people think the problems are getting solved, and meanwhile, dogs keep dying.
It’s terribly sad, but NOTHING is going to save ALL the “big bad” dogs languishing in shelters right now, this minute. Not mandatory spay/neuter, not education, not putting irresponsible breeders out of business. Because change comes slowly, and while it comes, the dogs now “caught” in the system will keep dying.
So let’s make sure that the changes we push for are actually targeted and effective. Because we can’t stop the deaths of all those dogs today. But if we do this *right*, we can eventually see those numbers go down, and not have to see so many of those dogs die in the future.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
I’m not going to get into an argument here, but I have been involved in rescue through the local humane society for years ~ financially, fund raising, time, fostering, adoptions, etc. I know some of the reasons why many of our animals were “surrendered” to the shelter. I have no problem with legitimate breeders, but I also believe that spay/neuter is a huge step in the right direction to prevent more animals being created. When someone drops off his fourth litter of pups, and refuses to have the female spayed, you know there will be more litters to come. When someone brings in a litter of kittens because she thought it would be good for her kids to see kittens born, maybe those kids should also see the kittens being euthanized because there isn’t any room for them. Those aren’t folks who won’t keep their dog(s)/cat(s) at home, they are irresponsible breeders!!! And those are some of the animals I am concerned about. And you’re darn right that I feel emotional about the animals who never get a chance to find a home.
Comment by catmom5 — July 17, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
catmom5 - do you happen to know what the statistics are for surrenders/adoptions/euthanasia in your area? That is, what percentage of surrenders are puppies and kittens? How many of those puppies and kittens get adopted out v.s. euthanized? What is the distribution of age/type of animals that are being euthanized in your area?
Statistics such as these give you a picture of the problem in YOUR area so that you can target the most appropriate solution for where you are.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 17, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
70% of the animals in ACs are cats and most of those are Feral cats
This un owned cat population is totally unaffected by 1634 and are unadoptable
Over 90% of the owned cat population is already spayed or castrated.
There are other ways to deal with the Feral cat population, but mess with the natural balance too much and the areas become over run with rats and that can lead to a whole other set of problems
Comment by Fiona — July 17, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
And why are you assuming that PetPac is putting financial interests ahead of animals? That sure isn’t supported by what’s been written here, or by what I know. Reread the quote.
“Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys, and other backers of the bill note that many of the supporters of PetPAC are people who make money from animals, including breeders, trainers and veterinarians.”
Levine is ASSUMING that breeders, trainers, and veterinarians are people who “make money from animals” and are thus not interested in animal welfare. HUH?
How on earth can you buy that? The opposition to AB 1634 was from REPUTABLE breeders, who mostly do not break even, and are thus not “people who make money from animals.”
AB 1634 gives commercial breeders a free pass, and one litter BYBs a free pass.
As for trainers and vets, do you really think people go into those fields to get rich? You go into those sorts of jobs BECAUSE YOU LOVE ANIMALS.
Comment by Sally — July 18, 2007 @ 3:50 am
Just for the sake of argument, aren’t some vets still pushing the prescription diets because of the financial benefit to them? (I’ve heard that more than once on these forums . . .)
It’s too bad that there seems to be such a division in a group of people who love animals and try to do what’s best for all of them. I think we need to start by trying to understand that we come from different perspectives and then to find someway to respectfully work with each other to help the animals.
YIKES ~ I was only giving my opinion based on my experiences with the local humane society (NOT animal control which is a different agency in this part of the country).
Comment by catmom5 — July 18, 2007 @ 5:07 am
I don’t like knowing that some of the things vets do is geared towards maintaining their bottom line. I always worry about conflict of interest in such cases.
On the other hand, animal doctors (vets) go to school for as many years as human doctors do, yet they cannot command NEARLY the same number of dollars for the services they provide as those in human medicine. And they still have to pay off student loans, support (or help support) a practice, pay overhead, salaries, utilities, professional association fees, ongoing education, etc. etc. So you don’t get to “break even” as a vet NEARLY as easily as you do if you’re an MD.
It doesn’t *excuse* anything, but it gives a person something to think about.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 18, 2007 @ 6:31 am
Comment by catmom5 — July 18, 2007 @ 5:07 am
“I think we need to start by trying to understand that we come from different perspectives and then to find someway to respectfully work with each other to help the animals.”
And that is one reason why Gina and others continue to emphasize that the type and scope of problems one area faces may not be the same as those faced in another area. A “one size fits all” approach just isn’t going to be the best possible answer everywhere you go.
“YIKES ~ I was only giving my opinion based on my experiences with the local humane society (NOT animal control which is a different agency in this part of the country).”
Which is a nice illustration of studying the problem, what it’s like in YOUR area, and how the distribution of animal “safety net” services might skew various perspectives.
If - for example - a huge number of feral cats in your area were dying, but you didn’t see that because your only experience was with your humane society and all the feral cats were being taken to your local animal control, can you see how that would result in you missing one of the important parts of the puzzle?
Solutions need to comprehensively encompass the situation which exists in the area, and then be targetted to most effectively address THAT specific situation.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 18, 2007 @ 6:39 am
An art exhibit on puppy mills. Warning - some of the images are pretty disturbing (and remember - these are the kinds of operations that AB1634 would have expressly ALLOWED to continue to operate):
http://www.wgal.com/slideshow/.....etail.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 18, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Comment by catmom5 — July 18, 2007 @ 5:07 am “I think we need to start by trying to understand that we come from different perspectives and then to find someway to respectfully work with each other to help the animals.”
Ahh, another oversimplification of a very complicated issue.
I agree in theory, but the reality is that finding common ground with animal rights extremists has been a real problem. Helping animals was never what any of these bills were about. If it was, you never would have seen the CVMA pull it’s support/sponsorship of AB1634.
The crux of the matter for anyone who examined the bill closely was that we do not need to compromise our rights as pet owners in order to help the un-owned animals. There simply is no compromise on this if you want to continue to own pets in the future. Go to http://saova.org/ARPACS.html for more info on AR PACs. The only way was to form a PAC to protect pet owner’s rights while we continue to work toward solutions to animal welfare issues. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand and allow extremists to draw a line in that sand that none of us can live with going forward. And make no mistake, that line is now, more than ever animal rights vs animal owner’s rights. The animal rights movement has chosen to wage their battle through politicians legislatively. They are organized and well funded.
Although there are many, the largest and most powerful animal political action committee (PAC) is Humane USA. Founded in 1999, A HSUS employee has always directed Humane USA. They exist as an arm of HSUS to influence legislative initiatives against hunting, breeding, entertainment, meat eating, medical research and any other use of animals. They view these things as morally reprehensible and work for mandatory spay/neuter and breed specific legislation that erodes the rights of owners. MSN if it is ever passed, funded and enforced will eventually lead to the extinction of all domestic pets. HSUS and other like minded groups are also pushing to change the legal definition and status from pet owner to pet guardian. This language may seem harmless on the surface, but it means that your pets will no longer be your property, but wards of the State or local jurisdiction where you live. These organizations and their PACs do not represent the views of the vast majority of the millions of pet-owning households in the U.S. Up until 3 months ago there was not a pet owner’s PAC. Now there is, and in it’s infancy with 35,000 supporters and $200,000 it was able it convince Levine to pull his bill. PetPac was formed to protect the rights of pet owners, nothing more, and nothing less. Why should this PAC represent a threat to anyone truly interested in animal welfare? When Mancuso was asked why AB1634 excluded commercial breeders (puppy mills) and pet stores, she said that they have very powerful lobbyists. Well, now pet owners have a strong one too. Since breeders, veterinarians and trainers own pets they, of course want to be included as pet owners with a more mainstream view on animal issues. PetPac is not a breeder’s PAC, although Levine and Mancuso want you to believe it is. I believe PetPac will grow to be just as large and influential, if not more so than Humane USA. It will represent a voice for animal lovers who do not subscribe to the animals rights ideology. Perhaps when mainstream views are equally represented, we can all sit down at the table to solve problems and help animals with a sensible approach rather than a radical one. I do hope that day comes to fruition. So far the only things we have seen from the Lloyd Levine’s of the world are laws that intrude on our rights and don’t target the real problems we face. PetPac is long over due and would never have been conceived of if not for the loss of rights threat tat these laws represent. If we don’t agree with the extremist’s approach we are accused of either not caring about animals, or having economic motives. This needs to stop. It just isn’t true and the public is starting to see through the smoke and mirrors of an overstated “overpopulation problem” and the demonizing of those that do care about animals and their welfare.
Comment by trucorgi — July 18, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Comment by catmom5 — July 17, 2007 @ 10:34 am
We’ve got enough “enemies” to fight ~ seems as if those of us who care deeply about the animals of this world could come together to do a better job of taking care of them. That includes pets, farm animals, zoo animals, wild animals ~ all of them.
Maybe “we” should stop looking for enemies and a fight then. It doesn’t seem to be solving anything; in fact it’s making matters worse. If ownership were not being attacked, there would be no need to defend it. Pets, farm animals and zoo animals are owned. It is not “our” job to come together and take care of other people’s animals. It is their owner’s responsibility. Wild, feral, abandoned, stray, and given up animals are not owned. Why not focus your caring and efforts where there is a need, rather than support laws that are intrusive and over reaching and only apply to owned animals? Unless, of course you do not recognize ownership and property rights. The problem is that in an effort to save all the animals in this world, which is not even possible, you are lumping them together in a feel good sound bite with no real teeth. All the while completely denying my right to own, breed and care for my animals and their offspring. I think you’ll find that most people will not “come together” with people that don’t respect their rights and consider them enemies.
Comment by trucorgi — July 18, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
All this crazy talk about AB 1634 allowing puppy mills to exist. Puppy mills are simply breeders, know what you are talking about before writing all this trash. The people behind AB 1634 want to see an end to so many animals dying in our shelters, why can’t you understand that, and why do you need to make it so complicated. All I read is about me, me, me, my right, my this, my that, quit being so greedy, think about somebody else for a while, like the poor animals dying in the shelters and the shelter workers that have to deal with this. No, you cannot do that Gina and friends, because it’s all you ‘me’.
Comment by alice — July 19, 2007 @ 1:46 am
and by the way, Petpac was formed to make Hemby and friends money, don’t kid yourself.
Comment by alice — July 19, 2007 @ 1:48 am
Alice, there is no legal definition of “puppy mill”. There are, however, USDA Licensed Class A breeders who breed commercially and have to follow very stringent regulations set up by people who see animals as nothing more than livestock (i.e. the USDA - United States Department of Agriculture). Among other things, here are the guidelines for cage size (click through all the pictures):
http://www.kimtownsend.com/csusda.htm
That is the size of the entire WORLD for these dogs produced by commercial breeders. The same commercial breeders which AB1634 would give a free pass to.
Now where’s the sense in that.
Compare that to the breeder where I got my dog. The day I visited, her husband was sitting and watching TV with dogs sprawled all over the couch with him and sharing his dish of homemade ice cream.
Out in the back yard were ladders and ramps and tunnels and toys and LOTS AND LOTS of rooms for all the dogs to run and play (and that’s what they were doing).
These dogs were happy and healthy. They all got regular vet care, lots of attention, good food and regular grooming. All things that dogs in commercial facilities can’t count on as a regular fact of life.
Now - tell me again how all breeders are the same?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2007 @ 6:18 am
As long you continue with your “all breeders are the same” mentality, coupled with the disproven theory that every dog sold means a shelter pet doesn’t get adopted, you will get nowhere with your efforts.
Do some reading here … on reputable, responsible breeders (no blogger here IS a breeder, by the way), on targeted approaches to unwanted pets and more. Plenty more stuff out there, if you’d care to educate yourself instead of moving forward with your assumptions about us and our motivations.
The mandatory spay-neuter act was a bad bill with a hidden agenda that didn’t even address the sources of unwanted animals. If it comes back like that, we’ll be back … stronger.
As for PetPAC … don’t tempt me to start posting the salaries of top executives at national animal-rights and animal-advocacy groups, where six-figure salaries are the norm. It’s easy to find, through IRS filings accessible through Charity Navigator.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2007 @ 6:31 am
I don’t think anyone is attacking the responsible breeders here. There are two things that bother me the most:
We cannot adopt our way out of this number of homeless animals. There are too many of them and too few adopters. Spay/neuter has to be a big part of the solution.
And to say that “it is not our job to take care of other people’s animals” is a bit hard,isn’t it? Sorry, but I don’t have the heart to stand by and watch when those “owners” do NOT take care of their animals (and worse). So the Michael Vick’s of the world, as “owners” have the right to fight, kill, mutilate and otherwise inflict damage on the animals they “own”? Or the petting zoos, who keep animals in deplorable conditions? You can’t have it both ways.
No apologies for my beliefs. SOMEONE HAS TO STAND UP TO PROTECT THESE ANIMALS. Granted, some of the big rescue organizations aren’t doing such a great job, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t try and do better.
Nope, I don’t eat meat, but don’t try to convince others to. And, yes, I support only those organizations that do no animal testing or use no animal ingredients whenever possible.
And, you don’t know that I’m not involved with ferals, strays, wildlife, etc.
It’s clear that we have different perspectives and will probably not ever agree.
Comment by catmom5 — July 19, 2007 @ 7:03 am
Comment by catmom5 — July 19, 2007 @ 7:03 am
Spay/neuter has to be a part of the solution, but mandatory spay/neuter at age four months, for everyone except USDA-licensed puppy millers and “just one litter” backyard breeders is not “part of the solution.” It can only make things even worse than they are now, by increasing the supply of badly bred animals from suppliers who will sell to anyone with a credit card or cash, and be of no help to the buyers in understanding and training their new pets, while eliminating the supply of healthy pets from responsible breeders who will—or rather, would have—screened potential buyers, matched the puppy to the new family, been available with advice, information, and help in training, and provide a home to return to for the dog if the buyers for any reason couldn’t keep it.
You’ll never make a positive difference by simply reacting to manipulative emotional cues (“Healthy Pets” as the name for a bill intended to protect puppy millers and pet stores while shutting down responsible breeders) instead of looking at the facts and thinking about where the problems really are and crafting a solution that addresses them.
And, clever that, saying that if Christie and Gina believe that respecting pet owners’ rights to make decisions for the welfare of their own pets is important, they’re implicitly supporting Michael Vick’s right to engage in the grossest and most outrageous forms of animal abuse. I’m sure that will sway a lot of people to your position. For sure.
Comment by Lis — July 19, 2007 @ 7:32 am
Let’s see, Alice. First, puppy mills are not the same thing as responsible breeders. I do know what I’m talking about, and it is not trash. I’ve been doing rescue for 20 years now.
The people opposed to AB 1634 ALSO want to see an end to adoptable animals dying in shelters - there will always be a need for animal shelters, which I clearly undertand, even if you don’t.
AB 1634 would not help that goal - it would actually hurt attempts to achieve it.
The people opposing AB 1634 are not about “ME” - they are about “this is a bad idea that will not work and will cause more problems and slower reductions in euthanasia.”
Perhaps if you actually focused on how to fix the problem, rather than personal attacks and emotionalism, you might be in a better position to be part of the solution.
As it is, the approach you exemplify is really the one that is all about “me” - demonizing anyone you disagree with and thorwing facts to the wind.
Comment by Sally — July 19, 2007 @ 8:31 am
I believe it was trucorgi who made the comment about not interferring with “owned” animals. I have a great deal of respect for Gina and Christie.
I agree that legislation that protects BYB and puppy/kitten mills is bad legislation. No arguments there!
Comment by catmom5 — July 19, 2007 @ 8:48 am
catmom5, at 7:03am you said “And to say that “it is not our job to take care of other people’s animals” is a bit hard,isn’t it? Sorry, but I don’t have the heart to stand by and watch when those “owners” do NOT take care of their animals (and worse). So the Michael Vick’s of the world, as “owners” have the right to fight, kill, mutilate and otherwise inflict damage on the animals they “own”? Or the petting zoos, who keep animals in deplorable conditions? You can’t have it both ways.”
So, what is it that you’re saying, there?
I agree that legislation that protects BYB and puppy/kitten mills is bad legislation. No arguments there!
That’s what AB 1634 does.
Comment by Lis — July 19, 2007 @ 9:15 am
We still have laws requiring that owned animals be treated humanely. That seems to be getting left out of this discussion. When trucorgi was focussing more on “What do we do about unowned animals”, I didn’t at ALL take that as “And we’ll ignore whether owned animals are being treated well”. I don’t think that’s what s/he meant at all.
Acknowledgement of the humane laws already on the books (such as those that outlaw dogfighting)is inherent to these dicussions. So let’s not get silly and behave as if anyone here suggests throwing all those out.
Now *enforcement* of those laws is another question. And one that plays into the overall picture.
But please - when someone says that additional laws targetting owned animals is not an effective solution, don’t overgeneralize that to them saying “Owners of animals can do whatever they want with them”.
Of course they can’t. And there are ALREADY humane laws on the books that address that issue.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2007 @ 9:31 am
Comment by catmom5 — July 19, 2007 @ 8:48 am “I believe it was trucorgi who made the comment about not interfering with “owned” animals. I have a great deal of respect for Gina and Christie.”
LOL, but no respect for me, right?
You know darn well I was talking about interference with law abiding citizens. Abuse, neglect, dog fighting etc. are all crimes. How dare you try to lump reputable breeders in with criminals like Vick. That really was the whole idea behind AB1634 anyway. Why not just admit it? Criminalize breeding and all breeders become criminals.
“You can’t have it both ways.”
No one wants it both ways! Animal cruelty should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It should be a felony in all 50 states. We are not talking about that here and you know it. AB1634 had no mention of cruelty. You are just trying to muddy the waters with it. Your argument is heavy on emotion and light on fact.
Comment by Kathy Hash — July 19, 2007 @ 10:04 am
I simply want to tell you all that it was never my intention to personally attack any of you or your opinions. I was trying to talk about issues. Perhaps I did that badly. If you were offended, I apologize.
I am not from California, nor do I believe in MSN. Nor do I believe that all breeders are criminals. I have not done a lot of extra research into the supporters or opponents of this bill. I simply responded to the information given here. Obviously that was a mistake on my part.
I love all animals. I hate cruelty, neglect and abuse. I would like to see the end to the mistreatment of all animals, in whatever form it happens.
With that said, I am out of this conversation.
Comment by catmom5 — July 19, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Catmom … no worries. We’re all trying to find the answers and common ground here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Comment by catmom5 — July 19, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
“I have not done a lot of extra research into the supporters or opponents of this bill.”
That’s understandable. But given the fact that you haven’t studied the issues when others have, how about just asking questions? Go ahead and say such things as “I’m really concerned about the litters of kittens and puppies that get dumped at the shelter where I work. Will you explain to me why AB1634 would not take care of that problem?”
Then people have a chance to respond to your concerns and we can start a real dialogue about the issues, which promises to be a win/win for everyone. You’ll learn from people who HAVE studied the issue, and we’ll learn a little more about the kinds of concerns people have - some of which may be new to some of us. (For example, it’s only been in the past three years or so that I’ve learned about TNR - Trap/Neuter/Release - of feral cats, and why that’s a legitimate strategy in the overall scheme of things.)
So join the discussion! But if you don’t understand something, just ask! People will generally be more than willing to help fill you in.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2007 @ 1:24 pm