pet connection

I’ve seen a lot of nastiness, backstabbing, deceit, short-sightedness and propaganda in the ever-escalating battle over the mandatory sterilization of pet dogs and cats. It’s been particularly vicious here in California, where proponents of AB 1634 have shown they’re willing to say just about anything to push through their legislation.

They’ve even suggested this legislation — which exempts large commercial breeders and pet stores — will somehow help stop puppy mills, and outright blamed opposition on “greedy commercial breeders” regardless of the fact that it’s dedicated small hobbyists, show breeders and breeders of working dogs (such as search and rescue and law enforcement) who are fighting them. After all, why would the puppy millers fight them, since the law doesn’t apply to them in the first place?

Retired TV personality Bob Barker has been a longtime supporter of forced spay-neuter and AB 1634, and as is his right, he has spoken out on in favor of it. I think he’s on the wrong side of this issue, but I have no quarrel with him using his celebrity to bolster his position with lawmakers, or exercising his rights as a citizen.

But he issued a statement before the weekend that I do have a quarrel with — and I’m not the only one.

Because AB 1634 author Lloyd Levine has been term-limited out of his California Assembly seat, he’s now running for the State Senate. Barker sent out a fundraising letter for a group called Friends of Levine that said:

A group calling itself Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC) has been created for the express purpose of trying to defeat Lloyd in this campaign. These foes of humane treatment of animals have hired a political consultant and are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose Lloyd in his campaign for the State Senate. We cannot let them succeed…. We cannot allow those who mistreat animals to win this election.

That came as news to the “animal mistreaters” at CDOC, who reacted with what frankly strikes me as admirable restraint. I’m not sure my objections would have been this polite in a letter they sent to Assemblyman Levine:

You are well aware that CDOC was not created for the purpose of trying to defeat you. The organization was established long before you declared your candidacy. CDOC’s concern is your proposed legislation; not you…and I am sure you know that. Of equal import, the organization has numerous other interests and activities beyond those related to 1634.

For Mr. Barker to write that CDOC is against humane treatment of animals is truly reprehensible…you know that’s not the case.

Finally, as a 501(c)(3), CDOC has not – and will not – and legally, cannot – endorse anyone for office. CDOC has not raised one cent to defeat Lloyd Levine.

Were you aware of this posting? Please respond, as I would hope that you can confirm that you were not aware of it, did not sanction it, and will correct Mr. Barker’s organization relative to the truth about CDOC.

CDOC describes itself as “an inclusive organization that spans the dog world, and is comprised of individual dog owners across the state of California. In addition, CDOC’s membership represents literally hundreds of years of expertise in canine-related fields, including trainers, behaviorists, shelter experts, breed experts, animal control officers, law enforcement officers, attorneys, physicians, public health officials and more.”

They are involved in the movement for shelter reform, support accessible and affordable voluntary low-cost spay/neuter of pets, support the enforcement of licensing and leash laws, support spay/neuter of unowned animals (such as feral cats), support developing different policies for dog and cat population management since the problems are, by nature, very different, oppose puppy mills, and support the idea of breeders having a lifelong responsibility for the animals they produce.

Obviously a threat to the continued well-being and health of dogs in the state of California.

God I hate politics.