Forced spay-neuter: Get those phones and fax machines ready
By Gina Spadafori
June 5, 2008
Lloyd Levine may have lost his primary race, but his California legislation to force the spaying and neutering of the pets of people who aren’t putting any animals in shelters, AB 1634, is still not dead. In fact, it should return to a state Senate Committee on June 18.
You know, the bill that Mexican and Russian puppy-smugglers and ignorant, greedy and utterly clueless backyard breeders will completely ignore, paragons of civic responsibility that they are? The bill that targets reputable, ethical breeders but gives puppy-mill scum and their Internet and retail outlets a complete pass? The bill that won’t at all help the feral cat problem, or do anything about shelter reform as the nation’s shelters continue to bash the no-kill movement and do everything they can to blame everyone but themselves for not, you know, sheltering pets who need homes instead of killing them? The bill that disregards peer-reviewed scientific evidence that spaying and neutering — especially early — has risks for pets and needs to be made with informed consent as a result of a discussion between a responsible owner and a good veterinarian?
Yes, that bill. Or, at we call it here, the Pet Extinction Act, since groups like PETA are pushing hard for it. You know PETA, that animal “advocacy” group that kills more than 90 percent of the animals who come into their “shelter.”
Easy answers are rarely either, and sound-bite “solutions” are mostly crap.
I have run a breed rescue, never bred a litter and almost all my pets are spayed/neutered, even the rabbit. My kitten was just neutered at 10 weeks, a choice I made following discussions between me and my veterinarians, one of informed consent on my part. I manage to keep my only two intact dogs — one male, one female, both show champions, the boy proven as well for working ability — from producing unplanned puppies because, you know, I am strangely enough not an idiot. My girl may one day be bred — probably will be bred, in fact — after she has proven her working abilities and passed about a half-dozen expensive, documented veterinary health screenings that are a matter of public record. After considerable research, if she is bred at all it will be to a dog who is well-matched for her in all ways and who is likewise both a show champion with proven working ability, likewise certified clear of congenital health problems as a matter of public record. He may be thousands of miles away or even be passed on, the breeding the result of expensive artificial insemination with frozen studsicles. No matter. Because ethical, responsible breeders don’t make money on what they do, and don’t plan to.
I will, like any ethical, responsible breeder, always be there for any and all puppies who result. Always there for anyone who ends up with one of those puppies, too. That’s because all breeders are not the same, no matter what you’ve been told by the spittle-spewing backers of AB 1634.
I will do this, if I do, because some things are worth preserving and fighting for, and I truly do believe our heritage breeds of dogs are among them. Does that mean any of my dogs as individuals are “better” than any of those in shelters? Not at all. But it does mean that my two intact dogs are part of a larger picture, and I want to see that picture preserved.
You, responsible pet-owner, are not an idiot either, although animal rights zealots like those at PETA are sure counting on you to be. You are smart enough to see through to the real reason for legislation like AB 1634, and why animal-rights fanatics are so desperate to get these things passed. They want to pick off all domestic animals, one species at a time, so they cannot be “exploited.” That’s why they trash shelter reform, because no-kill communities embrace the idea that people want and will care for pets, given an opportunity. Not “exploit” them by keeping them “in slavery.” Care for them, as family members.
What can you do?
Write a polite, short (no more than one page), well-reasoned letter stating what is wrong with AB 1634 and why it needs to die in that state Senate committee on June 18. If you’re a California resident, be sure to close with your real name and real address. If you are not a California resident, you should still include your real name and real address. California relies on tourism, and we don’t like it when people say they will not visit. So say so. Tell them about that trip to Disneyland you won’t be taking, or that wine tour of the Napa Valley you’ll be passing on.
Say it, politely.
Personalize each letter and fax it to each member of the California State Senate’s Local Government Committee:
- Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod
Fax: (916) 445-0128 - Sen. Dave Cox
Fax: (916) 324-2680 - Sen. Tom Harman
Fax: (916) 445-9263 - Sen. Christine Kehoe
Fax: (916) 327-2188 - Sen. Michael Machado
Fax: (916) 323-2304 - And send a copy to the Committee’s Staff Director, Peter Detwiler
Fax: (916) 322-0298
Then call your veterinarian and ask her or him to do the same. California’s veterinary association last year withdrew support for AB 1634 after its members let the leadership know in no uncertain terms that they were on the wrong track. Ask your veterinarian to follow through, and fax a letter.
Then ask your groomer, pet-sitter, boarding-kennel operator, pet-supply retailer and dog-trainer to do so, too. Call your local humane society shelter and let them know that you are very sorry, but you will not be renewing your membership if they are supporting AB 1634. Oh, but you’ll be happy to provide them all with copies of “Redemption” so they can catch a clue.
Finally, call the Senate committee — (916) 651-4115 — and politely voice your opinion, NO on AB 1634. It’s painless and it won’t take but a minute. Again, please be nice. The people who answer the phones — and I’ve been one of them and know many others — take a lot of abuse, and they shouldn’t have to.
There’ll be a rally in Sacramento on June 18, and we’ll have more on that later. Time to warm up the fax machines. We have work to do.
Thanks Gina, I’m formulating my response as well as pointing to your very succinct description of AB 1634.
Comment by Chris Lewis — June 5, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Thanks Gina. This whole mandatory spay/neuter business does nothing to help animals in need, homeless animals or animals living in subpar conditions.
I think all the money spent legislating these types of laws would be better spent on sterilization education and low cost/ free spay/ neuter programs.
As for the backyard breeders, I fear as long as there is a market for “purebred teacup miniature toy whatevers” they will continue to keep animals in forced breeding slavery.
Comment by Hilary — June 5, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Gee Gina, tell us what you REALLY think.
I wish the CA press would recognize that his pet-pruning ambitions were what castrated Lightbulb Lloyd’s political career.
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 5, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
AB 1634 does sound like it could be a bad law. (As in a law that does something, but not what it is supposed to do.) But I think that bringing in the no-kill movement and Winograd muddies the waters for some of us. If Winograd was paid 50K to consult with King County as alleged in the last link below, is he really in this for the good of animals, or is he just pandering to commercial interests? He seems tied to the Orwellian-named “Center for Consumer Freedom”, which is a business front group that has attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving, etc.
http://www.dallasnews.com/shar.....50904.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....er_Freedom
Here’s the allegation about him taking the nearly 50k consulting fee from King County, WA.
http://greenmonkeyfever.blogsp.....-work.html
It is all very shady to me.
Comment by Fred — June 6, 2008 @ 1:27 am
I believe Winograd disputes the reports of what he was paid in King County, although since he IS an industry consultant, I believe he is entitled to be paid for his time and expertise. It should be a matter of public record, as well. (His report, which was trashed by the entrenched interests of King County’s shelter, was more than substantiated by the later one from the University of California, Davis. )
I would suspect Winograd isn’t “tied” to the astroturf group “Center for Consumer Freedom” any more than I am. When PETA decided to threaten me for reporting on the kill rate at their “shelter,” the CCF picked up the story to advance their anti-PETA agenda. When they asked me questions about the lawyer letter, I answered those questions and pointed them to the letter, which was posted as a PDF on this blog — it wasn’t a secret.
I also told them I disagree with their support for “consumer choice” to the extent that it supports the cruelties and environmental degradation of factory farming.
It’s kinda like the whole PETA vs. National Animal Interest Alliance. I absolutely disagree that to support ethical, responsible breeding practices I have to support puppy mills, too. PETA doesn’t represent my point of view, nor does the NAIA. I am for best practices, not fund-raising sound-bite advocacy, and I think for myself.
As for Winograd, this isn’t about him, even though he has been the torch-bearer for the no-kill movement, which represents a new way of looking at the shelter industry, and spells out reforms that would get 90 percent of all shelters pets into homes. (That last 10 percent truly are unadoptable, by illness or temperament, primarily aggression.) In response, the shelter industry has dug in deeper, blamed everyone without looking at their own operations and tried to work harder at the model of the shame and punishment of an animal-loving nation. Working harder at a model that doesn’t work doesn’t make it work better.
Breeding bans (and breed bans, for that matter) are knee-jerk legislation that won’t do anything they purport to do, but do distract from the need for shelter reform and advance the agenda of animal-rights extremists that domestic animals need to become extinct so they cannot be “exploited.”
I disagree. I loathe puppy mills and the sick asshats who run them, and I advocate sustainable, humane animal agriculture. (And I do more than support the latter in theory: I WILL NOT BUY food for myself or my animals from any but sustainable, humane sources. And duh, of course, I’ve never been so short-sighted or naive as to buy a pet-store puppy. All my pets are from reputable ethical breeders or from shelters/rescue groups.)
The Center for Consumer Freedom is front group for industry. But the fact that they agree with Winograd simply means they using him to advance their world view that includes support for all animal agriculture, including puppy mill scum. I sincerely doubt Winograd agrees.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2008 @ 6:34 am
Whether Nathan Winograd was paid $50 or $50 kajillion - why does that matter? King County presumably negotiated and paid whatever fee it thought appropriate for the services. He rendered those services. They obviously did not buy him off. He issued his report truthfully as far as I can tell.
If any of the above is incorrect, then I could see where there might be a problem. But since there’s no dispute of the above, I can’t see where it matters what he was paid.
Comment by slt — June 6, 2008 @ 6:51 am
I have read that H$U$, a tax-exempt charity, garners quite a few of those 50K consultation fees. It would be interesting to find out their stats.
Comment by Chris Lewis — June 6, 2008 @ 8:06 am
Perhaps you could share where you read that, and offer a link? Personally, I hate just pushing rumors along without citations.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Gina, excellent excellent response on the whole CCF/PETA thing.
I agree it is completely possible… and necessary.. to fight against the bad things (PETA) even if your allies in that fight (CCF) hold positions you ALSO fight against. We hate PETA AND we hate the commercialized abuse of animals that CCF and NAIA defend.
Comment by EmilyS — June 6, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Chris, there’s nothing in IRS rules that prevent a federally regulated charity like HSUS from receiving consulting fees, or other fees for services. In fact, that’s what most nonprofit organizations run on (in addition to donations). There are plenty of reasons to suspect/dislike HSUS, but that’s not one of them.
Comment by EmilyS — June 6, 2008 @ 9:54 am
HSUS ASC (Animal Services Consultation) Program
“Since 1998 we have consulted with 25 agencies nationwide, from California to New York. Consultations generally cost between $4,000 and $20,000—depending on the size of the agency and the complexity of its programs—charged on a sliding scale based on the agency’s resources. Our team conducts about six evaluations each year, but we hope to help even more agencies in the future.”
(And bigger fees in the future?)
Here: http://www.hsus.org/pets/anima.....ities.html
It states what the fees were for those particular consultations, not necessarily what they could potentially be, as on their ASC site which outlines details of their “program” in a downloadable “packet.”
From their other site, AnimalSheltering.Org, under “Animal Services Consultation” and “What is ASC?”, they more loosely state fees:
“Fees are based on many factors, including the agency’s size, available resources, and scope of services offered.”
They can charge whatever they like, even a million if they so choose, so far as I can tell.
Here: http://www.animalsheltering.or.....s_asc.html
Comment by Nadine L. — June 6, 2008 @ 10:29 am
You say that you and/or Winograd are not connected with Center for Consumer Freedom. How could someone confirm this since CCF refuses to identify their supporters, members, etc.?
Comment by Bob — June 6, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Oh, hey, didn’t take to long to attract trolls today did it?
Comment by JenniferJ — June 6, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Can’t speak for Winograd, but the ethics of journalism would require me to resign from my work as a syndicated pet-care columnist if I were writing about an organization and not disclosing any relationship, whether financial or otherwise (“otherwise” would include such things having an affair with someone at an organization). Did I say “resign”? Actually, I’d be fired.
Over three decades as a journalist, I have taken these ethical imperatives so seriously that I have refused countless offers to serve on boards of animal charities, since there always exists the possibility that I might have to write about the organization asking me to serve.
And you can only imagine how many torrid affairs I’ve had to turn down. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Not just ANY troll, Jennifer, but one whose originating IP address is in the Virginia Beach/Norfolk area of Virginia. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Hah!
Comment by JenniferJ — June 6, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Comment by Bob — June 6, 2008 @ 10:39 am
“You say that you and/or Winograd are not connected with Center for Consumer Freedom. How could someone confirm this since CCF refuses to identify their supporters, members, etc.?”
Here’s the thing, Bob. And it’s a little thing that goes by the name of “trust”.
Folks who have been posting to this blog over this past year or so have seen enough of Gina and Christie to know we can trust them.
Trust is a fragile thing - easily broken - and so far, the trust here remains intact (speaking for myself, here - but I’m pretty sure “one or two others” will concur!)
However, I really can’t say the same for such alphabet-soup entities as PFI, FDA, H$U$, PeTA, and any number of other governmental entities who would rather try to enact inneffective “feel-good” legislation than work towards finding ACTUAL SOLUTIONS that will address the REAL problems. Their “trust accounts” have been pretty much drained dry!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2008 @ 11:20 am
By “trust,” do you mean “trust in our amazing ability to make everyone angry with us at least some of the time”?
The funny thing is, I have never even met Nathan Winograd or done anything more than exchange a few e-mails. I was sort of hoping to bump into him at Book Expo America, but had to settle for Carl the Rottweiler and John Scalzi. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Comment by Bob — June 6, 2008 @ 10:39 am
If you are on this blog on behalf of PETA - what a pathetic excuse for helping your cause. THIS is what you got? ‘How do we know Gina’s not this and that?’ There are plenty of substantive issues on this blog which PETA could take an interest in responding to honestly. There’s a large animal loving audience here and PETA says they care about animals so why not use the opportunity to make your case? Post your sincere response to the issues. Answer one or more of the questions that have been posed here regarding PETA. Personally, I would love to hear some sort of explanation for *anything* PETA does regarding pets. But if your whole game is “How do we know you’re not a spy blah blah blah” - you’re not going to reach anyone.
Comment by slt — June 6, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2008 @ 11:39 am
“By ‘trust,’ do you mean ‘trust in our amazing ability to make everyone angry with us at least some of the time’?”
Well, I think I mean that I trust you to say what you mean and to mean what you say. Which - I suppose - COULD lead to the outcome you describe every now and again . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Wow, Gina: you got to meet CARL?
lucky you!
;-)
Comment by EmilyS — June 6, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Hey Bob, what’s your last name? City, state? Are you Google-able?
Any way we can verify that you are, indeed, Bob?
Demanding that someone prove a negative — very “clever eighth-grader” debating tactic.
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 6, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Not only did I meet Carl, but I watched him to long division and got to shake his paw.
Wow. I mean … wow.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
I suppose Triumph the comic insult dog is never invited to these Pet Expos.. now THERE’S a Rottweiler!
;-)
Comment by EmilyS — June 6, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Personally, I think the arguments about PETA, HSUS and the like are just distracting from the real issue. If we disagree with AB 1634, why can’t our arguments against it be clear and strong enough all by themselves - without attacking its supporters?
In my experience, attacking all the little nuances of funding, policy or personality of a supporter does very little, if anything, to create a good argument against (or for) a policy or law.
Kinda like how unreasonable it is that detractors of AB 1634 claim the fallaciousness of the law just because some of its supporters are breeders.
Muddles the waters. Ya know? AB 1634 is a bad idea REGARDLESS of the opinions or policies or salaries of supporters like PETA and HSUS.
I say stick to the real issues.
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
i mistyped…I meant to say that SUPPORTERS of AB 1634 are arguing that its DETRACTORS are wrong in their entire argument because some are breeders. does that make sense?
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Regardless of the PETA/HSUS side issue, mandatory S/N is bad because it takes a medical decision and puts it in the hands of the people worst able to understand the pros and cons - politicians. This is the same group that can’t assure our food supply is safe, can’t assure our drug supply is safe, can’t assure… well you get the picture.
There are a lot of steps to take before you go all the way to MSN and very few jurisdictions are even willing to give those steps an opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. Nathan Winograd has some good ideas, I’m not sure I agree with all of them, but that would be a good start.
What we have here is the legislative equivalent of banning all alcohol or taking away everybody’s cars because a couple of people choose to drive drunk and someone gets killed or injured.
Comment by Dutch — June 6, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Maybe we shouldn’t be getting those phones and fax machines ready - got the following from NAIA:
NAIA has actively opposed mandatory spay/neuter bills since their emergence, and we have been intensely involved in defeating this particular measure since it was introduced in 2007. In addition to researching and providing factual information about California shelter population statistics and trends and opposition letters, our sister organization the NAIA Trust prepared opposition letters, testimony and, alerts, and our Lobby Center enabled thousands of Californians to write their assembly members and senators.
Importantly, NAIA Trust also retained the lobbying and public relations services of the Dolphin Group, a highly-respected government relations firm in Sacramento. This is a critically important business relationship that we have maintained, enabling us to continue advancing our positions on behalf of California pet owners and enthusiasts and enabling us to consult on a regular basis with experts.
Because of this relationship and our continuing involvement in the issue, we have been keenly aware that California legislators do not want to be bombarded with emails, calls and letters on this highly charged issue, and we have respected their desires, staying alert, but not calling for action. The fact is, AB 1634 is not considered a high priority issue for anyone but the sponsors of the bill. Even so, it appears likely that there will indeed be a hearing on June 25, something a sponsor can request.
Comment by ChrisRL — June 14, 2008 @ 7:48 am
>we have been keenly aware that California legislators do not want to be bombarded with emails, calls and letters on this highly charged issue, and we have respected their desires, staying alert, but not calling for action<
Well, boo-hoo for the state Legislators. It’ll be a cold day in hell when I let a lobby firm tell me how to exercise my civil rights on any issue.
The forced spay-neuter isn’t law in California now is BECAUSE of those letters, faxes and phone calls.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 14, 2008 @ 8:08 am
As the old saying goes . . . . . what she said!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 14, 2008 @ 4:03 pm