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.

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.

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.

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.

;-)

Wow. I mean … wow.

Any way we can verify that you are, indeed, Bob?

Demanding that someone prove a negative — very “clever eighth-grader” debating tactic.