California forced spay-neuter update: Amended, still alive
By Gina Spadafori
August 6, 2008
In Calfornia, the new AB 1634, which makes spayed and neutered pets the status quo, with no exceptions, no due process and no protection from harassing neighbors or vindictive civil servants, was amended yesterday without addressing the state’s Department of Finance objections that the increase in shelter population and shelter killing forced spay-neuter laws bring would cost the state money.
If you’re a California resident, call and fax your state Senator today to tell him or her that you don’t want more pets to die, and especially not on your tab. Forced spay-neuter regulations have increased shelter populations and shelter killings everywhere they’ve been tried, as people who can’t afford either spay-neuter or fines dump their animals and get new ones from people who ignore the law or are outside the jurisdiction — or are exempted, as in the case of ”licensed breeders” — a/k/a puppy mills — and their Internet or retail outlets.
People want to do the right thing, and will spay-neuter if services are made affordable and taken to where they can get to them, as with a mobile clinic. If the people who believe punish the poor laws will help, in denial of all evidence, would embrace no-kill, pet-friendly carrot-not-stick initiatives, we’d really see success in reducing shelter kill rates.
Instead, we get more legislation that kills more pets, at tax payer expense. And, as a bonus, we lay the groundwork for the destruction of our heritage breeds and allow the government one more area of control over our lives, by making them the decision-makers for what should be an informed decision by a pet-owner after a discussion with a veterinarian.
Call. Fax. This is bad public policy. Speak up and stop it.
Actually, it does not address the DoF’s very astute assertion that the bill will be costly due to increased impounds which will mean greater costs to the state via the Hayden Act.
This amendment was suggested weeks ago and served as the “reasoning” that it was not an Appropriations issue so it got a free pass out of that committee.
But unless I am being dense, the DoF’s issues with the bill still stand. Nothing will negate their problem with AB1634 while the Hayden Act exists.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 6, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Post amended. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 6, 2008 @ 8:52 am
I will be calling my Senator’s office for the umpteenth time today (sigh).
I will also be making voodoo dolls of a few specific individuals as a form of stress relief.
Viva la resistance!
Comment by JenniferJ — August 6, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Having fought (and lost) the battle against MSN locally, I’m getting so down about this. HOW ARE PEOPLE NOT REALIZING THIS DOESN’T WORK?
Where are the long-term, dedicated dog breeders and fanciers in this fight? Of the people showing up at organization meetings here, it really seemed to be mostly the relative ‘newcomers’ with less than 20 years breeding and/or showing and many of us with less than 10. Where are the pet owners who have always and will always own a purebred dog- even if they get it out of the paper?
Where are the legislators getting this bizaare idea that their constituants WANT this stuff to happen?
Comment by Cait — August 6, 2008 @ 9:01 am
I’ve lost count how many times I’ve phoned and faxed regarding this train wreck.
But … when I get tired and think, well, how many more times do I have to call/fax, I tell myself that at least we live in a country where we CAN call and be listened to.
That’s what gets me picking up the phone again, many times, not just on this issue but on many others as well.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 6, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Comment by Cait — August 6, 2008 @ 9:01 am
“Where are the long-term, dedicated dog breeders and fanciers in this fight?”
I know of some who are afraid to step forward because they’ve been “in hiding” from limit laws, burdensome licensing laws, “no kennels allowed” laws, etc., and if they “out themselves” at public hearings, then they risk losing their dogs or their homes.
Telling them to just move somewhere else (which is what they sometimes get told) is an oversimplification of the complexities of the situation they find themselves in.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 6, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
I agree with Pat. Why, just this morning on an e-mail list there was a discussion of how much at risk a breeder is by having a freakin’ Web site … it makes them vulnerable to complaint or attack by anti-breeder advocates.
And that’s a shame, when people do not feel safe expressing their views for fear of retribution.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 6, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
let me see if I have this right: on the one hand, this bill destroys due process. On the other hand, it will increase the burden on shelters because of increased owner surrenders. AND on the third hand, it will cost the taxpayers more money.
Oh, and by the way, it WONT solve any “problem”.
So what the heck is the point of this atrocity?
Comment by EmilyS — August 6, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Gina,
I’m not even sure if this is the right blog post to add this comment so feel free to kill it, move it, paste it, or ignore it. You’re choice. I just gotta get this off my chest.
We (Dad and I) rescued a Momma cat and her 2 kittens from the storm drain last week. This momma has been hanging around Dad’s house being fed since before the birth of her kitten. In an panic one night 2 weeks ago, she moved them to the drain. Firefighters came to rescue one kitten and Momma, but the other was squirrelly and wouldn’t come out. She stayed in the drains for a week with my Dad feeding her multiple times a day. Best guess is that she’s about 6 weeks old.
Dad has the brilliant idea of blocking the sewer tubes with fish pond netting to contain the kitten in the shortest length sewer tube. (Imagine a L-shaped sewer with human access at the corner of the L and half way up the long part of the L.) We got her contained under the street last Friday and I went down, crawled into the stinking storm sewer while my Dad poured water slowly into the other end of the drain. The little one gradually worked her way towards me, hissing and spitting for all she was worth. I grabbed her, wrapped her in a towel and popped her into a carrier.
Just like the Wonder Pets!!
In any event, the part of the story that applies to the blog post is this: Dad went to the Montgomery County Humane Society in Rockville, MD, to get a discount spay/neuter certificate so Momma cat can be fixed. She’s feral, he explained that clearly, and they told him he’d have to provide 2 years of income statements to see if he even qualified! He was furious.
What is the point of encouraging the public to spay and neuter their pets if prying into their financial situation is more important than the reason they come into the shelter in the first place? There’s no plan in place for ferals, no traps available to catch the big Tom cat who’s impregnating all the females - nothing. Can’t help you sir! My Dad is trying to prevent the birth of more unwanted cats and they basically showed him the door.
Luckily, Pop took the story to our own vet who said he’d do the surgery (full price $260) for the $65 that the county charges. He has also said he will fix the Tom cat for that price, as well as the one kitten that my parents plan to keep. Dad will pay out of pocket for Momma and Tom’s vaccines, etc.
I just don’t understand where common sense got lost in the mix. Every shelter should be aiming to be no-kill. Every piece of legislation should be designed to foster innovative, proven, and far-reaching solutions to deal with the sad fact that so many animals are unwanted and far too many die each year.
I have 2 rescue cats here, and I know that animals, even feral ones, can be rehabbed. My Mom has 4 - 2 cats and 2 dogs (not including Momma and her kittens).
I feel like kicking someone…
Comment by Sharon H — August 7, 2008 @ 6:38 am
2 years of income statements to see if he was qualified for reduced fee neuter? Outrageous! What on earth is their point? I guess someone who lost her job or faced a medical crisis or whatever else isn’t qualified for reduced cost pet neuter surgery on that basis alone? Because they seem to be indicating that if you *weren’t* in financial crisis mode for at least 2 years already, you should have been able to save up for and spend money on regular rate neuter surgery. Which is ridiculous and in the case mentioned, does nothing to help reduce unwanted cats in the community.
Comment by slt — August 7, 2008 @ 6:47 am
We don’t call it the People’s Republic of Montgomery County for nothing, you know?
Comment by Sharon H — August 7, 2008 @ 6:59 am
Just one more example of why it’s never been about pet population control and it’s always been about the eventual extinction of dogs and cats.
Comment by Dutch — August 7, 2008 @ 7:09 am
“I feel like kicking someone.”
Not a day goes by when I don’t share that sentiment. Instead of helping people and pets, too many seem to be all about judging people. The forced spay-neuter laws are all about punishing people, with no way for them to get the help they need to comply with the law. That why more pets end up dead in shelters when these laws go into place!
Forced spay-neuter is the natural extension of the beliefs of many in the shelter industry (which includes many of the shelter volunteers) that only people like them should “be allowed” to have pets … and not people who are poor, black, Latino, single moms, families with young children, people in apartments (even with landlord permission) people with no fenced yard, etc. etc. … and that there’s NEVER a valid reason why a pet would need to be in a “shelter.” (Why do they call them shelters if they are so unhappy about being used for shelter? Can you imagine a battered-women’s shelter turning people away telling them it’s “their fault” they need help?!) We need to look at people as individuals, not as classes, and make an individual decision when it comes to them and their pets. And recognize that sometimes, people need help.
When I was doing rescue, I “broke the rules” to place dog with people who ended up being some of the best forever homes one could imagine.
Sometimes, though, people need help, circumstances change and instead of trashing them for needing help or punishing them with laws they can’t afford to mind, we need to help them.
nd there’s no better way to help people and pets than to bring spay-neuter services to where they are … and get those pets fixed, without hoop-jumping. This accomplishes all kinds of goals.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 7, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Rural counties in particular need the help. Many do not have low cost spay/neuter or even vet care that would be available. There is a tremendous need for education, of health care, pros/cons, and making something where the people can take advantage of them. Rural counties just do not have all the resources of funds and personnel (volunteers) that the urban/suburban areas do. I live in rural northern California. Leash laws are not adequately enforced, few license, few vets, and lots of folks that are low income.
All the money spent by those promoting AB1634 could have made a world of difference in making available grants, assistance in helping to set up programs, etc…….stop putting more and more restrictive laws on the books. Do something that can actually make a difference!!!!
Comment by Terry — August 7, 2008 @ 9:45 am