Forced spay-neuter update: AB 1634 on schedule for today
By Gina Spadafori
August 12, 2008
No additional amendments … yet.
Update with proposed amendments. At this point, this does nothing to address the problem of people being forced to give up pets because they can’t afford the fines … and that means more pets in shelters, more pets killed in shelters and more cost to taxpayers.
Meanwhile, the people who gave up a pet will just get another, from all the people who don’t pay attention to the laws now. After all, would you go adopt a pet from a shelter that worked so very hard to kill your previous pet and makes it very clear you are considered law-breaking scum?
***
Here’s previous information. If you’re a California resident and haven’t called or faxed your state Senator, please take the time to do so now.
Contrary to the claims of its sponsors (and counter-intuitive to many), forced-spay neuter laws increase shelter populations and shelter killing, as people give up their pets rather than pay fines, and then get another pet, but not from the shelters that they now see as “the bad guy” after animal control took their pet.
Instead of pushing a policy that doesn’t work, community-based no-kill solutions bring pet-lovers together to put and keep pets in homes, and to help bring spay-neuter and other services where people need them, at a price they can afford. This is the direction we need to take to bringing shelter populations down, not sound-bite, sound-good legislation with disastrous unintended consequences for people and pets.
Just heard that Levine’s office will be releasing his new amendments today. Can’t wait to see them. Especially since every other “improvement” made to the bill has made it worse worse worse…..
Comment by JenniferJ — August 12, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
If someone gets the amendments, please post a link.
Comment by Dutch — August 12, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Here is the new proposed draft of the “new” re-named, again, AB1634.
THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL YET, it may get tweaked or changed again before it is official tomorrow AM
http://noab1634.com/dox/final%.....amends.pdf
Comment by JenniferJ — August 12, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
When is this guy up for re-election? Is he a decent Assemblyman aside from his S/N obsession?
Comment by straybaby — August 12, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Here by the way are my initial thoughts for this proposed and not yet official version which I shall be calling the “California Impound More Pets Act” or possibly the “California Heap More Fines on Low -Income Pet Owners Act”
The thing is, you cannot do anything about shelter numbers until you drop the punish punish punish attitude and start HELPING people!
OKAY, my initial reactions are as follows
This does nothing to alleviate the concerns of the DoF. In fact it makes surrenders more likely as you have now heaped the cost of chipping onto the 100 dollar fine, making it harder for cash strapped owners to stomach fine number two. And even the offer to waive the fine if you spay/neuter is BS as some one who cannot afford microchipping is NOT going to be able to afford even most low cost spay neuters and 14 days is not enough time to get into one of the low or no cost clinics which are utterly unavailable in many places, overbooked in others. It takes time to apply for vouchers too, and sometimes lots of it.
THIS section stomps all over local government and will make every juristiction in the state have to re-examine their fee schedules. Fair bet most won’t drop fees for SN dogs, they’ll raise them for intact ones which equals LESS compliance:
SEC. 6. Section 30804.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:
30804.5. Whenever dog license tags are issued pursuant to this division, any such tag shall be issued for one-half or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered. as follows:
(a) For three-fourths or less of the fee required for a dog, if the dog has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the dog, its owner and the owner’s contact information.
(b) For one-half or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered.
(c) For one-fourth or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered, and the dog has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the dog, its owner and the owner’s contact information.
It still does nothing to address the issue of providing help to poor pet owners, it is instead highly punitive against anyone who may be stricken with difficult financial situations
It does nothing to address the majority of animals in California shelters, feral cats.
it still offers NO protection to TNR feral cat workers, rescue fosters etc.. who may now be penalized for “possessing” an unlicensed intact dog or cat they are fostering if the gardner leaves a gate open or AC comes a knocking looking for licensing compliance. Fewer volunteers and good samaritans means MORE shelter dogs/cats, MORE euthanasia and MORE Hayden costs
The deal about citing unlicensed pets will ensure less visits to the vet for rabies shots, people know that’s how AC finds out, it’s not a secret. Most counties ALREADY charge a big fee for late licensing, add a civil penalty to that and you will have folks who get caught dumping those pets rather than pay what could amount to 200-300 dollars easily.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 12, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
straybaby … he is out of office at the end of his term. He was defeated in his primary election.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 12, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
“When is this guy up for re-election? Is he a decent Assemblyman aside from his S/N obsession?”
Comment by straybaby
Loyd was termed out of the assembly and lost his bid to be candidate for the state senate. Gina posted about it a while back.
No tears from me, he has been an ineffectual politician, very into Nanny-State management issues and he seems to be a true believer AR. He is bad for California pets and owners and an impediment to any real change.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 12, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
I started writing about forced spay-neuter because I knew it would wipe out working dogs, service dogs, heritage breeds … and of course do nothing to help feral cats and all the under-the-radar pets bred and sold by people who don’t pay attention to the law now. The politically expedient pass given to puppy-millers was also mind-blowing to me.
But over the months, I have come to believe the people behind forced spay-neuter are largely middle-class (and up), holier-than-though types trying to punish the poor, especially poor black and Latino pet-lovers, who they see as “unworthy” of having pets.
And if a few million extra pets die to keep them out of the hands of “these people,” well, that’s the way it goes, isn’t it? Better dead than not cared for in the way a white suburbanite would, eh? I mean, really, if all you’re going to feed is Ol’ Roy and you can’t afford to rush to the vet every time your cat sneezes, you don’t deserve a pet!
We know best, and we’re going to make it so you can’t have a pet! (No matter that the facts say forced spay-neuter doesn’t work … it SEEMS like it should and that’s good enough!)
Instead of dishing out hatred of all breeders — even reputable, ethical and responsible ones — and secretly hoping to punish the “undeserving” pet-loving poor, why don’t forced spay-neuter advocates work to find common ground for all, with proven, community-wide no-kill solutions that include taking spay-neuter services to where people are?
People love and want to care for their pets. If the forced spay-neuter forces would have spent a fraction of the money they’ve put into this campaign towards funding mobile spay-neuter clinics, we’d have ALREADY reduced shelter killings.
But of course, that would require talking to the undeserving, and asking how we can help them. They don’t deserve that!! Instead, let’s punish them! Let’s kill their pets! That will show them!
So now, we have the haters’ law in place in L.A., with shelter impounds, killing for population control and animal-control costs all up.
And they want this to extend to the entire state?
What are they smoking?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 12, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Well, not….pot, of course, because that would be illegal and we all know that the people you speak of are punctilious in following ALL laws. LOL.
Comment by Susan Fox — August 12, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Take another of Assemblyman Levine’s nanny-state “we know better and can tell you what to do” endeavors: Banning incandescent lightbulbs, so people would be forced to buy energy-saving CFLs.
His law didn’t pass.
But at my employer, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, we put into place two programs:
1) We “bought down” the costs of virtually all the CFLs in all the stores in the county, so they were priced competitively with traditional lightbulbs. Even with the money we invested, we saved money, because when people use CFLs they use far less energy, and that means we don’t have to build another power plant.
2) We went into all the poorer neighborhoods in specially marked vehicles and traded people CFLs for their incandescent lightbulbs. That’s right: We took the service to the people who needed it. And we traded them, giving them CFLs for free that they wouldn’t have to replace for a long, long time. Again, the program saves the utility money, too.
So … which approach do you think worked better? Assemblyman Levine’s “we know what’s best for you and we’ll decide” stick? Or SMUD’s “it’s your choice and we know if we help you’ll make the right one” carrot?
Hmmmmmmmm?
We also need to get off this “show proof of dire poverty” crap if we trying to encourage a change in behavior.
Again with the lightbulbs … I certainly could have afforded a four-pack of full-priced CFLs for $12-15, but I bought relatively few of them, a couple here where it was more difficult to change a lightbulb, since CFLs last longer. But most of the lightbulbs remained the fair cheaper incandescents. Why? I don’t know, just because a deal on a 12-pack of traditional bulbs messes with our heads sometimes.
Now, after two years of CFL buy-down incentives? EVERY BULB IN MY HOUSE IS A CFL with the exception of those dorky little things in the hanging fixture over the dining-room table, a light I almost never turn on anyway because finding replacements for those is a major pain.
Again, yeah, I could afford CFLs. But for whatever reason I rarely bought them. The utility knew they would save money if I could be rewarded and encouraged to buy them. They made it impossible for me to turn them down, effortless and cheap … I didn’t have to qualify based on income, I didn’t have to apply for a coupon or a rebate.
They got public-good behavior the wanted.
Too bad the lightbulb — energy-efficient CFL, of course — doesn’t go off over the heads of the forced spay-neuter forces. Maybe then we’d get somewhere, and truly start addressing this problem by helping people to help their pets.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 12, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Thanks Gina and Jennifer! glad to hear he’s out and didn’t make it through the primary! We have a PIA here that’s not my rep, but he’s big on breed bans and seems to keep re-introing the darn bill over and over and over . . . Gets tiring keeping up with them.
Gina, the city and Con Ed here also have a program that they took to the people for the CFLs. It’s a larger program than just bulb replacement and seems to be well funded. They sent a direct mail piece about it and all you had to do was tear off the coupon and drop it in the mail. You got a free bulb and coupon/discounts iirc. Of course, I had already replaced all mine, so no deals for me aside from the lovely monthly savings :) And of course, our no kill program is working the same way. Take the pets to the people and offer more services and help. Our licensing just went all online. Will be a much quicker turnaround, so it should increase compliance. And I’m sure we’ll have a crackdown soon, but our fees are low enough, it’s not something that would increase surrenders. We also have Rabies clinics that go to the people, so they would be able to afford the vac for licensing. We’re getting there slowly but surely :)
Oh and the big joy of CFLs aside from the savings? I haven’t had to climb up on the ladder in forever to change a bulb!
Comment by straybaby — August 12, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
There is no pet overpopulation problem - that’s been proved 15 ways to Sunday. This is about extinction and is classic AR - less pushback than with breed bans, more efficient and much easier to sell.
The description of the revised law does one thing - it highlights the true motives here - to punish dog owners deemed inferior - not because of the way they treat their pets but because who they are perceived to be. Nicely pointed by Gina above.
I used to think neutering was the way to go, a few years ago. That was before I got clued in to the implications and read a lot of research papers which put the lie to many myths around neutering.
There is no need for any further legislation around pet ownership. Period. Pet owners are already way overregulated and it’s time to stop it. Pets just aren’t that much of a problem. It’s a media-generated issue and I’m sick of it. They should tackle some actual problems for a change.
As a pet owner, I’m not particularly interested in providing job security for people who don’t care a fig for animals and prove it every time they open their mouths, but don’t mind riding on the back of dead dogs and cats to further their own interests. Scroom.
An aside on the lightbulb thing - NOT meant to take away from the great program described.
I use two incandescent lightbulbs at night, both 60W. There is no point in my changing to fluos. I hate the colour of the fluo bulb light, maybe because I’m a painter and light is super important to me. The mercury content bothers me - I can’t just toss them into the garbage, they’re hazmat. Light bulbs really aren’t the problem. Computers - well, now, think of all the computers we didn’t have 20 years ago and how people leave them on all the time. That’s your power drain, especially if you don’t turn your monitor off when you walk away. Ditto TVs. Commercial and industrial power use is significantly greater than domestic use, so perhaps targeting all the office towers, grocery stores, and other businesses which use inordinate amounts of light, air conditioning and heat would be a better start than bugging people who read at night with a bedside lamp.
Comment by Caveat — August 12, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
I heard Bill Bruce speak this past weekend about the success that Calgary Canada has with their animal control. Bill is the director of animal control there. Calgary’s AC sounds like a great model.
Bill heard us talk about what’s been going on in California with AB 1634 and local MSN ordinances. He said the people in Calgary would never tolerate these kinds of draconian laws.
The citizens of Calgary view their AC as one that provides useful services. FYI, Calgary is a rapidly growing city of over 1 million people.
Through a comprehensive education campaign that includes programs in schools and the news media, Calgary’s pet owners understand that “your pet’s license is his ticket home”. Owner compliance with Calgary’s dog licensing is 90%, versus 20% which is typical and 40% which is considered high in the US. This came about mostly through education and good services, with enforcement being the backup.
When a dog is picked up as a stray in Calgary, the ACO looks up the dogs license using the networked computer in the ACO’s truck, and phones the owner right away. Much of the time the dog is driven straight home, never seeing the animal shelter. Dogs that cannot be taken straight home have their photo and info posted on Calgary AC’s public website before the dog even makes it to the shelter. IIRC, Calgary has a 90%+ rate of returning stray dogs to their owners.
Calgary started licensing cats 1 1/2 years ago. This is unusual in the US, and controversial. Compliance for cat licensing is so far at 45% in Calgary, and climbing. They haven’t even advertised the program yet. So many cat owners want that “ticket home” license for their cat that Calgary AC has had their hands full so far just processing applications from owners who have voluntarily licensed their cats.
Calgary has no pet limit laws. As Bill Bruce says when asked, why should he limit the number of pets a person can own when most of the problem owners are one pet homes? No limit on the number of pets one can own is part of achieving high licensing compliance.
Calgary has no BSL. Bill Bruce answers those who want to ban pit bulls this way. Pit bulls are #5 on the bite list. Before we ban them, perhaps we should ban the top 4 biting breeds… which includes Labrador Retrievers. That shuts down those conversations right away.
Calgary has an 8% kill rate for dogs, with no dogs being killed for population control. That’s among the best in North America.
Dog bites have decreased significantly in Calgary over a span of time that Calgary’s population has doubled.
Calgary AC partners closely with the Calgary Humane Society. AC takes in the strays while the Humane Society takes the owner turn ins.
Calgary AC works to keep pets with their owners. Bill described an example of a dog that was left out on a balcony when the temperature was 30 degrees below zero. AC rescued the dog, and the news media picked up the story. Turns out the dog has separation anxiety, and tended to damage the apartment when the owner was away. The owner, not knowing what else to do, left the dog out on the balcony in the extreme cold. I think many ACs would have charged the owner with cruelty and then either euthanized or adopted out the dog (since the dog was a pittie, probably the former). Calgary AC arranged for the owner to receive responsible pet owner training, and he got his dog back.
Calgary AC gets nothing, not one dime, in taxpayer funding. They don’t need it, since they bring in so much money in licensing income. None of the pet licensing income goes into Calgary’s general fund. Calgary AC can afford to buy the best equipment, and pay staff enough to keep turnover low. Calgary AC also gives the Calgary Humane Society $250K a year to help cover their expenses.
There was more good news from Calgary, that’s what I can remember off the top of my head.
Comment by LauraS — August 12, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Bill’s a great guy, I know him personally, and his program is win-win.
His stats are available online, since he has nothing to hide, here’s a link to a post I put up which links to the Calgary data:
http://caveat.blogware.com/blo.....85431.html
Interesting factoid: The Ontario Fiberals refused to let Bill speak at the hearings into the dog ownership ban. Go figure.
Just as it suits the extinction crowd to shut down the ethical breeders so that only the profiteers are left, it also suits them to keep the Voice of Reason out of the debate.
Comment by Caveat — August 12, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
“Responsible Pet Ownership Act” my foot! I hate it when marketers name bills! (“What?! You don’t support the Responsible Pet Ownership Act? Wow - that must mean you’re in favor of irresponsible pet ownership!”)
Just like the “Puppy Protection Act” of many years ago. I mean, who would go on record as being AGAINST protecting *puppies*, right?
When will cheap ploys fobbed onto a gullible public be made illegal?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 13, 2008 @ 6:26 am
Gina wrote:
But over the months, I have come to believe the people behind forced spay-neuter are largely middle-class (and up), holier-than-though types trying to punish the poor, especially poor black and Latino pet-lovers, who they see as “unworthy” of having pets.
And if a few million extra pets die to keep them out of the hands of “these people,” well, that’s the way it goes, isn’t it? Better dead than not cared for in the way a white suburbanite would, eh? I mean, really, if all you’re going to feed is Ol’ Roy and you can’t afford to rush to the vet every time your cat sneezes, you don’t deserve a pet!
About fifteen years ago, when I first moved to this state, I was serving as the editor of the PA Sierra Club’s chapter newsletter.
Got a call out of the blue one day from a woman who thought an editorial I’d written on something or other was just wonderful. I can’t remember the purpose of her call — I think she wanted me to speak at some function or something.
Chatting, she tells me that she lives in Pittsburgh, but also owns a farm in Butler county where she spends the weekends. She is “letting it grow up for the animals” and the first thing she did was post it all around so those awful hunters couldn’t come onto it and hurt “her” deer. This thread of of the conversation then moved into her complaints about how unneighborly the rednecks around her “farm” are. (And I listened thinking “Did she read last month’s editorial on environmentalists building bridges to the hook & bullet crowd in order to protect habitat and our common interests?” But I did not say anything about it to her, just let her keep going.)
On to her next topic, which is that she was a member of the mayor of Pittsburgh’s animal welfare committee. And her mission on that committee was to see to it that Pittsburgh passed a pitbull ban.
Oh? Do tell?
Well, they are vicious you see, and a danger to “nice” pets and “nice” people. Breeders made them that way, “those people” want vicious dogs.
So I challenged her to lay forth her experience with pitbulls — how many had she personally met and handled. Oh, none. Those sorts of people didn’t live in her neighborhood.
So how do you know pitbulls are vicious?
Retreat, regroup, second salvo: The pitbulls are victims. All of them are abused because they are owned by those people. What people are those ma’am? She wouldn’t say — the kind who always abuse their dogs, and the only kind who own pitbulls.
If we banned them in the city, they couldn’t be “abused” any longer. Can’t abuse a dead dog.
There are ten thousand rational arguments to lay out against this lunacy, but they are only worthwhile if the lunatic has an audience of the ignorant — there’s no reasoning with the lunatic herself.
So I said “You are just another one of those dog-killers. I have nothing to say to you.” And hung up.
Coda: This woman immediately called our state headquarters in Harrisburg in an attempt to get me “fired.” She spoke to the chapter’s one and only full-time employee, our lobbyist, Jeff. Jeff pointed out that I was a volunteer, in a job that was extremely difficult to fill, and was technically, as a member of the BoD, his boss. So the woman called other board members to rant. In some of these conversations, the topic of “those people” did come up.
Anyway, up until that point, I had thought Vicki Hearne was a bit out on a limb on the racial and class impetus behind pit-bull hysteria. Not any longer.
Pit-bull hysteria has just been repackaged for mandatory sterilization. We can’t stop “those people” from making babies or being out on the public streets where us white ladies get nervous. They just won’t stay properly contained in their respective ghettos, barrios, and trailer parks. The gated development and the posted signs are imperfectly secure.
But just maybe, we can get the law on ‘em for having a dog with balls. And deny such “abusers” the ability to have pets at all.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 13, 2008 @ 6:45 am
Hey Caveat … yeah, I know about the recycling problem, and I also know the “color” of the light annoys people. (My photographer friends hate CFLs.)
But of course, my employers does have lots and lots of other incentive programs that handle the issues you describe, including R&D programs that dramatically reduces the energy use of lights and freezers in grocery stores.
I really like my part-time “day job,” and not just for the steady pay and bennies … the little utility that could understands incentives and helping people in a way that Lloyd Levine and his nanny-state ilk never will. It’s truly what being progressive is all about.
Now … if we can just move that over to the pet arena …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 13, 2008 @ 7:20 am
the anti-tethering movement has a lot of the “those people don’t deserve dogs” ideology in it too. After all, if you can’t afford a fence, surely you can’t afford a dog.
The “anti-pet ownership by anyone who is not like me” pet welfare movement is full of these white middle-aged white nanny-state-minded Tammy Grimes types. Being a middle aged white woman myself, it pains me to say that.
Comment by EmilyS — August 13, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Gina, I totally agree.
Comment by Caveat — August 13, 2008 @ 7:58 am