Do you like this story?
Forced spay-neuter in California: More ingredients for the sausage
By Gina Spadafori
August 13, 2008
Here’s the latest. Still about pushing the “undeserving poor” into giving up their pets, filling the shelters and increasing the killing. Still about making “shelters” about people punishment, not pet placement, as people avoid the place that killed their last pet when choosing their next.
Still utterly clueless about the idea that while most of us choose (or would choose, with help to pay for it and get the animal there) to spay-neuter, being a “responsible pet owner” has nothing to do with the presence or lack thereof of an animal’s gonads and everything to do with training, socializing and keeping one’s pets from being a nuisance or danger to society.
But at least it does appear to remove the demand that spay-neutered pets are legally mandated:
a person who owns or possesses either an unlicensed, or an intact but licensed, dog or
cat within California , as specified, may be cited and, if
cited, shall pay a civil penalty to the local animal control agency
within 30 days
And it does remove the complaint issue:
(1) “Complaint” means an oral or written complaint to a local
animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the
dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that
relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. “Complaint”
also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local
animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that
violates this division, any other provision of state law that
relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. “Complaint”
shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.
Your thoughts? I’m trying to be: 1) As open-minded as I insist others be; and 2) Think not of how this affects people like me, but how it would help people keep their pets. People who, like me, love and want to care for their pets, even if, unlike me, they are not a middle-class homeowner.
I still think this is bad public policy that puts a burden on the poor that will force them to give up their pets — more shelter pets, more shelter killing — instead of helping them to keep and better care for their pets.
It’s still like the lightbulbs to me … lots of stick that will kill lots of pets, no carrot to help pets and people.
Update: This analysis pretty much sums up the problems: For Levine, it’s just about winning. For forced spay-neuter advocates, it’s about punishing the undeserving, well worth it even if more pets die and taxpayers foot the bill:
At the recent Senate Local Government committee hearing on June 25, 2008, where the first “new AB 1634″ was unveiled, Senator Cox asked Ed Boks, the Los Angeles Director of Animal Control (who was a co-presenter to the committee along with the author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine): “Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?” Mr. Boks responded: “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats. It’s about whether they are neutered.”
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Aside from the fact that this bill is inhumane in that it will guarantee more pets relinquished when the owners cannot pay these additional fines and fees, bet your life that the MSN opponents will use it’s bad results to push their agenda.
If impoundments increase because of AB1634, the people behind it WILL NOT blame their lousy legislation. They will scream that the impounds and consequent euthanasias are up because of the “greedy breeders” and “irresponsible public” and we need more regulation
Comment by JenniferJ — August 13, 2008 @ 8:09 am
It looks to me as though the agenda is to track and sterilize people’s dogs. That’s just on a quick boo.
I’d send this whole piece of garbage to the round file, if I were in charge. It’s unnecessary, an invasion of privacy and of course, totally unnecessary.
The AR marketing of mandatory sterilization has been quite successful, I must say. And yes, it is all about marketing - from the cute puppy/kitten pics to the looping tapes of dog fights, mill busts and all the rest of it. It’s about the money, honey, which allows the campaign to continue.
What makes it especially hilarious is that according to some recent stats I saw (must find those again) the vast majority of pets today are already altered. This is not about stopping uncontrolled breeding. It’s about knowing where you live and what kind of dog you have when the big roundup happens. Hopefully, the plan can be thwarted.
As my friend says, “It isn’t paranoia when they really ARE out to get you”
Comment by Caveat — August 13, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Sorry for the lousy comment-writing - I’m tired and shouldn’t be posting anything.
Comment by Caveat — August 13, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Caveat, it’s not fatigue getting to you, it’s all the AR newspeak, it rots brain cells! :-)
Comment by JenniferJ — August 13, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Ugh, this just makes me sick. I just recently learned that there was a bill going to go through the NYS senate to attempt to change the meaning of “seller” to include reputable, ethical breeders, which would make them have to pay a fee. Thank god they aren’t going to worry about it for the remainder of this year because it appears that NYS needs to re-think it’s budget.
Comment by Alex V — August 13, 2008 @ 10:21 am
I don’t get it. Why do we need more laws? The USDA and local police / sherriff’s departments can’t even enforce the laws currently on the books. Our recent local (horrific) puppy mill story was pumped out by the AR/media as a reason MN needs more laws - but - the woman WAS breaking existing laws and she WAS arrested. IF they’d been doing their jobs, she’d have been arrested and put out of business YEARS ago.
What great huge load of poop.
Comment by Janeen — August 13, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Am I reading this right? unlicensed or licensed intact cat can be fined?
Another problem with this is limit laws.
Comment by straybaby — August 13, 2008 @ 12:53 pm