Forced spay-neuter in California still up for vote
By Gina Spadafori
August 19, 2008
No vote today again in the California State Senate, with time running out. Still time to call and fax your Senators if you’re a California resident to ask them to vote NO on AB 1634, which will INCREASE shelter population and kill rates and INCREASE the cost to taxpayers per the California Dept. of Finance report. It also inserts the state into a medical decision that should be made by a pet owner after consultation with a veterinarian.
Why are animal-rights advocates pushing this? Christie’s post from yesterday offers some answers.
And speaking of animal-rights activists, hat tip to Nathan Winograd for pointing out that PETA is encouraging people who have to give up pets because they’re losing their homes to take them to an “open admission” shelter (here’s the letter).
In a recent letter to the Editor, PETA tells people not to abandon their animals if they lose their homes to foreclosure. More than that, they tell people not to take their dog to a No Kill shelter but rather to a kill shelter. In the most glaring read given PETA’s history and shelter overkill: they are basically telling people not to abandon their pets but to have them killed at shelters. Once again, they recommend that people not take the animals to shelters which will guarantee to save the life of the animals under the delusional notion that No Kill means hoarding.
In New Jersey, a No Kill shelter does more adoptions than any other in the entire state. In New York, a No Kill shelter does more adoptions than any other in the entire state. In community after community, No Kill shelters are adopting out animals that would be killed elsewhere. Why shouldn’t these animals be guaranteed a loving, new home? Instead, they suggest that people take their pets to a “well run open admission shelter.” Well, I’ve got news for PETA: a well run open admission shelter is No Kill!
I know Christie has been working on an article that gets into this foreclosure situation with regards to pets. We’ll link it up when we have it.
Well hey - why doesn’t the state (note NO caps) step in and tell me when I can and can not take birth control? Or when I can (or can not) take anti-depressants?
Or a freaking walk.
Maybe I need to go read 1984 again….
Comment by Janeen — August 19, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
We have serious issues with Irresponsible Dog Owners where MILLIONS of dogs and people are negatively impacted by this epidemic.
So your advice is for nothing to be done?
Yes, in the short term, there will be a spike. But long term this will be a great first step. 4.7 million dog bites is way to much. Millions more get invaded in their OWN HOMES by abusive dog owners who feel entitled to neglect their dogs and allow them to bark for hours on end.
I hope this passes such that our future generations can peacefully enjoy their lives.
Comment by Brian — August 20, 2008 @ 6:25 am
“I hope this passes such that our future generations can peacefully enjoy their lives.”
“Without pets,” you forgot to add. Sorry, no sale.
Our advice is FAR from doing nothing. Instead of just dropping in, reading a single post and blasting some ill-informed, pet-hating crap, stick around and keep reading. Click on the category “no kill” to find out more.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 20, 2008 @ 7:10 am
Brian - you’re going to have to remove a lot more body parts than testicles to solve barking and biting. What exactly are you proposing to insure your comfort???
Comment by trucorgi — August 20, 2008 @ 7:30 am
I “love” how Brian is alluding to mandatory spay and neuter to solve the barking dog problem. (ha ha ha ha ha, boom… oops, I fell out of my chair).
Comment by Dutch — August 20, 2008 @ 7:47 am
Comment by Brian — August 20, 2008 @ 6:25 am
Yeah I hope they take away the First Amendment so people can’t post ignorant opinions on message boards…
Comment by slt — August 20, 2008 @ 7:50 am
I do, however, think it’s interesting how Brian makes the connection the pet-loving backers of mandatory spay-neuter legislation can’t seem to:
If you succeed in spaying and neutering ALL pets, you will soon have NO pets.
Which is clearly Brian’s wish.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 20, 2008 @ 7:52 am
“Taking animals to well-run, open-admission
shelters where they will be fed, cared for, and loved,…”
Whoever wrote this line in the PETA letter has obviously never set foot in the open admission shelters of Los Angeles County or the City of Los Angeles.
Comment by Dutch — August 20, 2008 @ 8:26 am
Hi,
AB1634 has been passed-over so far but Mark Hennelly of COHO reports that they expect Padilla to bring it back up for Levine later today.
So NOW, right now, would be an excellent time to call those democratic senators, again.
—————————————— —————— ——————
DEMOCRATS:
Elaine Alquist 916-651-4013 916-324-0283
Ron Calderon 916-651-4030 916-327-8755
Gilbert Cedillo 916-651-4022 916-327-8817
Ellen Corbett 916-651-4010 916-327-2433
Louis Correa 916-651-4034 916-323-2323
Bob Dutton 916-651-4031 916-327-2272
Tom Harman 916-651-4035 916-445-9263
Shiela Kuehl 916-651-4023 916-324-4823
Alan Lowenthal 916-651-4027 916-327-9113
Mike Machado 916-651-4005 916-323-2304
Abel Maldonado 916-651-4015 916-445-8081
Denise Moreno Ducheny 916-651-4040 916-327-3522
Gloria Negrete McLeod 916-651-4032 916-445-0128
Jenny Oropeza 916-651-4028 916-323-6056
Alex Padilla 916-651-4020 916-324-6645
Don Perata 916-651-4009 916-327-1997
Mark Ridley-Thomas 916-651-4026 916-445-8899
Gloria Romero 916-651-4024 916-445-0485
Jack Scott 916-651-4021 916-324-7543
Joseph Simitian 916-651-4011 916-323-4529
Darrell Steinberg 916-651-4006 916-323-2263
Tom Torlakson 916-651-4007 916-445-2527
Edward Vincent 916-651-4025 916-445-3712
Patricia Wiggins 916-651-4002 916-323-6958
Leland Yee 916-651-4008 916-327-2186
And a cute little hand written fax saying NO on AB1634 wouldn’t be horrible either, especially if you can find a co-worker etc who has not written yet to do one
Comment by JenniferJ — August 20, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Don’t blame Brian - he’s a victim of the mis- and disinformation campaign by AR/AL through an easily manipulated media. Too bad it’s so hard to get people to believe facts the way they believe fiction, isn’t it?
He believes there are ‘millions’ of irresponsible pet owners in CA.
He believes that there are too many pets, especially too many puppies and kittens.
He believes that the 4.7 million bites per years number so blithely thrown around was a count, not a guess.
He believes that sterilization can prevent dog bites and other nuisance behaviours.
He probably believes in ‘pit bulls’ and all the rest of it too.
It’s really not his fault - that’s the BS that’s been put out there for years on end to distract from the real goal - the extinction of domestic animals - one generation and out.
Comment by Caveat — August 20, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
No, no BSL. It is everyone’s right to have pets and the type of dog isn’t the issue. Its the owner. I have a cat, and as a child growing up we had a family dog that was, well, part of the family.
A few years ago I would never have that that being force to listen to hours of barking day after day would have the negative impact it does. And after several times politely to talk to the owners, I was verbally abused. I won’t go into the physical damage to my property after that. It seems intimidation and bullying is a trait… not to be insulting, just look at some of the responses to my original post.
Thus I have done several years worth of research, but it all comes down to the responsibility of the owner not to impose themselves onto others.
So I appologize for ‘ruffling’ your tails (pun intended). So my point of reference will be the following 2 previous great articles from Gina: “Barking Dogs Need Attentive Owners” (05/25/1997) and “Irresponsible dog owners leave others holding the bag” (09/29/2005).
My previous post mentioned the impact to the millions of humans. What about the millions of dogs: 4 million euthanized a year, physical abuse, emotional neglect (not meeting the needs of the dogs), shelters overloaded, fighting, hoarding, puppy mills, etc.
At some point actions need to be taken. Is this proposal the best? Personally I don’t think so. Some form of mandatory education, maybe licensing (maybe with off-lease rewards for the truely Responsible Dog Owners) has to be done. We all have the right to own cars, but we all must be trained and licensed - - and expected to be responsible - - in order to continue having the car and driving. If you don’t, you lose your right to
But this is the best legislation I’ve seen so far.
Sorry for the rambling.
Brian
Comment by Brian — August 21, 2008 @ 1:01 pm