Californians, please act now against SB250

Do you like this story?

Californians, please act now against SB250

By Christie Keith

May 31, 2009

I hate “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” as much as the next gal, but you know, when big hunks of blue stuff dotted with clouds are crashing into your head while you walk across the street, what are you gonna do?

So, Californians who think that medical decisions about your animals should be made by you and your veterinarian and not the good folks in Sacramento, please check out this action alert from Laura Sanborn of Save Our Dogs, who says that despite recent amendments, the core provisions of California’s SB 250 are unchanged — and very similar to the defeated mandatory spay/neuter bill, last year’s AB 1634:

Violate an animal control law even once and you may never be allowed to own an intact dog ever again. One violation and your intact licenses can be denied or revoked at any time, forever. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires a PETA member as head of animal control. In an effort to balance the budget, this person revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours, generating millions of dollars in fines. He/She is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. Say you get a citation for some minor animal control infraction. No longer can you just pay the ticket. You have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to preserve your future right to own intact dogs. If you lose you either get out of dogs or leave the state. Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, go to court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.

The new fees for having intact licenses denied or revoked almost seem designed to drive dog owners underground. The state has a poor licensing compliance rate already, 10-30% compared to over 90% in Calgary. If you apply for a license and it is denied, you can be charged an additional fee for having the license denied. Maybe the local agency doesn’t charge such a fee now, but they may when it is time for renewal. Just one more thing to drive people away. And of course what will they do if you don’t pay the fee? Impound and kill your dogs, of course. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You have to have a intact license to do that.

All these new fees and punishments will be enforced with the threat of impounding your dog. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Most owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is usually a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs. Before they are killed, the impounded dogs will sit in the shelter for the state mandated waiting period. The state is required by the existing Hayden Act reimbursement mandate to pay local governments for this cost. The state already pays over $20 million a year for this reimbursement. How many more fire fighters, police officers, teachers, and nurses will have to be laid off to cover the addition reimbursement the state will have to pay out if SB 250 passes?

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB 250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance and licensing fee income. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed.

SB 250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs.

This is a terrible and stupid law. It will not do what it claims to want to do, and it will worsen the lives of pet owners, cost money, and kill pets. Please follow these simple action steps and help stop SB 250. Act now!

UPDATE: Gina mentioned this in the comments, but I’m adding it here, too: Alley Cat Allies is urging Californians to contact their legislators to speak against SB 250, saying it will hurt stray, homeless, and feral cats. You can read their take on it, and use their action tool, here.

Filed under: animals: pets,news — Christie Keith @ 7:45 pm

Comments (124)

124 Comments »

Done.

Comment by Susan Fox — May 31, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Gah, I know, I post legislative alerts and updates to several lists and you have to be so careful not to overdo it.

But then one of these ghastly things comes up and you have to yell until they all here you.

Florez has stated that Prop 2 passing “changed everything”.
Sorry, you cannot use the passage of a laying hen treatment proposition as a mandate to force me to alter my pets! Big big difference guys! Although that does seem to be the attitude the last week or so

Comment by JenniferJ — May 31, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
Thanks, Christie. Already faxed twice to Sen. Steinberg (who’s also my own state senator) but time to put the fax machine in hyperdrive again.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 31, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Florez has stated that Prop 2 passing “changed everything”.

Interesting that the organization behind Prop 2, HSUS, is not taking a position on SB 250. I wonder, does Florez know that?

Comment by Christie Keith — May 31, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Why ISNT the HSUS taking a stand against this bill, which will increase the number of pets killed and the financial burden on lawabiding pet owners? Maybe their rep Jennifer can fill us in.

Comment by EmilyS — May 31, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Mancuso and her cronies either don’t get it, or (more likely) don’t want to get it - people WILL get their pets sterilized if you make it easy and affordable for them to do so. Punishing them with fines never works.

Is there anything that non-Californians can do to help? Besides forwarding this to our CA friends, that is.

Comment by Barb — June 1, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Add this on top of the proposed cut to 3 days for holdings of strays at the shelters. This will lead to a total disaster for dogs and cats in this state.

Comment by TEH — June 1, 2009 @ 8:24 am
I feel like us non-Californians had an important supporting role with AB 1634 — ‘cuz, if for no other reason, we don’t need our home states to be following California’s “progressive” lead (progressive like bodybuilder-actor-governors and referendum hate laws speshul for da gays).

I followed the lead of our friends in California last time, and now the exact same thing is back, but without the sturm un drang.

I am very afraid that this one will coast in under the radar. It’s already been fast-tracked.

So yes, other than the organizational letters we’ve already sent, what can an out-of-stater do?

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 1, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Call your contacts in CA and get them off the dime, that’s the best thing~

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 1, 2009 @ 8:47 am
Done … and emailed my letter to Save Our dogs so they could fax it to ALL the senators since I can’t do all that from work. I’m terrified this will pass…

Comment by Becky — June 1, 2009 @ 10:18 am
Alley Cat Allies has put out an action alert urging its supporters to contact Senators and ask for a NO vote. From their outreach e-mail blast:

“S.B. 250 would place stray and feral cats at risk because it targets the very people that care for them. The bill defines any person feeding or caring for a cat on her property as a “custodian,” and legally requires that person to neuter the cats in their care. If a caregiver were unable to trap and neuter a cat, S.B. 250 would label her a lawbreaker. Caring for stray and feral cats should be encouraged; but tragically, this bill would mean the very people doing the most to help cats would be breaking the law.

The overwhelming majority of household cats—80%—are already neutered. The neuter rate jumps to 93% for cats living in households earning $35,000 or more. A recent study commissioned by Alley Cat Allies found that among lower-income owners of intact pet cats, cost was one of the main obstacles to spaying and neutering. But S.B. 250 does nothing to lower the cost of spay/neuter. Indeed, the bill has no mechanism whatsoever to ensure more cats are spayed and neutered.

Cats live better lives when they are spayed and neutered. For this reason, Alley Cat Allies supports high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter programs. These programs help both stray and feral cat caregivers and low-income cat owners alike, and have proven effective at increasing the neuter rate of cats. But instead of supporting what works, S.B. 250 does not provide for, fund, or even suggest the creation of low-cost spay/neuter clinics.”

If you’re in California, CALL NOW.

Call your state senator, and then call mine, who happens to be the President pro Tem:

Sen Darrell Steinberg
Phone: (916) 651-4006
Fax: (916) 323-2263

Get on it!!

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 1, 2009 @ 11:44 am
I just don’t understand how they think something like this is going to do any good in the first place. All it will do is drive more owners to not have their pets vaccinated for rabies at all just so they can stay under the radar.

That’s what worries me if and when they decide to pull something like that here; our county (Pima) has the highest rate of rabies cases in Arizona, and it’s going up. If people stop vaccinating so they don’t end up on the license lists (and I already know several who do), we’re really going to be in a pickle.

Making spay/neuter cheaper and more accessible is the best way to go. Our clinic did 65 surgeries on Friday, and every time we have a free s/n day (funded by grants, individuals or group donations), we end up overbooked (we move the extras to the first available day and find an account to cover their surgeries just so they get done). If we could afford it, we could do at least that many every day.

If we made better use of the s/n clinics we already have, we might actually get somewhere on a voluntary basis.

Comment by stellaluna — June 1, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
I just drove a hour to take advantage of a “neuter clinic” being done by a clinic I trust. $232.00 for a 50 pound male dog. And that IS a good price for the area, AND the clinic had been filled for weeks.

We need more, lots lots more, lower cost and free clinics. Not a law that makes it illegal to give away an intact dog without an intact license make SURE that any unwanted dog or cat or intact pet from a family facing a financial crunch is GUARANTEED to end up at the shelter. Stupid, dangerous, radical AR and ignorance propelled bill.

But hey, if you can impound and kill em, they can’t “suffer”, right?

Comment by JenniferJ — June 1, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
.1:18pm… keep calling… I just talked to Steinberg’s office…their take “most people are against it”… so no more of this rumor that it is 50-50… Keep calling… and when you do… ask if calls are still NO…. Florez office is next on my list… My own Senator Wiggins could use some calls…i am sure they are sick of hearing from me and last i heard she was stil an Aye… (But cannot tell me why)
We can defeat this… nothing but AB 1634 in a Senator disguise… Is it any wonder that Florez has to say first thing…? I am NOT Lloyd Levine and this is NOT AB 1634… Funny thing… the resembleance is remarkable….
Senator Cox to the supporters of AB 1634
“This is not about saving dogs and cats, is it Mr. Boks”… TRUE answer… “NO, Senator, it is not about saving dogs and cats”… True then… true now…
NO ON SB 250

Comment by bestuvall — June 1, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Wiggins is sick of me too I’m sure but she’ll hear from me daily.

I am going to try to get some more letters signed to fax from folks here in Ukiah today.

We need to make it clear to Florez that THIS sort of law will alienate many people. he wants to be Lt Gov and I think that there is a perception that dems are all FOR this sort of thing.

Uh, no.

Liberal democrat here. keep your laws OFF my pets thank you.

Comment by JenniferJ — June 1, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
The main difference between the final, defeated version of AB 1634 and SB 250 is this:

AB 1634: 3 strikes and you’re out, at least for now

SB 250: 1 strike and you’re out, forever

Comment by LauraS — June 1, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
I over taxed my little fax yesterday.. but it is chugging along today… Please use letter head if you are wrting for your club and /or business… i mentioned how many CA members in my national club and how many members in my local breed club and sent on letter head.. asked that they count all 300.. as NO..

Comment by bestuvall — June 1, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
SB 250 has already been voted on today. It did not get enough votes to pass… YET. It’s now ON CALL, which means a re-vote later today. Florez is making the rounds, twisting arms.

Here’s the list of those who abstained or weren’t present. We need to flood their offices with calls NOW. Californians — GET ON THE PHONE! This is really easy:

“Hello, my name is [your name]. I live in [your city’s name] California. I’m calling to ask the Senator to please vote NO on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats, when it comes to the senate floor for a vote.”

Moreno Ducheny (916) 651-4040
Leno (916) 651-4003
Pavley (916) 651-4023
Wolk Phone: (916) 651-4005
Wright (916) 651-4025
Yee Phone: (916) 651-4008
Negrete-McLeod (916) 651-4032
Liu (916) 651-4021
Desaulnier (916) 651-4007
Corbet (916) 651-4010
Simitian (916) 651-4011

Comment by LauraS — June 1, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Laura, this is AWESOME! I just called every one on your list, said who I was, that the ASPCA/AVMA/CVMA/Allie Cat Allies do NOT support mandatory spay-neuter because it kills more pets than it saves. It’s unfunded mandate at a time of fiscal crisis. And that even the HSUS hadn’t taken a position.

45 seconds and OUT, each call. Five minutes for the whole shebang. Professional and polite, thank the staff and make the next call!

C’mon guys. Grab your cell phones if you’re at work and step outside. The weather’s great. Make the calls!

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 1, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
No exemption for dogs coming into the state just for shows?
Such dogs also subject to the provisions?
In which case, out of staters would have a good reason to call.

Comment by EmilyS — June 1, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
No exemptions for any dogs or cats. None. A phony exemption for hunting dogs while they are “at large”, but it’s phony. That’s it.

1 strike and you’re out.

Comment by LauraS — June 1, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
BTW, if a senator abstains or doesn’t vote at all on SB 250, that’s equivalent to voting NO on it. It has to have 20 or 21 YES votes to pass.

So if a senator’s staff says their senator is abstaining on SB 250, sincerely say “Thank you, I really appreciate it”

Comment by LauraS — June 1, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Going outside to make my calls now.

Comment by Becky — June 1, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
The second vote happened. 16 Yes, 15 No. I don’t have a breakdown of who voted which way yet. SB 250 is still short of the 20 or 21 Yes votes needed to pass.

Several rules would have to be waived for another vote today. But SB 250 will almost certainly be back tomorrow for yet another re-vote.

Now is a critical time. Sen. Florez will be putting pressure on members of his party who voted No, abstained, or were not present to vote on SB 250. PLEASE keep it up with the calls and faxes.

In his speech, Sen. Florez made the baseless claim that SB 250 would save $250 million a year. Never mind that MSN has never saved any jurisdiction money, and that animal control costs have *doubled* in Santa Cruz County since they passed MSN.

Comment by LauraS — June 1, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
I called all those on the list, any word on who to target specifically?

Comment by becky — June 1, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Anyone change votes from first to second vote, Laura? Do you know?

Comment by Christie Keith — June 1, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
I just called Sen. Walters’ office. She opposes it. Occasionally, it’s good to have a republican representative.

Comment by Kim Thornton — June 1, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Voted to abstain on SB 250 in round two:

Correa (916) 651-4034
Moreno Ducheny (916) 651-4040
Pavley (916) 651-4023
Wolk: (916) 651-4005
Wright (916) 651-4025
Yee: (916) 651-4008
Negrete-McLeod (916) 651-4032
Simitian (916) 651-4011

The above senators will be getting a LOT of pressure from Sen. Florez — SB 250 author and Senate Majority Leader — to change to a Yes.

If you haven’t already called, call the offices above and say:

“Hello, my name is [your name]. I live in [your city’s name] California. I’m calling to thank the Senator for abstaining on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats. I’m asking the senator to continue abstaining when it comes up for a reconsideration vote later this week.”

This will make them understand we are still watching and also appreciative of their position.

Abstaining is just as good for our side as a No vote, but is politically easier for a senator to do on a bill that he/she opposes but is sponsored by a member of his/her own party.

Comment by LauraS — June 1, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Now I’ve made all the other calls, except for Sen. Negrete-McLeod, who doesn’t have an option for leaving a general message.

Comment by Kim Thornton — June 1, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Here is the link to California Leginfo, if you want to track this bill.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

FYI, Dave Cox opposes the bill.

Comment by glock — June 1, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Senator Cox has been our best ally during the fight against MSN in the California State Senate. He’s the one who got AB 1634 supporter Ed Boks to admit in his committee testimony:
“No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.”

Comment by LauraS — June 1, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
SB 250 is a good thing. Responsible breeders will not be affected and it will save millions of animal lives. Moreover why would a person want to have an intact dog? If you are not a registered, upstanding breeder your dog/cat should be altered. Are you going to keep all the offspring it could possible produce… no! So just fix your animals jerks.

Comment by Megan Noes — June 2, 2009 @ 12:44 am
Actually, “Megan,” responsible, ethical breeders would be WIPED OUT. And that’s exactly the point, and what the people who are behind this bill want. (Except that since California’s reach ends at the border, puppy mills would thrive.)

You are also apparently unaware that spaying and neutering are surgical procedures, and that peer-reviewed veterinary research has documented that there are pros and CONS to the surgeries. For most people, spaying and neutering their pets is the right choice. But not for all, and not as a government mandate for a medical decision.

Finally, and MOST IMPORTANT: Forced spay-neuter actually INCREASES the number of pets killed in shelters, as people dump pets when they cannot comply with the law.

The ASPCA has a policy statement against mandatory spay-neuter (as does the AVMA). What do they know that you don’t?

Apparently, everything.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 2, 2009 @ 5:12 am
I just got up early to call the abstainers and leave messages urging them to continue abstaining. I also called Sen. Cox to thank him for his support against SB250 and to please continue pressuring legistlators to vote no when it comes up later this week.

And Megan, don’t feel bad, early on with 1634 I was misinformed as well and thought it would be a good thing. I was educated quickly I must say. My personal experiences with volunteer work at shelters and rescue groups helps me really see this will not help, and I sure don’t want to see more owners turning in their pets, it’s already awful. We need truly low cost and available spay/neuter programs, that will help.

Comment by Becky — June 2, 2009 @ 5:52 am
According to the Googles, “Megan Noes” does knot exist.

My goat-powered troll-detector is bleating.

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 2, 2009 @ 6:33 am
Yikes…was I being nice to Judie…if so, sounding kinda desperate aren’t they.

Comment by Becky — June 2, 2009 @ 7:03 am
“If you are not a registered, upstanding breeder your dog/cat should be altered. Are you going to keep all the offspring it could possible produce… no! So just fix your animals jerks.

Comment by Megan Noes — June 2, 2009 @ 12:44 am “

Megan, you don’t seem to understand that just because a dog is not spayed or neutered does not mean it will produce offspring.

In order to produce offspring, the dogs have to actually mate, and responsible owners do take precautions to prevent unplanned litters. I’ve owned lots of unaltered dogs over the past 35 years and have never had an unplanned litter (and I can count the number of planned litters on half of one hand!)

The people who are irresponsible enough to not prevent their dogs from breeding are more likely than not going to be the ones that won’t bother to get their pets sterilized anyway — they’ll just get rid of them if and when they are cited for having an unaltered animal, and get another one later.

Comment by stellaluna — June 2, 2009 @ 9:23 am
“According to the Googles, “Megan Noes” does knot exist.
My goat-powered troll-detector is bleating.
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 2, 2009 @ 6:33 am”

Oh, come on — you’ve NEVER searched for someone you knew DID exist and not found anything on them? Seriously? (If so, I could really use your help in finding the ex-boyfriend of my late daughter so I can get some of her stuff back — according to the googles, he doesn’t exist, either.)

(I’m not saying Megan Noes isn’t a troll, just that I’ve learned to never assume anything.)

Comment by stellaluna — June 2, 2009 @ 9:30 am
Yikes…was I being nice to Judie…if so, sounding kinda desperate aren’t they.

Comment by Becky — June 2, 2009 @ 7:03 am

Nah, Judie would not have sounded so calm. ;)
More likely a toady.

No not everyone comes up on teh Googles BUT if you’ve ever posted a comment anywhere, on any blog, you will, so I’m guessing “Megan Noes” is an alias

Comment by JenniferJ — June 2, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Just got word that the bill passed today. :(

Comment by Janet Ford — June 2, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
I just heard it passed 21 to 16. How awful for all us dog owners in California. What can these legislators be thinking of passing such a horrible bill that includes a nasty REGRESSIVE TAX in it for one thing that hits people on fixed and low income the hardest. Some of California cities are already charging $200 per year for intact licenses, and there is NO LIMIT on what they could charge—perhaps $500 to $1,000 per year??? Or have a surgery that is also unaffordable for some, and which might kill the animal or cause it harm?

Suppose the animal is healthy enough to have the surgery but gets sick from the surgery but the person then can’t afford to pay for lifelong care the dog requires because the surgery just wasn’t in the dog’s best interest? This is entirely a different question then would the surgery *kill* the dog. It’s like years ago doctors routinely wanted women to have hysterectomies—only to find out that many of them were unnecessary and caused health problems in many women. Same with dogs. Spay and neuter surgery can cause health problems and should not be mandated ever by the State since it is NOT a veterinarian and cannot know the medical status of individual dogs. It will end up killing, from the surgery, otherwise healthy dogs that didn’t need it, make unhealthy dogs that didn’t need it, force people who can’t afford it to have their dogs get this surgery or become a criminal or pay a VERY REGRESSIVE TAX.

For me I think this is an abominable law. I have owned dogs for my whole life, but I’ve never bred a litter, either intentionally OR by accident. I spay some dogs and others I don’t, it depends on the dog (and I own females, so spaying is the only issue). My dogs are members of my family and I make medical decisions for them the same way I make medical decisions for myself—is it in their or my best interest? I don’t decide to have a surgery or medical procedure for myself BECAUSE IT WON’T KILL ME OR CAUSE SERIOUS HARM. That is the preposterous reasoning that the bill author wants us to use on our dogs. Sorry, if I’m to have surgery, or one of my much-loved pets is to have surgery, that surgery is going to be done BECAUSE IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY not because some politician believes it is convenient.

My healthiest dog to date was a Jack Russell Terrier who lived to be 16 years of age. She was not spayed, and she was wonderfully healthy. She was a natural dog. Her rare trips to the vet were for vaccinations. But the State would have labelled her a CRIME!!! And me a criminal for *harboring* her—the terminology of this very offensive bill.

Comment by Melissa — June 2, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Melissa … all I can say is be ready for the Assembly.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 2, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
The only place that “Megan Noes” appears on a Google search is the comment here!

The url link to the “name” is blank.

Now, it’s possible that “Megan” is a concerned animal lover who has never done anything in the public eye or signed her name to anything on the internet until yesterday, when she was so moved by a close reading of the discussion here that she felt compelled to add her thoughtful insights to the conversation.

But my troll detector is still bleating rather loudly.

Anyway, it seems that this breed of zombie-troll has prevailed in the Senate for the moment.

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 3, 2009 @ 6:11 am
Here’s a poll on this dreadful bill:
http://www.ksby.com/Global/cat.....#poll84078

Comment by Melissa — June 3, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Thank you to Lou Correa for resisting pressure from Florez and voting against this draconian bill.

The California Senate passage leaves us in the unfortunate situation of having to ask Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.

Given that AB 1634 made it through the assembly and was killed by Lou Correa and Mark Ridley Thomas in the California Senate, I doubt we will have success against the bill in the assembly. Ridley Thomas is no longer in the State Senate. If he were, he would have likely joined Correa in opposing this bill.

Comment by Mike — June 3, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
Thank god it’s passed the senate, no thanks to you retards. I would love it if everyone who opposes SB 250 each spent a day in the euth room at one of the high-volume CA shelters. Really, what’s more humane: snipping some bits or mass slaughter? Most of the cats killed in CA shelters aren’t old and decrepit, they’re under 8 weeks old. That’s a direct consequence of NOT spaying and neutering. Because of your failure to alter one animal, four (average litter size) will be shot up with an overdose of sodium pentobarbital so their lungs collapse and are hauled off to rendering plants.

Comment by Spayed — June 5, 2009 @ 2:43 am
We have been in the killing rooms, “Spayed.” Have you?

We’re looking for solutions that WORK to reduce unwanted pets. Mandatory spay-neuter has never done anything but INCREASE the killings.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 5, 2009 @ 6:27 am
Really, what’s more humane: snipping some bits or mass slaughter?

http://www.sierrafoot.org/soap.....otomy.html

Ignoramus.

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 5, 2009 @ 6:34 am
Troll.

Comment by Susan Fox — June 5, 2009 @ 6:47 am
“Spayed”? Hope so.

Comment by Susan Fox — June 5, 2009 @ 6:48 am
I have been to LA South Central in 2005 when I got my dog it was really overcrowded and from what I hear worse now. Orange County’s shelter is over 60 years old and has a high kill rate. I have read articles about San Bernardino’s shelter also old, animals get sick just being put in there. I don’t care about the breeder’s problems with the spay/neuter law, the fact is the city and county shelters where animals are being dumped need help. This bill will help to some degree and that is what is important. I am pro helping the animal shelters reduce their ratio of animals, sorry you guys have a problem with it. Incidently I live in Orange County, am well informed about the bill, and own a shelter dog who is neutered and licensed.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 7:00 am
You say, “This bill will help to some degree and that is what is important.”

If it does, it would be the first time mandatory spay/neuter ever has.

You say you want to stop the killing; so do we. That’s why we oppose mandatory spay/neuter. It doesn’t work.

Comment by Christie Keith — June 5, 2009 @ 7:02 am
It’s plain and simple.

If you are pro SB250, you are promoting increased killing.

In 1990 when San Mateo wanted MSN, increased impounds and deaths were predicted and we guessed what would happen.

Now we KNOW.

MSN FAILS. IT COSTS, AND IT KILLS.

Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 7:07 am
SB 250 will pass, it is getting help from rescue groups, vets (even the online vet assis. course I am presently taking from a vet talks about the pros of spay/neuter stating it is better for the dog to be neutered), concerned citzens, etc., I live in Orange County and have talked to a number of people who are FOR THE BILL. Things change in our society and more and more people are becoming aware of the need to spay/neuter to decrease the problems of people dumping pets. There are two issues here:
1. Breeders (more people are interesed in animal shelter pets than buying from breeeders)
2. No one is saying this is the perfect answer but anything will help the problem
There is a problem right now with the bad economy people are dumping dogs and cats and something needs to be done. I have read all your comments and really nothing has been stated that shows me that any of you have a valid point, I am still pro SB 250 I really don’t care that the breeders have a problem with it.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 7:12 am
The only ones this bill will hurt is the people who let their dogs run loose. Sorry, but I am really not that concerned if their dogs end up in the shelter, maybe that is for the best. Did you read my previous post that my dog is licensed and I am for the bill? What are we trying to encourage here? What if you lived in LA where there is a big problem with dogs running loose breeding and ending up in shelters, that is what happened with my dog in 2005 when I got him. He was a four month old puppy running the streets, got picked up and put in the shelter. Do you see the problem?

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 7:16 am
Sigh.

So you think the problem is so terrible we should implement a solution that has never, not once, worked?

Awesome.

Comment by Christie Keith — June 5, 2009 @ 7:19 am
Patti - how about looking at some actual FACTS instead of emotion-driven soundbites:

http://saveourdogs.net/categor.....ck-record/

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 5, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Are any of the major dog rescue groups opposing this bill?
So far all I’ve heard, is … crickets…

Comment by EmilyS — June 5, 2009 @ 7:35 am
“Patti McLeod” is another fake; the url is another blank.

Comment by Lis — June 5, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Troll food! $2 a bag!

Watch it crawl out from under it’s bridge, then scuttle away from FACTS

OH NOES, NOT FACTS

If Trolleeolleeo cannot explain exactly why an idea which has failed EVERYWHERE it’s been tried and KILLED more pets in the process, Trolleeolleeo should go back under bridge.

Trip trap, trip trap

Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 8:39 am
MY PUPPY FROM SOUTH CENTRAL LA (picked up as a stray, some dog had puppies and he was either dumped or running loose in a bad area of LA) was in a cage with 20 or so other puppies ready to be euthanized with little chance of adoption. He was lucky and now is a licensed dog in a good area of Orange County with a good home. This bill will cut down on some of the ones that are not so lucky. Sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. There is a problem and it needs a solution.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:08 am
Patrice (Patti McLeod)
26250 Solrio
Mission Viejo, Ca. 92692
a registered Republican licensed dog owner in Mission Viejo, Ca. 92692

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Patti, we don’t believe in you. You’re a fake. The “PATTI.COM” domain “may be for sale by its owner!”

That means we don’t believe in your puppy.

We already know how many dogs and cats are killed (not “euthanized”) in LA.

The question is, why should that cause us to support a plan that has increased deaths everywhere that it has been tried. Do you think the death rate is not high enough yet?

Comment by Lis — June 5, 2009 @ 9:14 am
If you read my previous post you can see I have a perfect example of why this dog should never have ended up at the shelter. Maybe somewhere down the road one less dog will be sitting there because of this law.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:15 am
Yes let the dogs run loose and keep adding to the problem that is a good solution. Sorry I don’t agree.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:18 am
If it’s not a bot, might as well be … in one ear and out the other. Good grief. No wonder we wind up with so many idiotic laws.

Comment by Eucritta — June 5, 2009 @ 9:19 am
“2. No one is saying this is the perfect answer but anything will help the problem”

Wow… “anything” will help the problem? How about just giving everyone in California ten dogs apiece, whether they want them or not? That might help, too.

Patti, I can see you are very emotional about this subject. But you may want to spend more time reading about the issue of mandatory spay/neuter from BOTH sides before you get so worked up about it.

I’ve spent PLENTY of time in the “kill room,” and have personally euthanized, or assisted in euthanizing, more animals than I care to think about.

I see the problems with irresponsible pet ownership every day, and believe me, it is tempting some days to drop-kick some owners across the universe.

But I am opposed to mandatory spay/neuter legislation because it has not been proven to work, and it will certainly cause far more problems for both pets and owners than it will ever solve.

There are better ways of handling the problem of homeless and unwanted animals. Please spend some time learning more about this instead of wasting your time trying to antagonize people you disagree with.

Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 9:24 am
My mind, such as it is, is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts. Nasty little buggers, anyway.

Comment by Susan Fox — June 5, 2009 @ 9:30 am
The luncheon Judy Mancuso spoke at was sponsered by Animal Assistance League which works out of Orange County Animal Shelter, Orange County. The other speakers were Best Friends Animal Society Los Angeles, which are working against puppy mills they are two respected rescue organizations in California. Her website is Social Compassion which links to Yes On SB 250. The puppy mill bill passed both Senate and Assembly. The dogfighting bill is the third bill to be heard (there are 3). This is the 2nd bill.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:39 am
BUZZZZZ. The Best Friends SANCTUARY is located in Kanab, Utah. What other “facts” have you got wrong? So many, it’s hard to know where to start.

Comment by Susan Fox — June 5, 2009 @ 9:44 am
It has “not been proved to work”??
This is a pretty broad statement I think results are in the fact that in a period of time less dogs are running around having puppies. That is like stating dog parks don’t work, since they are growing in popularity and incresing in number that is like stating spay/neuter laws don’t work. How many have been in effect over the last ten years. How many are new laws? They are just starting to have stricter laws. Time will tell the results not your statement “they don’t work”.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Best Friends is in Kanup Utah I have been there. There is a network all over the US and one is in LA.

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Didn’t learn much though.

Comment by Susan Fox — June 5, 2009 @ 10:00 am
And can we have a little consistency here? If you are really a Republican, which party stands for less government, how the heck do you justify passing a law that inserts the gov’t into a decision that should be between a pet owner and their vet?

Comment by Susan Fox — June 5, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Patti San Mateo, Lake County, L.A., Fort Worth

Yes even Santa Cruz

All have either LOST GROUND on shelter number improvements or BACK TRACKED on MSN and had HUGE INCREASES OF COST

If you cannot explain WHY MSN WILL WORK FOR THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEN IT HAS FAILED EVERYWHERE ELSE then you might as well go pound sand.

Answer that question, give solid reasons, sight a verifiable (by which I mean official data reported to the state AND official budget stats) case of MSN working BETTER than surrounding areas and also not causing massive budget increases.

Please answer this question, cite your sources. Link to official state, city or county data.

Anecdotal sound bites and emotional appeals do not save lives. MSN COSTS-KILLS-FAILS.

I live on the county border with Lake County. WORST shelter numbers per capita in California, 4x National average per capital shelter killing. MSN and apparently damn proud of!

Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Oh, BTW you already have MSN in L.A.

Hows that working for you then?

Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Oh, sorry, you’re from mission Viejo, but your pup came from Los Angeles, slated to be killed.

OK, if I was a stray dog or cat, I’d far rather be in Reno, Nevada or Calgary, Canada. Because I would very likely get out of jail ALIVE.

L.A. passed MSN because they could not wait for AB1634 and costs have skyrocketed. deaths are up to.

Growing pains? How many years and deaths will it take? Or will MSN never be declared a disaster? Maybe, since the costly draconian punitive L.A. ordinance isn’t working, SCiL will decide that even MORE draconian legislation is needed.

Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 10:20 am
But folks: Patti is expressing what the supporters of this bill truly believe. I think they’re completely wrong, but just dismissing her as a “troll” isn’t particularly productive. Is Mancuso a troll? Or any of the majority of Senators who passed the bill?

How are we going to counter the emotion-laden, “well we have to do SOMETHING” approach?

Comment by EmilyS — June 5, 2009 @ 10:25 am
No I have moved on from troll. Sorry Patti, my mistake.

Patti is earnestly convinced SB250 will improve shelter animals lives and shelter numbers.

Unless you have looked at ALL the evidence, it sounds good on the surface.

What I would like to see her do is critical thinking. Put some of her emotions aside and look at verifiable facts and numbers rather than just swallowing the “it will work!” and “Santa Cruz, 60% drop!” soundbites.

With the internet and FOI, it is not hard to get real numbers and verify or disprove the claims on either side.

Then people on this blog WANT TO SAVE ANIMAL LIVES. Just like Patti does. So, why would we oppose SB250? Maybe it would be worth a little time and research to find out

Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 10:35 am
EmilyS, Patti is a troll because she has a fake url link.

You and I and others don’t have urls. Others who post here have real urls.

Patti and “Megan Noes” took the time and trouble to insert fake urls. Why? So that, for anyone who doesn’t click on the link, they look like they’re more “serious” and you could go to their sites and get more information?

Comment by Lis — June 5, 2009 @ 10:39 am
I think we should thank Patti McTrollson for a fascinating picture-window view inside what passes for the “mind” of a kneejerk “I wuv aminals” wannabe social engineer.

Symptom - witnessed (or believed)
Problem - misidentified
Solution - assumed
Failure - denied

There seems to be no place along that worn and rusty chain of “reasoning” to insert either evidence or logic.

Oh my gawd. I saw some guy break into a car last night. There must be a huge problem with car neglect in this country. Let’s pass a law requiring all car owners to buy car alarms.

(Data from cities with mandatory car alarms shows that theft increases because everyone ignores the constant false alarms. Indeed, the break-in she witnessed was in just such a city.)

Oh my gawd. This just proves that we need MORE CAR ALARM LAWS.

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 5, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:08 am

MY PUPPY FROM SOUTH CENTRAL LA (picked up as a stray, some dog had puppies and he was either dumped or running loose in a bad area of LA) was in a cage with 20 or so other puppies ready to be euthanized with little chance of adoption. He was lucky and now is a licensed dog in a good area of Orange County with a good home. This bill will cut down on some of the ones that are not so lucky. Sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. There is a problem and it needs a solution.

Patti, you’re falling into a common trap of believing that a single anecdotal story of your experience indicates a broader “truth”. Your story is much like the person who says “I had an uncle who smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 95, so consequently I don’t believe it’s true that smoking can cause lung cancer!”.

Not only is the story of your puppy just ONE story, but the fact is that it’s only PART of the story. People like Nathan Winograd who are in support of the idea of a “No Kill Nation” understand that in some areas there may be more dogs than can be absorbed all at once. But that if you BROADEN your perspective, you learn that homes CAN be found for those dogs by bringing in more resources to bear. Resources that don’t have to cost a lot of money - just utilize people’s willingness and desire to help.

Instead of sending those puppies to the killing room, the shelter could have put a call out to local rescue organizations to see if any of them could take them in. They could have mobilized local citizens who are very likely willing to open their homes to provide foster care until the puppies could be placed. They could contact shelters in other areas who have open runs and empty cages and arranged to transport the puppies to where their chances of being adopted would be better. And so on. There ARE a variety of possible solutions for a shelter director who’s willing to open his/her mind to new ways of thinking about the problem.

You’re right that there is a problem that needs a solution. But you’re wrong in thinking that Mandatory Spay Neuter (MSN) is the solution that will work. It’s been tried. And if you look at the facts people keep pointing you towards, you’ll see that people who are threatened with LEGAL action if they don’t bring their dog in for a surgery that they may not even be able to afford will be MORE likely to simply turn that animal in to be killed or even abandon that animal to an uncertain future.

Much better to offer them financial help to get that surgery done without the legal threats. The facts prove that THIS is the approach that keeps dogs in homes and - therefore - alive.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 5, 2009 @ 11:06 am
No Patrice, Patti or P. McLeod in Mission Viejo, according to online white pages.

There is a Pat K McLeod at a different address in Mission Viejo, about five and a half miles from the one supplied by “Patti.”

The address is apparently real. Someone named Beverly Schulte lives there.

I know what they would call this one on Mythbusters.

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 5, 2009 @ 11:18 am
But you don’t want to offend our delicate sensibilities.

Comment by Susan Fox — June 5, 2009 @ 11:27 am
“Instead of sending those puppies to the killing room, the shelter could have put a call out to local rescue organizations to see if any of them could take them in. They could have mobilized local citizens who are very likely willing to open their homes to provide foster care until the puppies could be placed. They could contact shelters in other areas who have open runs and empty cages and arranged to transport the puppies to where their chances of being adopted would be better. And so on. There ARE a variety of possible solutions for a shelter director who’s willing to open his/her mind to new ways of thinking about the problem.”

Or send them up to Marin, two years ago, Ukiah sent a litter of 8 or 10 pups, large mix breed pups, to Marin Humane. They were thrilled. I have the newspaper clipping somewhere withr the director GUSHING because they so rarely got puppies and hadn’t had litter in a long time.

Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 11:28 am
“And if you look at the facts people keep pointing you towards, you’ll see that people who are threatened with LEGAL action if they don’t bring their dog in for a surgery that they may not even be able to afford will be MORE likely to simply turn that animal in to be killed or even abandon that animal to an uncertain future.”
“Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 5, 2009 @ 11:06 am”

Add this to the fact that the people who are going to try to stay under the animal control radar are also going to end up not getting rabies vaccinations for their pets, so we could end up seeing more rabies in those areas — it’s already cropping up in other places, and it is ALWAYS fatal.

This type of legislation is simply not enforceable, so it’s going to create far more problems than it will solve. The money that would go into trying to enforce it would be far better spent creating more low-cost and free spay/neuter/vaccination programs and educational programs.

Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
“Add this to the fact that the people who are going to try to stay under the animal control radar are also going to end up not getting rabies vaccinations for their pets, so we could end up seeing more rabies in those areas — it’s already cropping up in other places, and it is ALWAYS fatal.” To quote stellaluna

Cropping up in other places? It IS cropping up in California:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthI.....ap2007.jpg

Look at all the rabies positive-testing bats in California in 2007. Bats can give rabies to dogs. SB 250 includes a very regressive tax on intact pets. This is a horrible idea in a recession with the unemployment rate skyrocketing, so many out of work who can’t even pay the mortgage. So some legislator gets the bright idea to make it a crime to own a natural dog or cat over six months old without buying a special license WITHOUT PUTTING A CAP ON THAT LICENSE. Some cities are already gouging (hey, why not, the sky’s the limit! their budgets are in the red!). They can gouge more and tack on the fees on people who are already hurting because of the economy. Even invent violations. The bill is so loaded down with punitive provisions, and invasion of personal privacy, it is bound to discourage people from licensing.

So if SB 250 causes people to NOT LICENSE THEIR DOGS and if they are NOT LICENSING THEM they may NOT BE VACCINATING them for RABIES. This is a public health threat. And it will be caused by those supporting SB 250. Driving people underground. Causing them to be afraid to admit they have an intact pet.

So not only will we get all the usual evils of Mandatory Spay/Neuter—notably increased shelter intakes and euthanasia rates, reduced numbers of people licensing (causing animal control budgets to be FURTHER STRAINED across the WHOLE STATE)—but also an AWFUL public health threat. The legislature needs to think long and hard before burdening the citizenry with this disastrous bill. Absolutely nobody wins here.

Comment by Melissa — June 5, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
It is critical that we stop this bill by contacting Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he gets enough calls, he may veto it.

Correction to the info above. Lou Correa voted “nay.” He’s one of the good guys.

PETA is a dog killing organization that has fooled lots of movie stars. They kill dogs almost as soon as they get them and dump the bodies. Their false promises are worth money. They are raking in millions under false pretenses.

We should as Jerry Brown to prosecute them in this state. He just might.

The author of the bill is running for Lt. Gov. Everyone should work to end his candidacy in the primary, even if it means re-registering so that he doesn’t even make it to the general election. Let’s show him we have power.

The best argument is that this will bankrupt the state and county government.

PETA has been prosecuted for dumping bodies of dogs it kills. We might also be able to have them prosecuted under RICO.

Comment by Mike — June 6, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Read my story regarding my dog below I posted on another blog
Coto’s Story
Patti McLeod | Jun 06, 2009 | 0

Coto my dog was a 4 month old stray mixed breed running the streets in a bad area of LA South Central. He was picked up and put in a cage with about 20 other dogs in the overcrowded South Central Animal Shelter and slated to be euthanized in 5 days not given a name. I happened to see his picture on Petfinder, went up there, I live in Mission Viejo Orange County and now he is a 4 year old dog licensed dog with a good home. The other ones, not so lucky as the people in that area are struggling to feed their familes much less adopt a dog. The fact is LA has a problem with dogs running loose that end up having puppes that are very unwanted in most areas. They are dumped or picked up 3-4 months down the road and end up in shelters most with no chance of a good life, scared and confused. My point is although I love Coto very much I can see where strict rules are necessary to cut down on people letting their dogs run loose. Too bad for the breeders and the people who feels sorry for irresponsible dog owners who run into problems. Maybe their dogs should be turned into the shelters I don’t think the dogs will have that great a life anyway if that is the way the owners treat their dogs. No one should let a unaltered dog run loose and breed unwanted puppies it just adds to the problem. Yeah for laws enforcing penalties on people letting unaltered dogs run loose.
Patti

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 7, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
My point is although I love Coto very much I can see where strict rules are necessary to cut down on people letting their dogs run loose. Too bad for the breeders and the people who feels sorry for irresponsible dog owners who run into problems. Maybe their dogs should be turned into the shelters I don’t think the dogs will have that great a life anyway if that is the way the owners treat their dogs. No one should let a unaltered dog run loose and breed unwanted puppies it just adds to the problem. Yeah for laws enforcing penalties on people letting unaltered dogs run loose.
Patti

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 7, 2009

Patti .. No one here is saying that people should be letting their dogs run loose. And besides, that’s already illegal. I’m sure you have leash laws in L.A., no? How is adding another law to one that apparently not being enforced now going to change the situation?

What does the work of ethical, responsible, compassionate breeders have to do with the situation? You think all their dogs should be turned in to shelters to be killed just for the heck of it?

Wow.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 7, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Patti, did you read ANY of the replies to you?

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
Maybe their dogs should be turned into the shelters ….

Good grief. You’d really rather that breeders and owners whose dogs are caught roaming turn in their pets to be killed, than back off a little and try and work with them?

I think I need a shower.

Comment by Eucritta — June 7, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Beyond hope. Beyond reason. Beyond the ability to understand that her one experience is not a template for what everyone else should do.

So, Patti, since you seem to need to personalize things- how would you like it if Coto got loose and you got to the shelter two hours after he had been killed.? Does that fact that he was running loose make you a bad owner and prove that his life was bad? I guess, by your standards, the answer would be yes.

Why should the animals pay the ultimate price for human stupidity? When, in your opinion, does compassion for fellow humans and their animals kick in?

Or is this really about THOSE people in south central LA as you sit comfortably in nice, lily white Orange County?

Comment by Susan Fox — June 7, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
And what’s scariest - of course - is the degree to which she really DOES represent the unthinking opposition.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
Five more comments and I’ll hit a hundred again…

Comment by Christie Keith — June 7, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Four. Not that we keep track or anything.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 7, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Y’d think Christie wouldn’t bring that up, seeing as how she previously pointed out that whenever she hits 100 posts, you just give her more work to do . . . . . . . . .

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Three… two…

Comment by Christie Keith — June 7, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Pat, I’ve learned Gina gives me more work to do no matter how many comments I get.

Oh, and one…

Comment by Christie Keith — June 7, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
100 is better than 1st.

Comment by Susan Fox — June 7, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
It certainly is…

Comment by Christie Keith — June 7, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
Clearly “Patti” won’t be convinced. The excellent replies to her remarks are directed more to the lurkers who may be undecided, or who may think MSN is the right thing to do, and that’s the point of replying rationally.

Now the big question is: how to convince members in the various committees and the Assembly at large to kill the bill?

Comment by EmilyS — June 8, 2009 @ 7:35 am
People like Patti supported the USA PATRIOT Act which allows the government to pick you up with cause and to put you on a federal list if you take cold medicine. The reason Patti and her friends support intrusive bills is because they are not happy unless they are breathing down your throat and telling everyone in creation how to live their lives.

Think about it Patti and her friends want to kill your dogs so you won’t let them run loose. Don’t even bother with people like this.

Vote out every bum who voted for SB 250 and hope that Schwarzenegger does the right thing.

Comment by Mike — June 8, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Sorry, regarding the USA PATRIOT Act, that should be pick you up without cause and put you on a federal list if you buy cold medicine. It’s about whether Patti and the government have the right to control your every move or whether you have the right to decide for yourself what to do with your life.

Comment by Mike — June 8, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
I was a little amused to see the question of why the Humane Society doesn’t oppose this bill. Darlin, the Humane Society (HSUS) contributed 10000 to Mancuso, the sponsor of the bill in LA and has more up her sleeve. They are just not on the official list. I am heartened by the outrage expressed here. If all these people would write, call, email their representatives, this bill might stand a chance to be voted down. We need numbers! There is presently less opposition to this bill than to 1634 and this bill is much, much worse.
Please complain to the representatives in the government besides to what is becoming the underground.

Comment by Angie — June 14, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Against SB250? PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE! We know the root cause is education and poverty. SB250 collectively punishes everyone. However, what other solutions have been proposed? Accepting the current situation is inhumane.

Comment by Nouman — June 30, 2009 @ 7:44 am
The alternative is no-kill communities: And we’re working on them, no thanks to the mandatory spay-neuter crowd.

You don’t pass a pricey pet-killing bill because it’s “all ya got.”

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 30, 2009 @ 9:02 am
So it’s OK to punish everyone? Including the poor?

Nouman, SB 250 will also punish animals. MSN causes MORE shelter impounds, MORE shelter deaths. Always has.

As for “models”like Santa Cruz, they have ben outperformed by all their neighboring communities, which means that pets DIED in Santa Cruz who did not have to because of MSN.

Go research the actual statistics for Lake Co. California, MSN for 5 years and the worst shelter stats in California per capita.

SB 250 is inhumane. Let’s get California on the track that Calgary and Reno and others have taken and start saving lives and helping people.

Because:

MSN FAILS, COSTS, KILLS.

Comment by JenniferJ — June 30, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Nouman, you strike me as someone who hasn’t actually looked into the alternatives which people have been working on. Not necessarily for any other reason than that you may not have realized that this is, indeed, work which is going on.

So - now that folks have mentioned a couple of these to you, will you follow through and read up on what people ARE trying to do?

Another good site for you to visit - alluded to in the posting at the head of this thread - is the Save Our Dogs website at:

http://saveourdogs.net

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 30, 2009 @ 9:34 am
Here’s another site for you to visit to educate yourself on the alternatives being proposed:

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 30, 2009 @ 9:37 am
I’ve already donated to the No Kill Advocacy Center. I urge others to donate as well.

I will keep reading on this issue and thanks for the links.

Can I ask that if you write a letter to your lawmaker opposing SB250, please also write another letter urging him/her to author a new bill that will improve this horrible situation.

I just hate the “us versus them” of politics. SB250 should have been written by a coalition because we all want the best for our pets.

Thanks.

Comment by Nouman — June 30, 2009 @ 11:20 am
“SB250 should have been written by a coalition because we all want the best for our pets.”

SB250 was written by a coalition — of looney fringe animal rights wackos and brain-dead duped “feel goodie” politicos.

Who have shown absolutely no evidence of “wanting the best for our pets.”

The want no pets for anyone, anywhere, anytime. Check out their real agenda for the extinction of all domestic species.

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 30, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Nouman,

I don’t believe these issues can be resolved by laws. I believe they’re solved by community driven no-kill agendas with leadership that isn’t anti-pet and anti-pet owner.

So sorry, I have NO confidence in the legislative process to fix this, and I wouldn’t ask them to try.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 30, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Lets get more money to “community driven no-kill agendas with leadership.” Currently, animals are still being killed so these organizations need more resources to have a profound effect.

So, ask your lawmaker to vote NO on SB250 and then propose a new bill giving money to these organizations!

Can we agree to do this? I will write a draft letter which you can then direct to your lawmaker. I will need some help with names of organizations. What shall we call this bill?

Comment by Nouman — June 30, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Dear Legislator:

The following organizations have reduced the number of animals killed without
the need for spay/neuter laws. These organizations deserve our support and should receive
the proper resources to continue their efforts and to emulate this process in cities throughout California.

Organization:
County:
Contact:

Organziation:
County:
Contact:

….

Organziation:
County:
Contact:

We propose a bill titled NK250 whill allow for an application process for delivering funds to these organizations if they meet the following qualifications:

1. Have reduced the shelter population in their community by X %
2. …
3. …

Please support NK250.

Sincerely,
Individual Name
Organization Name
Address, State, Zip

Comment by Nouman — June 30, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Um … you’ve never been to Sacramento, have you? :)

I mean, I love your idea, and I love where you are coming from. But believe me, your elected representatives here don’t give a damn about anything except money and power — and how to get and keep it.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 30, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Please help fill in the blanks.

1. List of Organizations

2. Qualifications to receive funding.

Comment by Nouman — June 30, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
All we can do is to keep trying. I will update the letter and repost tonight.

Comment by Nouman — June 30, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
SENATE BILL NK-250
State of California
2009 Regular Season
By: [Insert your local lawmaker]
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

Section 1: The following organizations have reduced the number of animals killed in shelters. These organizations deserve our support and should receive the proper resources to continue their efforts and to emulate their success in cities throughout California.
NO-KILL Advocacy
6114 La Salle Avenue #837
Oakland, CA 94611
Telephone: 510.530.5124
Fax: 510.530.1317

Section 2: Existing No-Kill facilities are possible because of community support and do not have the necessary resources to expand. To these facilities the State of California will provide:
1) Financial support – grants based on shelter population

Section 3 Convert existing county shelters into No-Kill facilities.

Section 4 Outlaw sale of euthanized animals.

List of California NO-KILL Shelters
Angel Puss & Pooch Rescue, West Hills
Animal Assistance League of Orange County, Midway City
Animal Shelter Assistance Program (ASAP), Santa Barbara
Animals at Risk Care Sanctuary, Modesto
Asians for Humans, Animals and Nature
Beagles and Buddies, El Monte
Berkeley East Bay Humane Society, Berkeley
California Feline Foundation, Fresno
Catalina Island Cats
Cats About Town Society, Orangevale
Cats In Need of Humane Care, Pomona
Delta Humane Society Stockton
Equus Sanctuary - Horse Sanctuary in Glendale.
FAIRE, Santa Rosa
Feral Cat Coalition, San Diego
Foundation for Care of Indigent Animals, Spring Vly
http://www.friendsofcats.org/ - El Cajon
Greyhound Friends for Life
Homeless Animal Rescue Team, Cambria
Happy Tails Pet Sanctuary, Sacramento
Helen Woodward Animal Center, Rancho Santa Fe
Homeless Cat Network, San Carlos
Humane Society of the Desert / Orphan Pet Oasis
Kitten Rescue Los Angeles
Lifeline for Pets, Pasadena/San Fernando Valley
Living Free, Mountain Center
Milo Foundation, Willits
New Leash On Life Animal Rescue LA
Noah’s Bark Pet Rescue Los Angeles
North Bay Canine Rescue & Placement Petaluma
NO KILL NOW P.O. Box 217 Etiwanda, CA 91739-0217
Not So Purrrfect Angels Cat Sanctuary/Retirement Home
http://www.purrrfectangels.org/ - Fresno
PAL Rescue & Adoption, Gardena
Pet Adoption Fund, Canoga Park,
Pet Friends, Hollister
Pet Network, Saratoga
Pet Orphans Fund, Los Angeles
Pet Pride, Los Angeles
Pet Rescue Of Unwanted Dogs, Kingsbury
Pets In Need, Redwood City
Pets Lifeline, Sonoma
Project Purr, Santa Cruz
Redlands Humane Society, Redlands
Riverside Humane Society
Rocket Dog Rescue
San Francisco S.P.C.A. , San Francisco
Seal Beach Animal Care Center, Seal Beach
Second Chance Animal Rescue, San Juan Bautista
Second Chance at Love Humane Society, Temperton
Shelter Dog Rescue Project at US Davis
Town & Country Humane Society, Orland
Tony LaRussa Animal Rescue Foundation, Walnut Creek
West End Shelter - Ontario; email: westendshelter@netzero.net
Yolo County S.P.C.A., Davis

Comment by Nouman — June 30, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
Your link “take steps here” does not work.

This bill is very bad government. The nanny-gate state is here.

Comment by Stephanie Porter — July 14, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
Stephanie, check the most recent post. The bill is now in the state Assembly. The Senate passed it out on party lines.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 14, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Is this what you were after?

http://saveourdogs.net/category/legislation/

Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 14, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Florez promised hold out senators ammendments, then tried to slip this bill through the Assembly WITHOUT those amendments. He is shot down. Now he MUST amend it if be wants it out of the suspense file. If this happens in August, he will HAVE TO PASS IT THROUGH THE SENATE AGAIN, THEN THE ASSEMBLY. If he chooses not to amend, SB 250 is dead.

I believe that the dog woners of california must be pro-active and pass a “Dog Owners’ Bill of Rights” by the initiative process. Otherwise we will continue to see these MSN bills proposed by the puppet politicians in thrall to the HSUS and their treasury.

Comment by Mike Spies — July 17, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
You know what? I’m going to correct this EVERY TIME it gets posted.

Mike, the HSUS is not a backer nor a supporter of SB 250. They were of previous forced spay-neuter effort in the state, the failed AB 1634, and also gave money to another group in support of that bill’s passage — but not recently in support of SB 250. (See the comment from the owner of the SaveOurDogs.net Web site on that subject.)

The HSUS is neither a sponsor nor a supporter of the current mandatory spay-neuter bill in California. This is a matter of public record. The word is that like the ASPCA already has, the HSUS is re-evaluating its policy on the efficacy of mandatory spay-neuter.

We have been critical here of the HSUS when we feel it is necessary, but we also acknowledge when we feel they are moving in the right direction.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 17, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Facebook	Twitter	Google Buzz	Digg
Technorati	StumbleUpon	Delicious	Email

pet connection

Do you like this story?