In California? Time to fax, call to stop the SB 250, the pet-killer bill
By Gina Spadafori
June 29, 2009
Mandatory spay-neuter doesn’t work. Never has, anywhere. Everywhere it has been tried it has led to more dead pets and more tax-payer money spent. And yet, the lies continue, pushed by people who believe “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” and all are bad. (Not even close to true, but this isn’t about the truth for these zealots.)
But some are finally figuring out that mandatory spay-neuter is a bad idea that doesn’t help any pets and is more about control and hate on the part of a few extremists. In just the last few months, these changes from people who know about what works and what doesn’t:
- The ASPCA does NOT support mandatory spay-neuter.
- The HSUS has NOT come out in support of the latest version of mandatory spay-neuter in California. (I don’t CARE what you’ve read elsewhere: The HSUS is NOT IN SUPPORT of SB 250.)
- The AVMA does NOT support mandatory spay-neuter.
- Advocates for feral cats and no-kill solutions do NOT support mandatory spay-neuter.
The California Department of Finance does NOT support SB 250, either. They’re arguing just on the case of expense, which the state cannot afford.
And yet, because of the support of animal-rights extremists with big campaign contributions and a spittle-spewing hatred of reputable, ethical compassionate breeders and no-kill advocates, last year’s AB 1634 has been recast as this year’s SB 250, and made even worse, since now spaying and neutering is a punishment for all pets, at the whim of animal control officers.
This pet-killer bill with a big price tag goes before a California state Assembly committee tomorrow.
I’ll be spending my evening faxing letters to the committee members arguing that we need neither more dead pets nor more tax-payer money spent to pursue the vendettas of extremists who’ve duped a bunch of well-meaning animal-lovers with their lies.
I encourage all of you to do the same, fax your opposition to SB 250 before 9 a.m. tomorrow.
Read Christie’s earlier post, and regular reader JenniferJ’s comment, and get your letters faxed. Tomorrow, call and voice your opposition. The entire state is falling apart, and our Legislators are considering spending money to kill more pets?
Enough.
Visit the excellent SaveOurDogs Web site to see just how dreadful a piece of pet-killing slime this is. And get busy. Contact information at SaveOurDogs. Fax. Call.
The time is now. And if not now, maybe never.
I am proud to have bred a litter to help preserve one of our working heritage breeds. And I am proud to have run a pet-rescue organization. I am proud to stand with those who support feral cat colonies and no-kill communities, and who fight people who secretly want an end to all pets so they cannot be “exploited.” I am done letting extremists and haters set the agenda without a fight. I am done letting them speak for the majority when they do not represent us.
Stand with me and say no to the extremists and the haters: Call and fax your objections to SB 250 now.
I realize that HSUS has not signed onto SB 250.
But their silence is golden for the supporters of the bill. Their support in the recent past of MSN as well as supportive relationships with the bill’s champions in the legislature, and their support of more reasoned legislation being helmed by these same politicians equates support for many people and I’m afraid many of our elected officials.
What is needed, to put this to rest is for HSUS to issue in print a policy statement similar to ASPCA’s, that there is no viable evidence to support claims that MSN has been effective where introduced, that it may backfire and that the biggest gains in shelter number improvements have been made using voluntary, community based approaches to HELP pet owners. That MSN enforcement robs communities of the needed funding for voluntary programs, destroys public trust and is a hinderance to the goal of saving lives.
If your primary goal is improvement of animal welfare, then how can you NOT OPPOSE MSN? It KILLS.
While their at it, acknowledgment of the animal welfare and rescue efforts on the part of responsible breeders and their value to the animal welfare community would be nice too!
Comment by JenniferJ — June 29, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
I hope this law doesn’t pass. California is a laboratory for policy. If a policy gets started there, then it tends to spread to other states. We actually call this the “California Effect.” Now, my state has barely made cockfighting illegal, so I doubt that they will waste time with mandatory sterilization. But other states could suffer from draconian laws such as this one. It must be stopped.
If you require that dogs be altered at 4 months, then you’ve got another problem on your hands. Most dogs are vaccinated for rabies at that age. If people can’t afford the spay and neuter, then they might avoid the vet altogether. And that means risking another rabies outbreak. But I guess the zealots would rather risk a rabies outbreak than have any dog with its reproductive organs.
Comment by retrieverman — June 29, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
If my colleague Gina’s post is correct - I have no doubt it is - the HSUS is even abandoning their mandatory spay neuter position. ??? Interesting, since at this point they’ve spend SO much money…on lobbyists, etc. to attempt to push though mandatory spay/neuter in California and elsewhere. Hmmm…I’ve always wondered how many pets could be spayed/neutered for all the many thousands they’ve spent.
I’ve asked the HSUS how they can be both FOR mandatory s/n and trap, neuter, return of stray and feral cats. The leaders in TNR are Alley Cat Allies. No TNR group, including the national umbrella and leadership organization, called Alley Cat Allies is for mandatory spay/neuter. HSUS has never been able to answer how they can be borth for TNR (which finally they are now for a couple of years) and be for mandatory s/n. It’s like being for both a democrat and republican in the same election.
Gina’s comments are mandatory s/n are right on. Listen, I wish it did work…but it doesn’t. Though it sounds good if you don’t truly investigate. Never mind issues concerning government intrusion into our relationship with our vets and that fact that is unenforceable - and due to various unintended consequences may even cause MORE issues, particularly now that it may be ‘easier’ economically for people to give up pets rather than deal with. Much more is on my website.
steve dale
Comment by Steve Dale — June 29, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
The HSUS lobbyist in Sacramento says — as I’ve posted a couple times before — that the national organization is re-evaluating its policy statement on the efficacy of mandatory spay-neuter. Until that’s complete, and whatever way it ends up, the HSUS has taken no position on SB 250.
Yes, it’s true that the HSUS has previously supported mandatory spay-neuter, both in policy and in cash.
Not sure which way they’re going to end up on their new policy deision, but for now you can well believe that the supporters of SB 250 are NOT happy with the silence of the HSUS. And you can be even more certain that they don’t like the HSUS refusing to fall into line with the “all breeders are bad” hate meme, as seen in this page on the HSUS Web site, on how to find a reputable, compassionate and ethical breeder.
In the meantime, of course, the HSUS well knows what a bad breeder looks like. And today came out with another broadside against Petland and the puppy-mills that supply it.
This is as it should be: Humane groups AND reputable, ethical compassionate breeders against puppy-milling scum, and ethical breeders left alone to preserve and protect our heritage breeds and our purpose-bred working dogs. And ALL animal-lovers — including reputable breeders — working together on no-kill communities to get pets into good homes.
Final word about the haters: The people who support forced spay-neuter also support those who compare reputable breeders to the KKK even while the very same group kills more than 90 percent of the animals released to it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 29, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
I have my fingers, and everything else, crossed that HSUS comes down on the side of compassion and common sense and abandons the quest for MSN. And I am very glad that they have not taken a position of support.
I have NO faith that most of the politicians in Sacramento bother to actually read, understand the bills like SB 250 or actually look at support lists name by name. # years of trying to do even the most basic education for some has been an excercise in futility.
The aids and staff, who they count on to actually read the damn thing and tell them what’s what and do research and who is signed on etc… are sometimes great, sometimes awful. And there are some “hater” on the staff of these committee members.
Combine that with the assembly members who will not be on a committee which considers the bill and who may or may not think about it at all until a House vote.
I am quite concerned and dubious about the prospect of these assembly members actually knowing who are the backers, who aren’t as they seem content to ignore tons of factual evidence that has been literally hand carried to them over and over again.
The hater contingent has been lying through their teeth since the battle started over AB1634. Easy enough for them to imply HSUS’ tacit agreement. Particularly when newspaper articles in AR friendly/fact poor publications link Florez with wayne Pacelle then go on to talk about a “voter mandate” and drop SB250 in.
I am sure that the SCiL crew and like minds ARE furious at HSUS. But I’ll bet a bundle that they down play and blur over that fact when lobbying. Until and unless HSUS formally states they are withdrawing endorsement of MSN, it’s easy for the haters to mislead. HSUS needs to realize that their real power base are tha animal lovers all around this country, not the extremists and leave the haters behind. They have the clout and power to do, I just wish they would.
Comment by JenniferJ — June 29, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
As a supporter of PetPac, I got Bill Hemby’s email today, and not being a CA resident, I dutifully emailed your Goobernator, pointing out that at this time in CA’s history, this bill would be fiscally irresponsible since there is no way the state can afford to implement it! Further, that when CA had to approach the Federal Government for a bailout of it’s fiscal crisis, I would be totally outraged at my tax dollars going to support a failed policy like mandatory speuter. Doubt if I did any good, but I tried.
Comment by Anne T — June 29, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
HSUS needs to realize that their real power base are the animal lovers all around this country, not the extremists, and leave the haters behind. They have the clout and power to do, I just wish they would.
Comment by JenniferJ — June 29, 2009
I wish they would, too. In the meantime, we wait … and fight on without them.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 29, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Yes, we keep on keeping on!
Comment by JenniferJ — June 29, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
well, meanwhile, supporters of this bill can find a variety of strong pro-MSN press releases on HSUS’ website.
Comment by EmilyS — June 29, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
I suspect that’s the normal outward expression of internal debate.
Look, they may well not change position statements now, in the near future or in the long-term. We’ll have to see how it goes.
In the meantime, we have a bill to fight here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 30, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Dammit:
http://saveourdogs.net/2009/06.....committee/
Comment by Luisa — June 30, 2009 @ 11:12 am
This horrid bill just passed committee.
Now, if this were my state, the Commissioner of Agriculture would be telling every legislator that he doesn’t have the funds or the manpower to enforce such a law. That’s how bad pet legislation is stopped here.
Comment by retrieverman — June 30, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Here in California, the legislature is happy to pass the buck and make local agencies responsible for administering brain farts like this.
So some agencies will likely not enforce it or change what they do, others will seize it as an opportunity to make cash of fines or harass. a few may try to make it work but where the hell would the money come from? And those like Los Angeles will just heap it on top of the already steaming expensive and deadly pile of animal ordinances they cannot afford (but they can afford to send out over a dozen officers to raid an unofficial dog park and write 13 $25.00 citations where the owners MUST appear in COURT, ‘cause that is a GREAT use of resources).
California’s legislature is driven by clout and power and hitching your star to whatever wagon will get you into another office. We stopped the last one by screaming bloody murder until we could NOT be ignored. We need to get people motivated and moving and screaming again.
Comment by JenniferJ — June 30, 2009 @ 5:45 pm