Do you like this story?
SB 250 makes it out of committee; calls and faxes needed more than ever
By Kim Campbell Thornton
June 30, 2009
The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, according to Save Our Dogs. The State Department of Finance opposes the measure because it would increase costs–an insane move when the state faces a projected $21.3 billion (yes, billion!) budget shortfall–so it’s hoped that the bill will die there, but that’s not something opponents can count on.
It’s not too late to call and write, according to Susan Hamil, a longtime Bloodhound breeder and dog judge who is involved with CHIC and AKC’s Canine Health Foundation and is outspoken and passionate when it comes to this type of legislation. (Full disclosure: Susan is my vet’s wife and we’ve been friends for years.) We spoke earlier today about the bill’s progress–it was being debated in committee while we talked.
Kim Thornton: So have you been in Sacramento lobbying against this bill? I know John is there, or was yesterday.
Susan Hamil: John is there. He’s coming back this afternoon. Lots of organizations that I know wrote in opposing 250 are not listed as being opposed to it. It’s just criminal. The state of California is about to go bankrupt and [Democratic State Senate Majority Leader Dean] Florez is pulling out all the stops to get this passed. And I’m appalled at the money HSUS has that they’re putting into this legislation.
Kim Thornton: I thought HSUS wasn’t supporting this.
Susan Hamil: They are! Are they ever! It’s ASPCA that doesn’t support this.
Kim Thornton: It’s my understanding that HSUS has not come out in favor of it. [Note: HSUS makes no mention of SB250 on the legislation page of its website.]
Susan Hamil: John was telling me last night that when he went into Florez’s office, there was HSUS stuff all over the office. There were all kinds of brochures and signs. Don’t tell me they’re not behind this.
Kim Thornton: Do you think Arnold will veto it if it passes?
Susan Hamil: I have no idea. I think if they don’t pass a budget, he’s going to veto everything.
Kim Thornton: So what’s going to happen if 250 passes?
Susan Hamil: On the surface, it sounds like something everybody could support, but when you really read the bill, you realize that if, in a city like Laguna Beach, where leaf blowers are illegal, my neighbor could have some guy using an illegal leaf blower, cause my dog to bark, I could be cited, my intact dog could be taken away from me and spayed or neutered, and the only hearing process would be through animal control. It’s worded in a way that animal control can be very arbitrary in how they approach this.
Kim Thornton: What would be a better piece of legislation, if any?
Susan Hamil: I think we should quit all this stupid 250 and 241 and have everybody get together and lobby to keep the Hayden Bill. The Hayden Bill did two things: It increased the hold time for stray animals and it required that they be spayed or neutered. That was a huge issue because it made sure that animal shelters, which are the largest source of reproductively intact animals, spayed or neutered pets before they went out.
Also, they never separate the cat and dog problems. Those are two completely different problems. 250 would make feral cat feeders criminals. They’d come in and round up all those cats and do what with them? Kill them.
Kim Thornton: Why do you think this type of legislation is so popular even though it doesn’t work?
Susan Hamil: Here’s the thing. If you get involved in the shelter world and rescue, you become so angry at people for not taking care of animals the way you think they should take care of them, that you end up restricting pet ownership and making it so onerous. In your desire for retribution, your frustration and anger and your perception of the way animals are treated, then you’ll do anything to try and punish people rather than help pets. People want to believe the worst of everything and they somehow think that if you never have puppies again…. Everybody’s ‘buy local, buy local’; well, what are we doing? We’re putting everybody who could have a litter of puppies that you could actually go see where they’re born out of business. We’re making it too onerous for them to actually have a litter of puppies. So what do we get? We get the lowest common denominator.
Kim Thornton: We get cheap imports from Eastern Europe.
Susan Hamil: And how are we going to stop that?
They’re getting more and more clever in how they present these bills. They know what the public will accept.
Susan checks the news online as we talk. Well, it looks like 250 is out of committee. The vote was 6 to 3. It’s so anti-dog. If your neutered dog is barking and carrying on, then what do they do? Take it away? We’re passing so many anti-pet laws: anti-barking, limiting numbers of pets.
This is the thing that makes me crazy. If you were in the shelter business and you were complaining because you had to kill dogs or cats, then why would you keep restricting pet ownership?
Me again. After I finished transcribing the interview with Susan, I decided to call and see if John was back from Sacramento. I asked him about the lobbying process and what he thought would happen next. Here’s the Twitterized version of what he said.
John Hamil, DVM: It’s a difficult and highly political process. Decisions are generally made along political lines and votes are almost invariably by party. Our two major points are “costs more, doesn’t solve the problem.” And in many instances, aggravates it. There is no nationally recognized group that ‘s listed in support of this bill and many of the groups that supported 1634 are not listed in support of 250. Many of the groups have actually taken the trouble to write positions against it.
I was asked ‘Gee, you’re a veterinarian. It seems counterintuitive that you wouldn’t be in favor of this. Can you explain why the AVMA is against this?’ So I got to say two things: it interferes with the doctor-client-patient relationship on a life-threatening procedure that has many complications, not only of anesthesia, surgery, blood loss and infection, but also as complications of postsurgical effects on increasing certain cancers and causing certain orthopedic problems. But the major thing is that it doesn’t save dogs’ lives and it costs more money.
I specifically pointed out, using their example of Santa Cruz, that Santa Cruz, which is the best model they have, is not as successful as its neighbors who don’t have [mandatory spay/neuter].
It’s frustrating because you don’t find out until you’re standing outside in the hall how they’re going to set it up. They say ‘You’ve got five minutes, two speakers.’ So all the stuff you have prepared that would give you a logical flow of thought, you just don’t have time to do that. You have to pick out ‘Okay, you emphasize these two things; I’ll try to do these two things,’ and you end up not doing as good a job as you’d like to do.
It’s not over. It still has to go to finance. The California department of finance went out on the biggest limb I’ve ever seen. They said this was going to cost millions and millions of dollars to reimburse local governments.
I think ultimately that we’re going to prevail because we do have the economic thing on our side and we have the facts on our side. I don’t think the governor is going to allow very many bills to pass that have any money tied to them.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
With all due respect to the fine work done by the Hamils, they can ask the HSUS lobbyist Jennifer Fearing themselves, or anyone can look at the documents supplied to the state Legislature.
The HSUS has NOT come out in support of SB 250. That is a FACT.
Yes, the HSUS did provide money to MSN efforts last year. Last year.
See my comments yesterday, here.
It’s as difficult for ethical breeders who have been conditioned to hate the the HSUS to believe that the organization is reconsidering its MSN position as it is for people who think “all breeders are the same and all are scum” to stop their unreasonable and unhelpful hate-mongering, too.
Hate is easy. Solutions are hard.
But the fact is that HSUS doesn’t HAVE to be underhanded, and they have not shown themselves to be shy on any other piece of legislation. If they want to be in support of SB 250, there’s no reason on God’s green earth why they wouldn’t be. In fact, they’re taking a lot of heat from the MSN folks for not signing on.
Would it be helpful if the HSUS joined the ASPCA and immediately changed its policy statement to point out that mandatory spay-neuter kills more pets than it saves and costs more money to do it? Of course it would, and I hope they do, soon. Not just for what’s going on in California, but for mandatory spay-neuter efforts everywhere.
But in the meantime, the best we can hope for from the HSUS’ California staff lobbyist is for her to keep their dogs out of the fight. And she has.
The HSUS is a side-issue here.
What IS the issue is that we need to get busy, again. I’ll post the information on the Appropriations Committee in the morning, so we can all start calling and faxing again.
This is not about breeder vs. shelter, or at least it doesn’t have to be. And although the votes in Sacramento have been down party lines, it shouldn’t be a left-right issue either (read Christie’s piece on this).
What it boils down to is that EVERYWHERE it has been put in place, mandatory spay-neuter has failed and failed with an increased body count of dead pets that is a horror to all animal-lovers, and at an increased cost that is a shame to all tax-payers. Especially with the state preparing to pay its bills with IOUs tomorrow and with every city and county government in the state crumbling before our eyes.
That any group of elected officials plays BS games like this when the future of the state is so dim is an insult to every one of us in the state. This bill has been given “courtesy passes” to keep other lawmakers happy while hard-working tax payers on both sides who turn up at their own expense to testify are mocked for being rubes who actually believe in the system.
What a sorry state of affairs that goes far beyond this pet-killing piece of legislation.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 30, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
I hope and pray you are right Kim, about the Governor’s take on SB 250 and if it should land on his desk, he won’t affix his John Hancock to it.
I don’t live in CA, but my state’s Animal Welfare Program, a division of the Agricultural Dept, is headed by an ex- Californian with ties to the AR contingent. I am sure she’s paying a good deal of attention to the fate of SB 250 and has dreams of introducing similar legislation here is SB 250 is successful.
Comment by Anne T — June 30, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Where are you Anne?
Comment by JenniferJ — June 30, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
As for SB250, if you live here, have friends or family here, time to stop cutting bait and FISH.
We need letters. FAXES emails and calls NOW and constantly until it hits committee. Make certain to contact your OWN assembly person and get friends and family, members of your club, church, 4-H chapter etc… to do it, or help them by faxing for them.
We need VOLUME
Send a copy of the DoF report to your county supervisor or mayor or council person, write the paper. It’s how we did it last time!
Here are the contacts for the committee, if you live in one of these assembly persons districts, you need to raise an unholy fuss and generate as many letters from concerned constituents as possible
If you don’t know who your own assembly person is, go here: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs.....t8text.asp
Please feel free to forward and cross post.
As soon as I have the consultant/analysist for this committee, I will post
as well.
The following is the most current contact information for California
Assembly Appropriations Committee:
California Assembly Appropriations Committee
Chair
Assemblyman Kevin De Leon (Dem) Dist 45
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 2114
Sacramento, CA 94249-0045
Phone: (916) 319-2045
Fax: (916) 319-2145
Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
Vice Chair
Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (Rep) Dist 02
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 6031
Sacramento, CA 94249-0002
Phone: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (Dem) Dist 13
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
Phone: (916) 319-2013
Fax: (916) 319-2113
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Charles M. Calderon (Dem) Dist 58
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 2117
Sacramento, CA 94249-0058
Phone: (916) 319-2058
Fax: (916) 319-2158
Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Joe Coto (Dem) Dist 23
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 2013
Sacramento, CA 94249-0023
Phone: (916) 319-2023
Fax: (916) 319-2123
Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Mike Davis (Dem) Dist 48
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 2160
Sacramento, CA 94249-0048
Phone: (916) 319-2048
Fax: (916) 319-2148
Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Michael Duvall (Rep) Dist 72
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 4139
Sacramento, CA 94249-0072
Phone: (916) 319-2072
Fax: (916) 319-2172
(916) 319-2072
Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes (Dem) Dist 39
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 5136
Sacramento, CA 94249-0039
Phone: (916) 319-2039
Fax: (916) 319-2139
Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (Dem) Dist 52
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 6025
Sacramento, CA 94249-0052
Phone: (916) 319-2052
Fax: (916) 319-2152
Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman Diane L. Harkey (Rep) Dist 73
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 4177
Sacramento, CA 94249-0073
Phone: (916) 319-2073
Fax: (916) 319-2173
Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Jeff Miller (Rep) Dist 71
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 3147
Sacramento, CA 94249-0071
Phone: (916) 319-2071
Fax: (916) 319-2171
Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman John A. Perez (Dem) Dist 46
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 3160
Sacramento, CA 94249-0046
Phone: (916) 319-2046
Fax: (916) 319-2146
Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (Dem) Dist 14
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 4126
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Phone: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Jose Solorio (Dem) Dist 69
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 2196
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Phone: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (Rep) Dist 37
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 4208
Sacramento, CA 94249-0037
Phone: (916) 319-2037
Fax: (916) 319-2137
Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (Dem) Dist 11
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Room 5160
Sacramento, CA 94249-0011
Phone: (916) 319-2011
Fax: (916) 319-2111
Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov
Laura Finco
CDOC Communications
Comment by JenniferJ — June 30, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Sorry if that was not clear
EVERYBODY should write ALL the committee members
and
EVERYBODY should go ahead and write their own too
A good goal would be to get one person you know who has not yet joined the fight to write in each day (or five or ten…..)
every little bit helps
Comment by JenniferJ — June 30, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
ACR 74, as introduced, Portantino. Animal shelters: No Kill movement policies.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-.....portantino
Send your letters of support for ACR 74 to the Assembly B&P Committee and to Assemblymember Portantino. I did.
http://saveourdogs.net/wp/wp-c.....mittee.doc
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a44/
I was with a group that visited Assemblymember Portantino’s Capital office yesterday to express our support for ACR 74. We learned from staff that there has been some serious opposition to this resolution, which would not even have the force of law.
Those of us who support progressive shelter reform need to fight for it.
Comment by LauraS — June 30, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
We sent letters of support to B&P yesterday, will send a letter to Portantino’s office tomorrow.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 1, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Sorry I have been out of commission, and really sorry to hear about the state of the State of CA with SB250. I was sharing with LauraS that I wanted to get the bottom of three of the most recent and troublesome issues: the No Kill No vote in SF, MSN supported by their lobbyists in Chicago with no support for SB250, when Chicago has cut their kill numbers in half over the past 6 years or so to less than 20k,and the Vegas/Indiana BSL thing.
I have been talking to HSUS about their changing policy on MSN which is now dependant on location, the effectiveness of animal care and control, and the general animal services infrastructure of a city or town as to whether they will be pro or anti. Their overarching concern is the welfare of the animals and the sustainability of a program. It would appear that the fact of the massive failures of this program would be enough to solidify their anti standing, but given the shear size of HSUS, they take as long as many institutions to effect change.
Also, the “overarching” view leads to one hand doing one thing, another doing something weirdly contrary, like Pacelle’s Vegas meeting and the Indiana Alderman with the BSL proposal combed for cruelty issues by HSUS. Oddly enough, the Indiana action is in concert with their policy to stop cruelty and clean legislation of any possible trouble for animals, even if they don’t back the legislation. A very tangled web, but worth the effort. Still have no clue about what happened in Chicago with the departure of the lobbyists re MSN, if it’s temporary, or if this was where they started to rethink their policy.
I think we all bank on the fact that no one has money to implement this legislation and hope that holds the line. In Chicago, it seems that having the CVMA, ISVMA, AVMA etc against this, plus phone calls, letters, more calls, emails, faxes, visits to alderman’s offices turned things…but also perhaps the lessening fervor of HSUS support and the ASPCA anti stance dealt the final blow. And having the facts on their false Santa Cruz model, which they trotted out at a council meeting, went a long way to cutting the strings on that puppet.
I am afraid these nutters will be back once the economy recovers. I know shelters who are for this in Chicago see only the side they want to see, and completely disregard the facts.
I wish you the best of luck.
Comment by Mary Haight — July 1, 2009 @ 12:58 am
Gosh, I’m glad I don’t live in California.
But it doesn’t matter. This is a bad law. And laws passed in California have a way of popping up in other states.
Although I believe that the sterilization option should be a choice, I have come across some literature about my breed. If I had a male dog of my breed, I don’t think I’d have him castrated, because castration is associated with increased risk of osteosarcoma (at least according to an extensive survey of my breed’s health and longevity.)
I lost a mixed breed to osteosarcoma last year. It was a very painful cancer, and I know that I don’t ever want to ever increase the risk of any of my dogs developing this cancer.
The people who support these sorts of laws are fanatics. And in this case, fanatics with money. Many of these people wrongly believe that dogs and cats are unnatural animals. Well, evidence suggests that both dogs and cats evolved from wild animals that capitalized upon the niches that we humans provided for them. The ancestor of the dog found easy food scavenging off us, and ancestor of the cat found good hunting grounds when our camps and villages began to attract rats and mice.
But to these fanatics, dogs and cats must be “liberated.” However, in practice, most of what these fanatical organizations do is kill dogs and cats, and complain about hunters and people who eat meat. The hypocrisy there is not missed on anyone with a rational understanding of the world; however, the fanatics themselves seem to be fine with their hypocrisy.
And to add to their hypocrisy, they complain about dewclaw removal and docking. We have to ban it, they say. However, those procedures are done when dogs are neonates (just days old) and don’t have a very well-developed nervous system. When you spay and neuter, the dog goes under anesthesia, and there is always a risk associated with anesthesia.
Now, I will always spay a female dog. It’s not because I’m a sexist (I’ve been called this). I think the risk of malignant mammary tumors is too high in unspayed bitches. And if I had a less cancer prone breed, I would neuter the males. I do believe there are too many unwanted dogs, and it’s okay to spay a female dog to prevent unwanted puppies. I certainly won’t be have any dog spayed as early as dictated in this legislation.
I would like for us to be like France when it comes to dogs. France is a dog’s paradise. They get to live much better lives than they do here. I’ve seen dogs walking off-leash in French cities. I’ve seen them in restaurants. And because the dogs are trained and very well socialized from early age, most dogs are quite well-behaved.
Comment by retrieverman — July 1, 2009 @ 6:02 am
I’m also a well wisher… we have a pet limit in the city I live in (not to mention BSL in our province) and I already do whatever I can to fight that. I can’t imagine what I would do if MSN came onto the scene. And I own/run a rescue group - while having two intact, nonbreeding dogs.
What it took for me was realizing that it was not in my girl’s best interests to be spayed when that magical six month anniversary came upon us. At that time I had this dissonant “well, it’s ok for ME because I’m responsible!” mantra going through my head. Of course, that argument holds up like a sugar cube in rapids.
At the same time, a rescue coalition that I helped to create started tackling the local by-laws. It didn’t take long before someone suggested campaigning for MSN laws - and everyone but me jumped on the bandwagon. I was looked at like an imposter for a long, long, long time. Slowly, one by one, I struck down the arguments. I don’t believe I changed the minds of all of them, but I created enough of a stir that the suggestion was dropped.
I also have to mention a point in the post that I don’t think was stressed enough - DOGS and CATS are not being separated in these bills!!
DOGS AND CATS are two VERY different situations all together!!
I am all for a mandatory microchipping across the board, as well as MUCH higher penalties for having an unaltered CAT in a municipality that has a low or no cost speuter program. MSN for rescues as well.
But this one broad stroke method that is being used to tackle this issue is quite simply ridiculous.
As for the fact that this is a rescue-driven initiative… well, that could be the most disturbing part of all. Sometimes we just don’t see the forest for the trees. What makes it even harder is that their hearts are in the right place - it’s just that their brains are playing catch up.
Comment by Kim — July 1, 2009 @ 6:15 am
I’m getting from this that I’m supposed to have sympathy, patience, whatever for HSUS because “We’re so big, we don’t know what we stand for.”
Since what they might stand for is slaughtering pit bulls, state-forced major surgery on my animal, breed bans (see “slaughtering pit bulls”), exterminating cats, impeding no-kill, and, oh yeah, doing away with due process for pet owners and especially filthy dirty breeders like myself, I think I’ll pass on the sympathy.
Stop soliciting a kajillion dollars a year from little old cat ladies and people who think you are their local animal shelter where they got Buster six years ago, and then spending it on lobbying for things that will strip those same animal lovers of their pets and their civil rights.
Use that unearned bully pulpit to support truly progressive, pro-animal, pro-ownership policies: No-kill sheltering, end to BSL, end to numerical limit laws, pet-friendly rentals, reality-based insurance rules, affordable sterilization for those who want it, strong anti-cruelty laws backed by vigorous prosecution for those who break them.
A nice start would be a strong position statement repudiating SB 250, and some time and money spent lobbying against it. That would be a dandy beginning.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2009 @ 6:21 am
Heather, I’m not happy with the situation, either. I’m not asking for sympathy, whatever, for the HSUS.
As I’ve written before, I think the shift they seem to be making — and yes, I’ll believe it when I see it — will be a result of the organization’s pragmatism in realizing that no-kill is a bigger fund-raiser than demanding that dogs like Vick survivor Johnny Justice to be slaughtered, just because they came out of a fight bust.
What I AM asking for is an acknowledgment of the TRUTH, which is that the HSUS was a major backer of the previous mandatory spay-neuter legislation in California, and is not a supporter of current efforts.
The context you may not be seeing is the hundreds of e-mails I get saying “PETA/H$U$ is behind this bill!”
Um, no. The HSUS is not.
As you’ve often observed yourself, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
As for dandy beginnings: I’m more concerned with the finish line than the starting line. And the change in HSUS actions with regard to mandatory spay-neuter last year vs. this here in Sacramento is a big step towards that end point.
And finally, we all have our list of what the HSUS should be doing. When I first met Wayne Pacelle a couple years ago, my first comment to him was, “What kind of animal advocacy group says nothing when thousands of pets are dying of tainted pet food?”
He responded that their response to the crisis had been, basically, too little, too late.
No sympathy, then or now. They should be doing what works and what’s right.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 1, 2009 @ 6:52 am
With utmost respect Gina, I think you’re way off base in defending HSUS on the basis of their silence. Because of their strong past positions in FAVOR of MSN, their silence now against SB250 means that bills supporters can rightly claim that HSUS supports MSN (without reference to this bill) and use that as a club. And the fact that HSUS is choosing not to disavow the many claims that they are behind/support the bill speaks pretty loudly.
As for the “one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing” defense proposed above by another commenter, I’m going to call “b.s.” on that one. No organization allows its employees to take public positions outside the decisionmaking structure.
HSUS supports MSN, is fundamentally a duplicitous organization and wants both thoughtful petowners like you as well as the “little old cat ladies” to believe things that are not true.
Comment by EmilyS — July 1, 2009 @ 7:07 am
That is your opinion, Emily, and you’re entitled to it.
However, anti-forced spay-neuter advocates in the committee hearing yesterday used the fact that the HSUS is NOT among the bill’s supporters as part of their testimony.
You can indulge your HSUS hate all you want. But I see a crack that started with no-kill, anti-breed ban and feral cat advocates, has spread to the ASPCA and is opening into a major rift that is separating the formerly solid supporters of punitive, pet-killing legislation.
The fact remains that the HSUS doesn’t have to be cute: If it wants to support this bill, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t.
Again, I don’t know if the internal debate will result in a policy change. But it’s important to me that the most powerful animal advocacy group in the country if not the world is even having this debate.
As for how hard it is to change policy … well, ask President Obama about the success he’s having changing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and the dumping the gay-haters’ Defense of Marriage Act.
***
P.S. My dearly departed father was fond of saying “with utmost respect” means “you’re full of crap.” :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 1, 2009 @ 7:31 am
I would much rather see HSUS taking a step back to re-evaluate their stance than simply carrying on with “business as usual.” A step in the right direction.
Also, it is not easy for a group as passionate as the HSUS to change their position quickly - particularly when to do so requires an admission of error. As in “we were wrong to support the MSN in the past.” Even more so when you consider the sheer amount of funding put towards this past legislation.
I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them - but if they are willing to step back and reconsider the facts I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt… for now.
Comment by Kim — July 1, 2009 @ 10:15 am
I just found out that when a southerner says “God love him,” she means “He’s so stupid!”
I did not know that.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2009 @ 10:26 am
HH—same with “bless his heart”
As in “He tries so hard, bless his heart”
Comment by Original Lori — July 1, 2009 @ 11:05 am
That was IT! “Bless his heart.”
I am confabulagating a lot of things today.
I just referred to one felonious creep by the name of a totally different felonious creep and had to go back and fix it.
As far as I know they have never even been in the same state, but in my lil’ creaky brain they occupy the same moral plane and will suffer in the same circle of hell, so the names ran together.
Shouldn’t have skipped morning coffee.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Well, regardless of what your father said, that’s not what I meant.
I think you’re wrong. That is NOT the same as saying you’re full of crap.
Comment by EmilyS — July 1, 2009 @ 11:34 am
So, Mrs. Hamil takes the position that so many haters (and misinformed people who don’t check their facts) do, that HSUS is doing something, taking a specific position that they aren’t, etc. SO WRONG.
How could she be so off-base? She says HSUS is supporting the bill (with zero back up for her statement) while even her husband recognizes that no national group is supporting? I mean, if she can’t take 10 seconds to check with the group she is bashing, can’t she at least check with the person she lives with?
Facts people please. Just the facts.
SHE SAYS
Susan Hamil: [clip] And I’m appalled at the money HSUS has that they’re putting into this legislation.
Kim Thornton: I thought HSUS wasn’t supporting this.
Susan Hamil: They are! Are they ever!
HE SAYS:
John Hamil, DVM: [clip] There is no nationally recognized group that ’s listed in support of this bill and many of the groups that supported 1634 are not listed in support of 250.
Comment by BestDog Mom — July 1, 2009 @ 11:36 am
There are different ways to support something. One way is to do it behind the scenes. Just because HSUS isn’t listed in the support section of this bill doesn’t mean that they are not pulling the strings and supplying the $$$. HSUS has bought Florez- first it was Prop 2 and clearly they wrote SB135. Florez has been seen publicly with Wayne P many, many, many times. It isn’t hard to draw a line between the dots. If HSUS didn’t want this bill, Florez wouldn’t be pushing it.
Comment by Mary — July 1, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
do you want out-of-state citizens to phone the numbers you have given? have phone will call…hope this badly thought out bill is defeated - glad to hear ASPCA is not in support of this - thanks for all this info -
Comment by francis — July 1, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Out of staters should not contact California legislators. That kind of thing backfires.
Out of staters can put pressure on national groups like HSUS and ASPCA to actively oppose this kind of pet-killing legislation.
Comment by LauraS — July 1, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
If HSUS didn’t want this bill, Florez wouldn’t be pushing it.
Comment by Mary — July 1, 2009
I’m sure that will be news to Sen. Florez. It will also be news to the HSUS staff lobbyist.
HSUS hate = “greeder” hate.
As long as everyone sees “the enemy” as the same — HSUS same as PETA, puppy-milling scum same as compassionate, ethical breeders — we’re not getting anywhere toward solving the problems.
Me, I tell the truth, listen to everyone and try to get somewhere useful.
The rest of you on both sides can just keep up the hating.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 1, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Gina, the difference is that HSUS is ONE THING.
Not various unrelated people who others have arbitrarily lumped together as ONE THING.
ONE institution, with policies, an organizational chart, a budget, salaries, etc.
The fact that my friend is a trainer for the Red Cross, or that I carry a Red Cross CPR card, and we are both, of course, total menschen, does not constitute an argument that the Red Cross playing fast and loose with donations post-911 was okay ‘cuz you know these really good people who work for them who would never take people’s money under false pretenses.
The fact that some of my best friends are Republicans (for reals) doesn’t make waterboarding okay, and it sure as hell didn’t stop me from fighting the old Bushies tooth and nail.
Because wrong is wrong, and an institution doesn’t get a free pass for kinda sorta not committing atrocities as a matter of policy anymore, but we aren’t going to repudiate our past atrocities or make any amends for the damage we’ve done.
I get that there are people you like who work for HSUS. There used to be one or two people whom I respected who worked for them, too. They left. I figure there was a reason for that.
One good apple does not freshen a spoiled barrel.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Gina, why do I get the feeling that Jennifer Fearing is your new best friend? And why haven’t I seen her speak against SB250 if the HSUS is finally figuring it out (loosely translated to: the HSUS is figuring out their current positions are money losing propositions…) Perhaps you can get a list of donors to Social Compassion in Legislation (who IS supporting this bill) prior to the organization having to file its IRS returns)? I’d be shocked not to see HSUS affiliates on the donor list.
Comment by LuvsDogs — July 3, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Wow, McCarthyism. Can Godwin’s Law be far behind?
The HSUS has no position on SB 250. They are neither pro nor con while they evaluate their official position on mandatory spay-neuter.
Anything else you want to know, I suggest you ask them, and stop slamming me for reporting that despite what you read on your e-mail list, the HSUS is not behind this bill. If you want to discuss the facts and your interpretation of those facts (as other commenters have), then fine. Ascribing secret and nefarious motivations to the folks here, not so fine.
As I’ve said, oh, a thousand times now: I’m very happy the HSUS is reconsidering its position on mandatory spay-neuter, but I don’t think there’s any guarantee that they will follow the lead of the ASPCA and come out
strongly against itwith a position statement that no longer supports it.If they DO change position, I’ve written (also many times) that it will be in part because they recognize that no-kill has more fund-raising potential than pro-kill, including pushing for the execution of fight-bust dogs, feral cats (a position they have changed in favor of TNR), and endorsing shelter killings.
Now, take the hate elsewhere.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2009 @ 6:04 am
The ASPCA has not come out strongly against MSN. Their lengthy position statement includes this:
“the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.”
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/.....-laws.html
A strong statement would have been say that MSN leads to higher shelter intake or euthanasia rates, which is what the data indicate, and that ASPCA opposes MSN.
Comment by LauraS — July 3, 2009 @ 6:43 am
Thanks, Laura. I agree and have corrected.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2009 @ 6:44 am
I think that we are seeing a shift in the humane community regarding mandatory spay/neuter laws.
HSUS shifted from active support and open lobbying for AB 1634 to neutral on SB 250.
ASPCA posted a position statement saying that there’s no evidence that MSN works.
In California, the State Humane Association of California — a federation of 145 humane societies, spcas, and animal control orgs — sponsored AB 1634 but has no position on SB 250.
Local groups like Bad Rap that supported AB 1634 switched to oppose. Many other former supporters switched to neutral.
I think that are having success getting the message out that MSN KILLS, MSN COSTS, MSN FAILS. I think it’s having an impact.
The change isn’t happening fast enough for me, particularly in the California state legislature, but I think we are making progress.
Comment by LauraS — July 3, 2009 @ 7:17 am
We have an Action Alert about SB 250 here
http://saveourdogs.net/2009/07.....ion-alert/
FYI on the process: your letters sent to the Senate do not count in the Assembly. Your letters sent to the Assembly B&P Committee do not count in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. I didn’t make the rules; that’s the system.
We have some sample letter templates to make it easier for those who struggle writing letters. We are also offering to fax your letters for you, at no charge.
C’mon folks, we need more people to get involved. SB 250 has squeaked by with the bare minimum number of votes 3 times in the past 2 months. A huge opposition response like we saw for AB 1634 would have killed SB 250, we KNOW that. Please send your letter to the Appropriations Committee members, and ask your network of friends and club members to do the same.
Comment by LauraS — July 3, 2009 @ 8:10 am
LauraS, what’s your evidence that BadRap (or other rescue groups that supported AB1634) opposes SB250? Is there a list of opponent groups somewhere?
Comment by EmilyS — July 3, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Bad Rap originally supported AB 1634 http://badrap-blog.blogspot.co.....-1634.html
and then switched to oppose on that bill.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/....._comm.html
Now Bad Rap advocates “SPAY-NEUTER PARTNERSHIPS: COOPERATION AND COMPASSION, NOT COMPULSION”
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/s.....rships.pdf
Comment by LauraS — July 3, 2009 @ 9:37 am
I’m one of those people, unlike almost ALL vets and certainly ALL breeders, that actually worked my ass off to get shelters into a better place. And not just in my own county.
Not buying the line, Hamils. Not buying it at all.
Explain what YOU two HAVE done for shelter animals in terms of changing laws for better or forcing them to stand to state standards by putting YOUR money where your mouth is, not to mention your time.
I await the precious long list.
It is really sad that you take the position you do, especially you, Dr. Hamil. Sad, sad, sad.
Comment by cany — August 28, 2009 @ 3:05 am
Cany,
Your ignorance is showing. Many if not most ethical reputable breeders also work in breed rescue. All breeders are not the same, and many of the good ones hate and fight the millers as much as you do. As for veterinarians, the amount of pro bono and reduced cost work they almost all do is pretty amazing, and nearly every veterinarian I know has taken home a “broken” pet or an orphan or two to provide a forever home.
You are also ignorant about mandatory spay-neuter. In fact, such legislation has failed EVERYWHERE it has been tried, and kills more pets than it saves.
I’m awfully glad you help animals. But you’re not the only one, by far. And by trashing the others who love animals and help them, you are making matters worse.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 28, 2009 @ 7:10 am
Oh, my.
Cany, you only need to read more of this blog than this two-month-old post to know the answer to your question.
Meanwhile, I’m posting from Massachusetts. Most of the northeast has achieved much lower shelter death rates and very high spay/neuter rates with voluntary (sometimes subsidized, sometimes incentivized, sometimes just accessible because of mobile spay/neuter clinics) spay/neuter programs. And accessible adoption hours. And shelters that aren’t spirit-crushing to walk into.
One result is that puppies are rare in shelters here. We basically don’t have puppies in shelters that weren’t shipped in from high-kill shelters in the south.
Many shelters offer puppy classes and beginning obedience classes and sometimes reactive/aggressive dog classes, too, helping dogs to stay in the homes they have.
The Manchester, NH shelter has a pet food pantry—if you can’t afford to buy food for your pets this week, you can stop by and pick up what you need. And so far, they haven’t had to institute any means testing or proof of need in order to keep withdrawals roughly equal with donations. More pets staying in their homes rather than being surrendered.
I realize that none of this is punitive and it doesn’t Punish the Bad Public, but, hey, when I drop off a bag of food at my local shelter, normally about half the dogs will have “adoption pending” signs, while some of the remainder will have “not ready for adoption yet” signs. On one recent visit, every dog but one had “adoption pending”, “adopted”, or “not ready for adoption” signs—and while I was there a couple came in, mourned the “adoption pending” sign on the kennel of a dog they thought would have suited them—and then happily realized that the very similar dog in the next kennel was the one available dog not claimed yet.
This isn’t just because the culture in the northeast is innately different, either. When I was a kid, the shelters were crowded, dark, depressing places where an animal had seven days to find a home before it was executed. Dogs ran loose, and the normal place to get a new puppy was from a neighbor’s litter.
But things changed, and the change started with one rescue deciding that there was a better way, pulling adoptable dogs from shelters, and advertising where they came from. And shelter practices locally started to change.
Comment by Lis — August 28, 2009 @ 7:27 am