Do you like this story?
Forced spay-neuter bill dead in California
By Gina Spadafori
September 1, 2010
The California pet-killer bill, SB 250, died just before midnight for lack of votes as the legislative term expired. In the days and weeks to come, we’ll be looking at positive programs that really do work to reduce shelter killing — as opposed to mandatory spay-neuter and other punitive measures that actually increase shelter killing while destroying reputable, ethical breeders, working dogs and heritage breeds and giving puppy-millers a leg up. Not to mention: Punitive laws deny people who have little else — especially children — the benefits of pets. The lessons animals teach children are important to us all!
If you’re in California, please thank those who did not support this, because it’s the right thing to do, and because forced spay-neuter will be back. That’s because for its deep-pocket supporter, this is about punishing people, power and winning, not what works.
Laura Sanborn of SaveOurDogs is the woman we need to thank, even though a lot of people stepped up and fought this bill and its predecessor, AB 1634. She’s a search-and-rescue volunteer, and she has worked tirelessly protect the dogs who work for us (and are happy to, despite PETA’s hatred of giving dogs a job). This is one woman you want on your side, and if you know she and her dog are looking for you in the wilderness or in a collapsed building, you’ve got a chance.
I bought Laura lunch a few months ago on another of her trips to Sacramento to lobby. She’s a quiet, thoughtful and determined person, not a spittle-spewing thrower of weight and money. The fight to save working dogs has taken a great personal toll on her, but she does what she does because she has to, to protect the work of search and rescue dogs.
You can thank her in the comments, or send her an e-mail.
I watched the live feed from the Assembly floor as long as I could stand it. I’m a morning person, and late nights are not my thing (SB 250 was finally defeated just before midnight). With all the problems this state has, watching the maudlin good-byes of departing lawmakers and the clowning around of others was just disgusting. There clearly were more than a few lawmakers who were indeed trying to get the state’s business done, but the majority seemed to believe they were back in junior high.
Disgusting display.
I’m sorry I did not catch the name of the Assemblywoman who picked up her mic, said, “You’re not the boss of me!” to another member and then ducked and ran as if it were just the funniest game in the world.
Lady, if you were my elected representative, I’d be walking precincts to throw your ass out. Running the state is not a game for your enjoyment.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
My thanks to everyone who worked so hard to see this terrible bill was not passed. Special thanks to Laura Sanborn for her untiring efforts.
ams.
Comment by Tina Moulton — September 1, 2010 @ 8:04 am
Thanks to Laura conveyed!
Comment by Liz Palika — September 1, 2010 @ 8:14 am
Laura rocks! Thanks to Gina and Christie and everyone on this blog who’s written thoughtful articles about this issue.
Comment by Diane Jones — September 1, 2010 @ 8:21 am
In talking about No Kill I hope to learn some things residents can do to promote change.
In Iowa, shelters are not required to report kill numbers, and it surprises me everyone does not agree that is a basic requirement to evaluate shelters.
In Des Moines our animal control contracts with a private shelter and my understanding is it should be subject to open records laws, per what I have read from the No Kill Advocacy Center.
Comment by Erich Riesenberg — September 1, 2010 @ 8:45 am
That is a special relief to know it failed (again), but sadly Judie’s minions will not give up, I am sure. Hats off to Laura Sanborn and everyone who made sure this got the attention it deserved.
Comment by Becky — September 1, 2010 @ 9:02 am
While there’s no doubt a hard-core minority of people who are really about the animal-rights mantra of “no domestic animals,” period, I know most of the people who supported SB 250 aren’t that way. They really want to help pets, and this seemed like a good idea.
What needs to happen is that we need to start getting to these folks and showing them how no-kill communities work, and forced spay-neuter does not. Many such folks are already on board with building no-kill communities. We need to continue to build on these successes. This is the real way to reduce killing for population control.
And, those of us who also work to preserve working and heritage breeds need to stop siding with puppy-milling scum in the name of “breeders’ rights.” The enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend, “slippery slope” nonsense or not.
We must never forget we are fighting to reduce shelter killing as well as protecting working and heritage breeds.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 1, 2010 @ 9:21 am
I pretty much wore out my phone calling the legislators and fully expect to have to do it again. But meanwhile savoring a victory for common sense. Thanks to Laura for hanging in there against “feel good” nonsense.
Comment by jan — September 1, 2010 @ 9:25 am
Thanks and congratulations to everyone who defeated this. It doesn’t just benefit the animals of California, it sets an example for elsewhere.
Comment by Valerie — September 1, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Was so happy to see that it finally died when I woke up this morning. Kudos to Laura, Gina, Christie, and all the rest of you who tirelessly reported on this for the rest of us in CA who wanted and worked to kill SB250 YET AGAIN.
Comment by MizShepherdist — September 1, 2010 @ 9:43 am
I too watched the nonsense in the Assembly last night. Slap happy maudlin garbage. One assemblymember even joked about “cougar bait” re another bill. Never forget -we have to be vigilant always.
Comment by Janet m — September 1, 2010 @ 9:45 am
Although I don’t live in California, I try to pay attention to the potential precedents that are so often played out there. That said, I must confess: I wasn’t as familiar with SB 250 as I should have been.
As I understand it, though, there was some language in there that may have proven detrimental to TNR efforts (as if the L.A. injunction weren’t enough) and the ability of caregivers to continue looking after their colonies. Of course, there were plenty of valid-sounding claims on both sides of the issue—perhaps indicating that the bill’s language was imprecise enough to raise concerns among all stakeholders (and we all know what can happen when poorly-crafted bills become poorly-crafted laws).
Thank you to those who prevented this from becoming a dangerous precedent.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
Comment by Peter J. Wolf — September 1, 2010 @ 10:13 am
Which kind of cougar?
I understand that California has both.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 1, 2010 @ 10:21 am
The MILF kind.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 1, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Peter, the problem is with the creation of a category of cat caretaker called a custodian.
Actually reading the latest version of SB 250 leads me to the conclusion that SB 250 can be used punitively against feral caretakers and feeders due to its definition of “custodian,” as below. A custodian is defined as someone who “means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person’s property for any period exceeding 30 days.
“Care of a cat” clearly covers care of ferals by feeders and colony managers. The second half of the sentence applies to “non-owners,” meaning, I guess, people who declare cats living on their property are not theirs, who take care of the cat for 30 days.
The penalty for not S/N such a cat and providing the licensing agency with proof of sterility is $100/day.
Based on this interpretation, I would have to conclude the legislation can be, and likely will be used against feral colony caretakers.
FROM ALLEY CAT ALLIES:
S.B. 250 is a proposed bill that is really just more of the same in California—a bill that would hurt cats by penalizing the volunteer caregivers and low-income pet owners who care for them. S.B. 250 would push government requirements on citizens without providing them with ways to meet those requirements. Because the bill would cite anyone helping cats who has not yet spayed or neutered the cat, regardless of their ability to pay for surgeries or trap a cat, S.B. 250 would discourage care for cats. If S.B. 250 were passed, it’s the cats who would suffer.
What California—and the rest of America—needs is a game changing bill that will support volunteer caregivers who donate their own time and money to help cats. As the sole national organization dedicated to protecting and improving the lives of cats, Alley Cat Allies knows that the only laws that are supportive of cats, their owners, and caregivers will actually increase care and neutering of cats.
Where neighbors are supported by community programs that provide affordable, available spay/neuter and Trap-Neuter-Return, including education and outreach, they are able to take action to improve the lives of cats. Punitive laws like S.B. 250 only serve to discourage those activities.
The bill clearly applies to feral cat caregivers, and anyone who cares for cats on their property. The bill creates the new legal category “custodian” to apply to caregivers, defined to mean any person who undertakes the “personal care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person’s property for any period exceeding 30 days.”
This definition plainly includes any person caring for a cat on their property, but it is worded imprecisely enough that any caregiver could fall under its definition if they are determined to undertake “the personal care and control of a cat.” The definition is so vague that anyone who gives any care to cats, even a bowl of water, could be cited.
By classifying caregivers as “custodians,” S.B. 250 would expose these volunteers to citations and other penalties for their community service on behalf of feral cats.
Comment by Edward Muzika — September 1, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Thank you Laura, Gina, Christie, Heather and others on this site for educating me on this bill. I was one of the people who at last pass thought it sounded like a good idea. This time around I really got into it, finally considering and understanding the actual ramifications.
This week I faxed 15 letters of opposition to Democratic assembly members telling them as a CA native, registered Dem, and owner of two shelter dogs that this bill was not the solution.
I look to be part of a better solution as we all move forward towards true No Kill policies.
Comment by Liz — September 1, 2010 @ 11:43 am
#
Which kind of cougar?
I understand that California has both.
#
The MILF kind.
#
Ah, but California also has Furries. So we could still go both ways.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 1, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
I don’t want to know how you know so much about this. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 1, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Thank you Laura and all! I live in CA and am SO VERY glad this didn’t pass.
I know how frustrated many people can be with the shelter killing, but forced s/n won’t do anything to stop that and will make the problem worse (for one thing - discouraging feral colony caretakers from TNR’ing - way to make the shelter killings skyrocket). What it takes is education on how a no-kill *community* (and it has to be a community) works. And that breeders are not our enemies - so many of the dog and cat breeders I know do rescue, also.
Comment by CatPrrson — September 1, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
So happy to hear this…can feed my feral cats (rather call them community cats) with more peace…thank you.
And its Nathan Winograd Redemption’s 3-year anniversary - things are changing for the better for No Kill.
Comment by mary frances — September 1, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Thank you for the kind words :-) There are many others who contributed to our shared victory. From what I have observed, nobody worked harder to defeat SB 250 than Cathie Turner of CDOC. Also, CDOC’s lobbyist in Sacramento, Scott Sadler, was critical to our success.
Comment by LauraS — September 1, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
David Greene posted on this blog a link to animal activists - one of whom, Tonja Robertson, is doing JUST WHAT “forced s/n” people THINK will help reduce shelter killings - she’s providing vouchers and transportation to cat owners (and a few dog owners). I know I’m preaching to the converted, here, but THIS is what really works. People want to do the right thing - most people don’t want their moggie coming into heat all the time or having litter after litter of kittens that you can’t even give away. The heritage breeders breed carefully, and find homes for their cats, and most retire and neuter their older cats anyway, and they’re not the ones needing transportation and vouchers.
If only money spent on punitive laws of all kinds - s/n laws, limit laws, etc - were directed towards vouchers, and helping people, and shutting down millers - THEN we’d be farther along the no-kill road. (And that is what I see effective no-kill communities doing anyway.)
Comment by CatPrrson — September 2, 2010 @ 8:19 am
I absolute love the word “moggie.” I wish it would catch on here in the states.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2010 @ 8:21 am
That’s what I put on my kittehs’ vet records, etc. under “breed.”
Ditch moggie. Barn moggie. Whatever applies.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 2, 2010 @ 8:35 am