Meow - We'd love to share this portion of Catster with you, but first you'll need to login.
If you don't have a Catster account yet, you can register in about 60 seconds. Registering allows you to use all our free features while allowing us to create a safer, more meaningful environment for the community as a whole.
Registering is fast, free and lets you create your cat page(s), find adoptable cats, save your favorites, connect to your Feline Friends and more.
[BSL-UPDATES] URGENT ALERT: CA AB 1634 – AKC Vigorously Opposes!
AKC URGENT ALERT: CA AB 1634 to Change – AKC Vigorously Opposes!
[Thursday, August 21, 2008]
Late yesterday we received a proposed 12th amendment to the wording of CA AB 1634 which Lloyd Levine’s staff presented to our lobbyist. Also, we understand that Mr. Levine attempted to amend his bill in the Senate, in spite of the fact that he had assured the AKC through our lobbyist that the bill was in its final form. As a result of this last minute attempt, we no longer have confidence in the definition of this bill or the credibility of its author.
The AKC is outraged and dismayed by Mr. Levine’s last minute action to remove the incentives that were put in place to recognize responsible dog ownership. The new amendment will allow local government to avoid providing discounted licenses for owners who microchip, or owners who microchip and spay/neuter, their animals.
A primary reason AKC moved to a neutral position was because it reinforced and rewarded responsible behavior. We believe the process to advance this bill is no longer being conducted in a forthright and transparent manner. Given Mr. Levine’s recent tactics and the fact that we no longer feel confident that an acceptable bill will be produced, a neutral position is no longer appropriate. Therefore, AKC must vigorously oppose this legislation.
Please immediately call and email your State Senator and ask them to oppose AB 1634.
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 , or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
[BSL-UPDATES] The Judge, Jury, & Executioners Behind AB 1634
Subject: The Judge, Jury, & Executioners Behind AB 1634
Those who are intent on punishing the public... become that which they claim to most despise—people whose actions result in the impound and killing of animals. They become the “irresponsible public.” - Nathan Winograd
----
Ken & Patti Burton - Kifka Borzoi
E-mail: Kifka@Kifka.com
Friday, August 15, 2008
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/08/judge-jury-executio ners-behind-ab-1634.html
The Judge, Jury, & Executioners Behind AB 1634
Posted by Nathan J. Winograd
At a recent California State Senate hearing on AB 1634, the bill that started out as mandatory spay/neuter law but has since devolved and been amended into oblivion, a Senator asked Ed Boks, the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) and one of the bill’s chief proponents: “Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?”
To which Boks responded: “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.”
Ed Boks should know. Since passage of his local version of AB 1634, impounds and killing have skyrocketed at the Los Angeles pound he oversees, exactly as concerned animal lovers feared. In fact, the increased killing was the first at LAAS in over a decade.
As seen time and time again, mandatory sterilization laws are largely a distraction, increasing the power of animal control to impound and kill yet more animals, while they divert resources from programs that do work so that agencies can hire yet more officers to write yet more tickets and impound more animals—or threaten to do so—to no avail. So if it is not about saving dogs and cats, what is it about?
While some supporters desperately want to believe that mandatory sterilization laws are about saving lives, the facts tragically (in Los Angeles and elsewhere) have proved otherwise. And while people are free to believe whatever they want in a democracy, simply believing something doesn’t necessarily make it so, and never will. Meanwhile, animals continue to be killed in appalling numbers and reform efforts are squandered on an agenda that has no hope of achieving success. Moreover, the animals are paying the ultimate price for the false beliefs of animal activists. They are the ones being slaughtered en masse because of it. With animals being killed every day in California shelters because shelter leadership has not embraced the lifesaving culture of the No Kill philosophy and the comprehensive programs and services which make it possible, activists must move beyond the empty hope that mandatory spay/neuter will ever be anything but a failure.
But the motivation for shelter directors who are mired in killing is entirely different. Since “this is not about saving dogs and cats,” what is it about? It is about taking the pressure off of their own failures. As the chorus of voices about the killing in California shelters and their own inability or unwillingness to do anything substantive about it grows, so do their attempts to divert attention elsewhere. For a diversion to work, you need someone to blame. And blame needs a boogeyman to be effective. The boogeyman here is that the shelter is merely doing the dirty work of an “irresponsible public” and all those who stand in their way are labeled animal haters.
This approach takes its cues from Karl Rove’s post 9/11 three-step strategy:
Invoke 9/11
Do whatever you want
Silence concerned critics by claiming they don’t care about protecting Americans
The proponents of AB 1634 have tried to sell it in much the same way:
Invoke 9/11 pet overpopulation
Do whatever you want
Silence concerned critics by claiming they don’t care about protecting Americans animals
The motivation of shelter directors notwithstanding, what’s in it for others? Once again, if it is not about saving lives, what is it about?
I believe it is about darker impulses. These are the people who obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and continue to push these types of laws. They will do what they have always done—facts, logic, and history be damned. They will continue to blame the public and they will continue to fight for more and tougher laws. They will argue that their community is different, that their situation is unique, that citizens in their community are particularly—or peculiarly—irresponsible. None of this is true, but they do not care. They will ignore the failures of dysfunctional animal control shelters and its equally inept and uncaring leadership. They will ignore that many shelter directors find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it and so kill rather than take advantage of readily available lifesaving alternatives to killing. They will stand side-by-side with these perpetrators.
While they claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is something much more powerful driving them: the desire to punish. An activist truly focused on lifesaving, who subsequently learns that punitive legislation is not only a dismal failure, but that it has the opposite results (more impounds, more killing), would end their support of such methods and begin to push for more compassionate leadership at animal control or the programs and services of the No Kill Equation.
By contrast, those who are intent on punishing the public are being driven by other imperatives. In the end, they so want to punish the public for not taking care of their pets as much as they think they should, they are willing to ignore all the evidence about legislation’s true results or about how to truly save lives, and instead empower animal control to kill animals in the process. Unfortunately, animal control is generally more than willing to oblige and do just that. Their motto: if we deem you irresponsible, we have the power to kill your pet. In the end, these activists become that which they claim to most despise—people whose actions result in the impound and killing of animals. They become the “irresponsible public.”
But regardless of underlying beliefs and motivations, the end game is the same: power to kill increases and animals die. That is why true animal lovers should dedicate themselves to restricting the state’s killing apparatus, reducing the power of the pounds to involuntarily (or under the threat of citation) take in—and potentially kill—animals when those animals are not being neglected or subject to cruelty. They should not seek to increase that power at the expense of the lives of animals.
[BSL-UPDATES] Chicago BLOG MANDATORY STERILIZATION...please write!!!
Permission to CROSS POST EVERYWHERE
Pplease write on this blog (addy below) so we can show the Chicago Alderman NO ONE wants MANDATORY Sterilization in Chicago....PERIOD. (they will be shown the blog trust me! )
Our hope is that folks comment, particularly Chicagoans - but anyone anywhere in the world....it is indeed possible those comments will be seen by public officials, as was done with the County Commissioners with trap, neuter, return (TNR) for stray/feral cats. This is WGN Pet Central's new up and running blog , here's a direct link:
this will take you directly to the Blog page...click on Blog and then comment. and please write polite concise statements regarding why Mandatory Spay and Neutering will not work, is not enforceable, is not affordable , will not get at gang bangers who do not follow the law anyway, has not been proven to reduce euthanasias around the country where enacted, and most of all will not help a city that is almost at a zero kill shelter status level already. Cat Population can be managed with a push into the TNR program and get monies funneled into that program as soon as it can be done.
Thank you and any questions Please email me.
Karen
Karen Perry
Alliance of Chicagoland Pet Owners (founding member)
Ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net
You may be pleased to know that AB 1634 was defeated on the Senate Floor this morning by a vote of 5-27. You may monitor the status of all bills being considered by the Legislature by logging onto www.sen.ca.gov/runner.
Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other legislative issues of concern. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate.
Sincerely,
GEORGE C. RUNNER, JR.
Senator, 17th District
------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------
From: gilbertk9 [mailto:gilbertk9@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thu 7/10/2008 11:11 AM
To: Runner, George
Subject: Re: AB 1634 as amended July 1, 2008 - Opposed
Senator Runner - Thank you for your well thought out response. Also the promptness in your response is appreciated. I am sharing your position with approximately 1000 US citizens. At least you understand what this country stands for in terms of its citizens. Thank you for listening.
Ed and Pat Gilbert, Service Dog Owners
----- Original Message -----
From: Runner, George
To: gilbertk9
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: AB 1634 as amended July 1, 2008 - Opposed
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert:
Thank you for your correspondence expressing opposition to Assembly Bill 1634 (Levine), which requires the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat, who is the subject of a complaint, to be cited and pay a civil penalty in addition to any other fine, fee, or penalty. The earlier versions of AB 1634 mandated a uniform, statewide program that would have relied on mandatory spaying and neutering of most dogs and cats. As amended, the bill now relies on local citations and gradually increasing civil penalties.
I continue to oppose this measure because existing law allows cities and counties to enact their own ordinances. Imposing state-mandated one-size-fits-all solutions removes any discretion from local officials, which I am always reluctant to do. My experience in local government (as councilmember and mayor of Lancaster) as taught me that most of the time local officials know better than state officials how to handle problems in their community.
Additionally, the bill provides no due process for those anonymously accused of having a nonspayed or unneutered pets and provides no mechanism to ascertain the veracity of those submitting the complaint. Therefore, AB 1634 makes it very easy for a disgruntled neighbor to allege a violation and force a monetary punishment on his or her neighbor. The bill fails to provide any system of recourse for pet owners. As such, the measure gives too much discretion to local animal control agencies over when to cite owners for their dog or cat’s behavior.
Finally, AB 1634 fails to address the issue of feral cats or un-owned pets which are the chief source of the high shelter population and euthanasia numbers. I believe that AB 1634 misses the end goal because it does not do anything to actually reduce the number of unwanted pets in the state.
Unfortunately, I believe this bill targets responsible animal breeders—those who legally license their pets and comply with all local ordinances. While we both agree that something needs to be done about dog and cat over-population, I do not believe this bill is the solution.
AB 1634 is currently waiting to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee. You may monitor the status of the bill by logging onto www.sen.ca.gov/runner.
Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of your position. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other legislative issues of concern. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate.
Sincerely,
GEORGE C. RUNNER, JR.
Senator, 17th District
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
From: gilbertk9 [mailto:gilbertk9@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thu 7/10/2008 10:03 AM
To: McKenzie, Mark; Franzoia, Bob
Cc: Senator Steinberg; Senator Leland Yee; Senator Runner; Senator Ridley-Thomas; Senator Florez; Senator Dutton; Senator Ashburn; Senator Aanestad; Franzoia, Bob; McKenzie, Mark; Senator Cox; Senator Torlakson; Senator Corbett; Senator Kuehl; Senator Oropeza; Senator Simitian; Senator Wyland; Senator Perata
Subject: AB 1634 as amended July 1, 2008 - Opposed
Subject: AB 1634 as amended July 1, 2008 - OPPOSED
Dear Honorable Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee:
AB 1634 will severely damage California's travel and tourism business. Cost to local governemts will require state bail out. The state budget is already in crisis. California cannot afford a huge blow to its state tax revenues. Vote NO on AB1634.
[BSL-UPDATES] Fw: Forced Dog Sterilization In Trouble
New Evidence Points To Disaster If
Chicago Passes Pet Sterilization Law
Los Angeles, Louisville In Deep Trouble – Is Dallas Next?
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonl ine.net
CHICAGO, IL – Aldermen supporting an ordinance calling for the sterilization of all pets say they want to model the program after the City of Los Angeles, which passed a similar ordinance earlier this year.
If Los Angeles is the model, then the City of Chicago will be in deep financial trouble, according to a recent audit of the Los Angeles animal control program. The Los Angeles program has been virtually bankrupted in only six months, and the ordinance hasn’t even taken effect yet, according to the audit report.
Chicago will be in even deeper trouble if it follows in the footsteps of Louisville, KY, which also passed an ordinance this year that imposes high license fees for intact dogs, financial records from that city show. The entire fiscal backbone of Louisville’s animal control program has collapsed, and the Louisville shelter system has become a slaughterhouse since the ordinance was passed.
That’s bad news for the Chicago city budget, which already is trying to make up a $50 million shortfall for this year. But there is even worse news for the highly evolved and successful network of private animal shelters in Chicago.
Those private shelters may stand to lose $40,000 in vital Maddie’s Fund money immediately, and many times that amount in the future. Maddie’s Fund’s policy is not to award grants to communities to help implement mandatory spay and neuter ordinances, internal documents show.
The irony is that Chicago has one of the best sheltering systems on Earth, formed around the Chicago Animal Shelter Alliance. CASA is a coalition of municipal and private shelters in the city, and works closely with other shelters in the metropolitan area.
CASA’s success has been nothing short of spectacular, and the city is very close to achieving coveted no-kill status honestly, with no manipulation of statistics. The CASA 2007 annual report shows that only 445 healthy dogs were euthanized, and both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates continued a 12-year-long unbroken string of major improvements.
It is no exaggeration to say that the CASA program is working perfectly. Now the city aldermen want to fix it, when it certainly isn’t broken. The aldermen are being prodded by the PAWS program, which is the smallest shelter program in the city but by far the wealthiest and most visible.
PAWS founder and Chairman Paula Fasseas is a disciple of the radical Humane Society of the United States. HSUS is working toward a long-range goal of eliminating animals from American life. PAWS recently completed a luxurious $9 million shelter to house only 70 animals in separate rooms. Crystal chandeliers adorn the lobby, and fund-raisers are diamond-studded black tie affairs. Fasseas has a lot of clout in Chicago, and a lot of political influence with some members of City Council.
Based on new evidence from Los Angeles and Louisville, the ordinance that is being pushed by PAWS and HSUS is likely to destroy the success of the CASA sheltering system. This new evidence reiterates the lessons learned by every other American community that has passed a spay and neuter mandate: It will be a disaster. No one has been able to make this grand scheme of the animal rights movement actually work.
There also is a strong message in the new evidence for the City of Dallas, which passed a similar ordinance in July. Dallas just hired a new program manager for $100,000 a year, a retreaded shelter manager named Kent Robertson, who was unable to make changes in Dallas before he moved to Houston to oversee a similar ordinance there that has failed totally and left the shelter system in chaos. License sales in Houston have plummeted, while shelter admissions and euthanasia rates have soared. Now, Robertson is coming back to Dallas to try the same approach, even as it is failing in Los Angeles and Louisville.
The Los Angeles Audit
The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance this year that mandates spaying and neutering of virtually all dogs. In theory, the ordinance allows for owners of intact dogs used for show, performance events or breeding to buy expensive special licenses, provided they work through an approved registry. Thus far, no dog registry, including the American Kennel Club, has been approved.
The ordinance is supposed to take effect October 1 but animal control revenues have already plunged, an August 19 audit by City Controller Laura Chick shows.
According to the audit report, license sales and revenues have dropped substantially and the program’s budget is drenched in red ink.
Chick’s fiscal audit found the Los Angeles Animal Services Department has lost “millions of dollars” in revenue by failing to license and renew the licenses of hundreds of thousands of dogs.
A reported 27 animal control officers will have to be laid off, the city doesn’t have the money to open a new $14 million satellite shelter, there has been no money to pay for any of the required community outreach and no money is available to enforce the new ordinance
"If you don't put something behind (the ordinance), then it's a feel-good gesture, and we don't want to be a city that does empty feel-good gestures," City Controller Chick said. "I always think that legislators should research, not only the outcomes and impacts ... but should always research and ask questions about enforcement. Otherwise we, government, run the danger of enacting legislation that is not going to be enforced, which to me is the clearest of messages to our citizenry and our public -- go ahead and be a scofflaw, nothing's going to happen."
Los Angeles also has stalled on a plan to create satellite centers for spay and neuter procedures, as veterinarians simply aren’t signing up to do the job, the audit shows.
In a related matter, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America recently performed an analysis of animal control costs, which showed that 90-percent of the budget is for fixed costs to maintain and operate facilities, pay for administration, operate vehicles and pay for bare bones staffing, regardless of the number of animals housed.
Louisville Evidence
The Louisville Kennel Club has obtained and is analyzing fiscal data for the city’s animal control program, as part of evidence gathering for a federal lawsuit against the new ordinance. The ordinance requires owners of unsterilized pets to pay high license fees and submit to home inspections.
Here are some of the preliminary results for Louisville:
The city shelter was built to house 80 animals. It has been flooded with abandoned pets, and now has to care for between 400 and 450 animals.
Euthanasia rates have risen to 70-percent since the ordinance was passed.
Less that 10-percent of the animals brought to the shelter are reclaimed by their owners.
Revenues from the sale of licenses for unaltered pets have fallen by 48-percent.
Staff time is stretched thin by a 30-percent increase in the number of required investigations.
A part of the ordinance dealing with dangerous dogs has led to the identification of only 28 dogs (in a city of 700,000 people) that fall under this category.
Costs to city government are skyrocketing.
The Louisville Kennel Club is analyzing all of the data, and will release a full report soon.
Maddie’s Fund Losses
Maddie’s Fund is a national philanthropic organization dedicated to supporting “no-kill” shelters and programs. “No-kill” means a goal of not euthanizing any healthy or adoptable animals.
A policy statement says: “Maddie's Fund® does not provide funding for government programs, including state and local animal care and control mandates. This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as to other requirements imposed by federal, state and local legislation.”
Grants from Maddie’s Fund have been a vital element in starting and improving many no-kill shelters around the country, and Chicago’s Tree House Humane Society has been approved for a $40,000 starter grant. This is the initial grant, and much larger grants normally would follow.
Maddie’s Fund reportedly has funded several other Chicago programs in the past.
Because of the policy statement, it appears that all Maddie’s Fund grants to Chicago would be in danger of being lost if this ordinance is approved.
Most members of CASA have not announced a position on the new ordinance. PAWS is the only Chicago group that publicly supports it.
However, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the nation’s largest animal sheltering organization), the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association staunchly oppose spay and neuter mandates.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is totally opposed to this ordinance, as is a local association of Chicago dog owners that is in the process of organizing.
What You Can Do To Help
It is very important for dog owners to take action before City Council meets again in early September. This ordinance can be stopped if strong opposition arises from every neighborhood in Chicago, and from all segments of the dog community.
Please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and the newly forming Chicago group. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com) and Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com).
Next, please contact your friends and members and officers of any clubs or organizations you belong to that can help. These include dog clubs, sportsmen’s clubs, farmers’ groups and firearms rights organizations. Hunters, farmers and firearms enthusiasts know that these kinds of laws stem from animal rights groups that also want to eliminate hunting, raising animals for food and the right to keep and bear arms.
It is very important to contact members of the City Council as soon as possible. Letters sent by surface mail are the most effective, followed by faxes and phone calls. Emails are the least effective. Even if they are brief, personal letters are much more effective than form letters.
Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalProgramAction.do? programId=536879154&channelId=-536879035&topChannelName=Government.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with all breeds of dogs, and especially with a focus on the breeds that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
[BSL-UPDATES] MSN for pit bulls passes first council vote unanimously (Manteca, CA)
Second and final vote on this ordinance is Tuesday, September 2, 2008.
New law snips pits
Written by Ben Marrone Friday, 22 August 2008
News
MANTECA ― The city took aim at pit bulls this week with a new law that will force owners to spay or neuter these pets if they want to keep them in Manteca for more than 30 days.
In an effort to strengthen Manteca’s vicious dog laws, the City Council voted unanimously Monday, Aug. 18 to adopt a law that requires all pit bulls and pit bull mixes in the city to be sterilized before they’re eight weeks old.
The law makes exceptions for licensed breeders, but to qualify for a breeder’s permit, the owner must enter the pit bull in a dog show at least once every two years, among other conditions.
Councilmen offered support for the law and shared dog attack stories on Monday night.
Councilman John Harris described how a chow once “turned on my granddaughter’s face,” while
Councilman Steve DeBrum said he witnessed a German shepherd attack a friend’s dog.
“Having been bitten by a dog a long time ago I’ve learned ― I don’t trust any dog,” said
Councilman Jack Snyder.
Mayor Willie Weatherford said the problem with the city’s current vicious dog laws is that they can only be used after an attack, while the new law could prevent such incidents.
“When you’ve spayed and neutered an animal … what you do is make them more friendly,” Weatherford explained.
Police Chief Dave Bricker said the council had asked police to come up with a stronger ordinance after a slew of pit bull attacks in 2007, one of which resulted in a “serious injury to a small child.”
While the city’s current vicious dog laws are already tougher than the state’s measures, Bricker told the council that Manteca could go even further with a spaying and neutering requirement.
State law prohibits cities from banning a certain breed of dog outright, but forcing one breed to be sterilized is OK.
The city has logged 22 dog attacks since January, according to police spokesman Rex Osborn, but he said it would be difficult to separate the attacks by breed.
No one at Monday’s meeting spoke against the sterilization requirement, but Manteca resident and self-described “animal lover” Deby Provost told the council that it should apply to all breeds.
“I’m a firm believer in spaying and neutering no matter what the breed,” Provost said, adding that a law that applied only to pit bulls was “kind of like racial profiling.”
Stockton passed a law in October that requires all dogs and cats in the city to be neutered or spayed, while Ripon has required pit bull sterilization since 2003.
Bricker said that animal control officers would enforce the law only as they come into contact with pit bulls, either on a call for service or at the dog’s annual licensing.
Anyone caught with an unaltered pit bull will be forced to pay $100 to have the pet spayed or neutered. A second violation would be a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine or 6 months in prison.
Councilmen will have to vote for a second time to ratify the law at their meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 2, and another 30 days must pass for the law to go into effect.
■ Comment on this story at www.sunpost.net, or to reach reporter Ben Marrone, call 239-6351.
My Account
close
