SB 250 is 9/12ths of the way there!

[lakotasong]

SB 250 is now on step 9 of a 12-step process to become law.

If you have not yet done so, please send an automatic letter (simple!) and join the email list.

SB 250 provides a reasonable, fiscally responsible step towards reducing pet overpopulation in California. The bill simply requires that dogs be spayed or neutered unless their owner/guardian obtains an unaltered dog license when they license their animal.

SB 250 also requires that roaming cats be spayed and neutered by their owner/guardian.

SB 250 The Pet Responsibility Act, is:

* Fair. Licensed dogs may be left unaltered if the owner/ guardian chooses. Owners cited for violating local or state laws may have their license revoked or be required to spay or neuter.

* Fiscally responsible. SB 250 saves the state millions of dollars by reducing homeless pets.

* Proven. Spay and neuter laws have been shown effective for over 10 years. In one community, the number of homeless animals was reduced by over 60% after a similar law was implemented4.

* Forward thinking. Similar spay and neuter legislation is currently being introduced across the country, as legislators nationwide confront the high costs associated with pet overpopulation.

* Provides due process. A full and fair hearing process is provided for matters related to citations.

* Flexible. License costs, fines and implementation details are at the discretion of local jurisdictions.

* Widely supported. A diverse coalition of elected officials, law enforcement agencies, city and county agencies, humane societies and SPCAs, veterinarians and veterinary hospitals, national animal welfare organizations, California rescue organizations, and thousands of individuals and organizations support spay and neuter legislation like SB 250.

The time has come for SB 250 The Pet Responsibility Act, a common sense, fiscally responsible method for reducing California’s tragic, expensive pet overpopulation crisis.



For more information, please visit Social Compassion

[lakotasong]

Also on the table currently is The Responsible Breeder Act:

AB 241, The Responsible Breeder Act, is well on its way to becoming a full fledged law!

Assemblyman Nava’s bill addresses the problems puppy mills create by limiting the number of intact cats or dogs a seller can maintain to 50. This bill does not impact animal shelters, research facilities, pet stores, veterinarians, groomers or boarding facilities. By limiting the number of animals who can reproduce, this legislation will make enforcement of existing state law possible and enable animal control to more effectively and efficiently deal with complaints about dogs and cats living in squalid conditions and receiving inadequate care. This legislation also addresses pet overpopulation and the stress that large-scale breeders place on animal shelters and our communities. Legislation limiting the number of dogs in puppy mills was passed in 2008 in Louisiana and Virginia. Public concern about the inhumane conditions in puppy mills is at an all-time high, due to recent national news coverage and several large-scale cruelty investigations and rescues. Outraged citizens are demanding an end to puppy mills.



Please show your support for this bill by calling the California Senate Committee on Public Safety or sending an electronic letter. Further information found on AB 241 - The Responsibile Breeder Act

[elegy]

Originally Posted by summitview

* Proven. Spay and neuter laws have been shown effective for over 10 years. In one community, the number of homeless animals was reduced by over 60% after a similar law was implemented4.

proof please. along with what happened to their shelter kill rates in the same period.

[lakotasong]

Originally Posted by elegy

proof please. along with what happened to their shelter kill rates in the same period.

The information is from Social Compassion, you can inquire there as to the citations. I have no clue what municipalities they are referring to.

On the same note, however, I can provide a couple of instances from my own research paper...

California is one of the leading states in the humane legislative field. Stanislaus County enacted mandatory spay and neuter legislation at the beginning of 2006. In that year, the number of dogs taken into the county’s shelters declined nearly 10% to 9,549. In the previous year, the county had sheltered 10,400 dogs. Santa Cruz County passed similar legislation in 1995. Over the next eight years, the county experienced a 56% decrease in the number of dogs sheltered. The city of Watsonville, however, did not adopt the ordinance until 2004, and in the same eight years experienced an increase of nearly 400% in shelter dog intakes (California Taxpayers for Safe and Healthy Pets [A] 2008). The city of Lakeport enacted a mandatory spay and neuter policy in July of 2006. During that fiscal year, 75 dogs were euthanized at the shelter. The following year, only 43 met their deaths. Finally, in 2008, only 23 dogs were put to death in the Lakeport shelter. A steady decline is obvious – the mandatory spay and neuter policy in place is working. The county of Lake also passed the same ordinance as Lakeport in July of 2006. The first year it was enacted, 486 dogs were killed. What followed was a steady annual decrease to 325 and finally, in 2008, to a mere 160. The city of Clearlake also adopted the same policy as the city of Lakeport and the county of Lake. Again, the death toll steadily decreased in this city, dropping from 273 to 242 and finally to 83, between the years 2005 and 2008 (Werner 2008).

REFERENCES:

California Taxpayers for Safe and Healthy Pets [A] (2008). Universal Spaying and Neutering Worked for Santa Cruz County. Retrieved from http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/2008 Santa Cruz Works.pdf

Werner, Paula (2008). Lake County Animal Care & Control Program Coordinator. Annual Euthanasia Statistics. Received from personal e-mail and phone interview October 29th, 2008.

[JennSLK]

If your for it Im against it. Im sorry Summit but you are a PETA in hiding.

[Dekka]

Originally Posted by JennSLK

If your for it Im against it. Im sorry Summit but you are a PETA in hiding.

LOL that pretty much sums it up for me.

But really I think these ideas are stupid and misguided. They will only harm dogs in the long run. (but hey thats not what ARistas care about it is..)

[lakotasong]

Originally Posted by JennSLK

If your for it Im against it.

How logical and mature. And it's "you're."

But no, I am not a PETA member (though I know that's the easy way to try and invalidate someone you disagree with around here).

I am, however, a member of Dogs Deserve Better, In Defense of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States. I also volunteer heavily for the Sled Dog Action Coalition. I do use some articles which PETA puts out, but do not choose to become a member because I disagree with too many of their practices.

Originally Posted by Dekka

But really I think these ideas are stupid and misguided. They will only harm dogs in the long run. (but hey thats not what ARistas care about it is..)

This makes no sense to me, since plenty of folks who support such legislation (myself included) have dogs, compete with their dogs, and support truly ethical breeding. It's very easy to point fingers and use broad scare tactics when it comes to animal rights in relation to dogs... But that's what most of it is, just scare tactics. If one actually takes time to read the ordinances and theories, you will see that it is perfectly safe for dogs who have truly ethical, responsible guardians. And the dogs without such guardians will be placed into homes with them. Being guardian to a dog should be a privilege, not a right.

(I'm ready)

[Dekka]

nah its not worth my time. If you honestly can't see where this is going... you need to pull the blinders off.

[JennSLK]

Originally Posted by summitview

How logical and mature. And it's "you're."

But no, I am not a PETA member (though I know that's the easy way to try and invalidate someone you disagree with around here).

I am, however, a member of Dogs Deserve Better, In Defense of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States.

Enough said right there. PETA, HSUS same thing really. And yes let's start correcting each other's spelling to make us look better.

HSUS are sick and twisted individuals. Period

[corgipower]

I need the text of the bill before I know how I feel. Not a link to some other site that's filled with propaganda - a link to the bill itself.