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.

:hail:

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]

* 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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[corgipower]

* 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 implemented

Save Our Dogs Track Record

Of the 58 counties in California, one of them has to have the highest euthanasia rates in their public animal shelters. That dubious honor goes to Lake County. Lake County is also one of the few counties in California that has a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

Here’s some comparisons (dogs+cats euthanized in 2007 in public animal shelters per 100,000 population)

Lake County, CA: 4560
USA national average: 1000-1300
California average: 1066
Nevada County, CA: 163
Calgary, Canada: 44
Lake County’s kill stats are more than 4 times higher than the California state average. Most jurisdictions in California do not have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 28 times higher than in Nevada County. Nevada County has made tremendous strides in reducing their shelter kill rates. Nevada County does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 104 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America. Calgary does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter, BSL, an extreme differential license fee for intact animals, or pet limit laws.

One might think that animal lovers and policy makers would take note of Lake County’s dismal track record.

For years, California’s supporters of mandatory spay/neuter laws have proclaimed that Santa Cruz County’s 1995 MSN ordinance is the “model for the stateâ€. Yet they never compare Santa Cruz County’s shelter stats to neighboring jurisdictions, or to California’s leaders in reducing shelter killing. That’s because on a per capita basis

Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are higher than those in nearby counties such as Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin — none of which have mandatory spay/neuter laws
Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 44% higher than San Diego County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are more than 4 times higher than Nevada County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 16 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America, where they also do not have mandatory spay/neuter

Save Our Dogs Track Record also has stats on other parts of the country where MSN has failed.

Debunking Pet Overpopulation : Nathan J Winograd

How many dogs and cats enter shelters annually?
8 million. (Some put it as low as 6 million, but I am going to use a “worst case†scenario.)

Of those how many are savable?
90 percent or just over 7 million.

Of those how many will be saved?
4 million.

How many of the savable animals are killed?
3 million.

How many need to find new homes?
If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR’d.

Other than those who will adopt from a shelter as a matter of course (those saved above), how many people in the U.S. are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their home next year but have not decided where they will get the animal and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter?
17 million. So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats.


Has this happened anywhere?
Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates.

How long did it take them?
They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making.

Are shelters doing all they can to influence those people to adopt from them?
This is a rhetorical question. Click here (audio) for an all-too-common experience shared with me by a potential adopter when I was assessing a local shelter.

Why don’t they do better?
A failure of leadership among the national animal welfare groups such as ASPCA and HSUS, a crisis of uncaring among shelter managers, unfettered discretion to avoid putting in place the programs and services that save lives, and the built in excuse of pet overpopulation.

 

[Dekka]

Thank you CP for some balancing info.

 

[corgipower]

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.

Not agreeing with PETA doesn't make you not be an ARist. Much of the AR community is opposed to PETA's tactics.

However, DDB, IDoA and HSUS all have close ties to PETA. The president of the HSUS was handpicked to run that organization by the president of PETA. They are all AR organizations.


Dekka, I'm always happy to help.

 

[lakotasong]

Read The Bill

 

[Danegirl2208]

Yeah. Just what we need. More laws telling people what they may or may not do with THEIR animals.

Nah- no thanks...I'll be sure to write in my opposition to the bill, and pass it along to others who will do the same. Thanks for the reminder though.




Some interesting information form the California department of finance:
You can read the whole article here:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/LIS_PDF/09/SB-250-20090624015733PM-SB00250.pdf

Mandatory spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level. According to the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), Los Angeles City experienced a 20 percent increase in shelter impounds and a 30 percent increase in shelter euthanasias after passage of a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance. NAIA also indicates that in Santa Cruz County, animal control costs doubled after mandatory spay and neuter ordinances were passed. Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick's 2008 audit on the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services found that the Department was "ill-prepared to implement or enforce mandatory spay and neuter law and that very few veterinarian providers are responding to the City's call for bids for services." The audit also found that, "though Animal Services is charged with enforcing the mandatory spay and neuter law, it does not intend to do so." The report goes on to state, "the Department, as it does with leash law and dog licensing, will rely on voluntary compliance." Expanding local animal control efforts would likely increase

This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund cost of the Animal Adoption mandate. The Animal Adoption mandate currently costs more than $24 million annually to reimburse local government
shelters’ cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or
surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines. This bill could create a new state-mandated local program by requiring local agencies to utilize existing
procedures or establish new procedures for unaltered dog license denials and appeals, which would create additional pressures on the General Fund. The increased administrative costs of these new tasks are unknown. Because fines for owning an unsterilized dog or cat would only be assessed if there were a concurrent citation for another violation, this bill would also limit local agencies' ability to collect additional revenue to
offset new costs associated with enforcing the bill's new provisions.

This bill would require owners and custodians of dogs and cats to "comply with impoundment procedures." While this language is vague and unclear, the most probable outcome is that owners and custodians of
dogs and cats will be forced to either pay for the cost of the sterilization procedure or abandon the animal to the licensing agency.

This bill would exempt hunting dogs, as specified, from the sterilization requirement; however does not exclude other working or herding breeds. Service dogs that work off lead, such as search and rescue dogs,
would also be subject to sterilization requirements. Exempting specific types of dogs from the sterilization could subject the state to litigation.

 

[Zoom]

So in a state where they are already trying to reduce the number of days animals have to be held in shelters, thereby increasing the kill rate, they also want to increase the number of spay/neuters, both of which are going to A) end up costing the state a fortune and B)make the overall pet population decline rapidly if these measures are implemented.

Thanks but I'll pass.

 

[Dekka]

So in a state where they are already trying to reduce the number of days animals have to be held in shelters, thereby increasing the kill rate, they also want to increase the number of spay/neuters, both of which are going to A) end up costing the state a fortune and B)make the overall pet population decline rapidly if these measures are implemented.

Thanks but I'll pass.

What you mean ARistas want less pets? I am shocked :yikes: /sarcasm.

 

[elegy]

and it's going to increase the impound rate because the people who can't afford to spay/neuter now aren't going to magically become able to spay/neuter if it becomes the law. more dogs killed in a shorter time. that's really the bottom line, i guess, especially as they'll be mostly poor peoples' dogs. that's one way to put a dent in the pit bull population, eh?

since when is it ok for the government to tell anybody that they have to have a major medical procedure done on their dog?? how can anybody not find that absolutely terrifying??

 

[Dekka]

Ah yes, but then it will achieve its goal. You kill off enough pets, make them hard to own, then you get the population down.

 

[AGonzalez]

Ick, I've read that bill before and it repulses me. How can anyone that claims to be a dog lover even remotely consider supporting this?
Oh goody. Uncle Sam wants to step in and tell me that I should neuter/spay my dog. It doesn't matter that 2/3 are unaltered and I am responsible enough to keep them from making more puppies.
So wait a second, imagine the government wants pet owners to spend MORE money (more spay/neuter) when they might not be able to afford it, especially in light of our crappy economy right now. So then what's next? Another government program to help those who can't afford it since it's mandatory...yeah that's something I want my taxes going to.

As for correcting JennSLK's spelling, well that was rude and uncalled for, if you intended on presenting yourself and swaying us to do your evil bidding (such as with that bill) then you just failed.