IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR BOB BARKER ...
Part of being a tree hugging, latte sipping, arugula eating elitist liberal is that I am required to care about animal rights. Thus, at the expense of taking a stand on which Wendy McCaw might agree, I feel the need to talk about a recent Independent article titled Supes Pass Spay/Neuter Ball Back to Staff. After spending about 5 minutes trying to figure out exactly what that means, I dove into the story. If you don't want to read it yourself, here's a quote that pretty much sums it up:
Legislation addressing this issue [pet population problem] and coauthored by Assemblymember Pedro Nava is making its way through the state: the California Healthy Pets Act, a two-year bill from 2007, which would require owners to spay or neuter most dogs and cats. All registered purebreds and animals used for herding, as well as police, service, and rescue dogs, would be exempt, however ...
This isn't the first time I've heard of such laws being bandied about in California, and I've actually had past discussions with some of my friends regarding this important issue. What fired me up enough to write this post, however, can be summed up with another quote from the article:
The matter was in front of the Board of Supervisors May 6, and more than 120 people showed to speak at the meeting, the room split for and against a countywide ordinance ...
The room split ... really!? I've heard the arguments, read the debates, thought about the issues; and for the life of me, I just can't understand who would be against this. Yet, half -- that's right, half -- the people showed up at the meeting to fight it.
Here's the thing ... our animal shelters are hugely overcrowded. By one account; 160,000 dogs are euthanized each year in California due to the simple fact that there is not enough room to properly take care of them. That means that nearly one out of every four dogs is ultimately euthanized in our shelters. Think about that. I mean, how can you not support a law that might help this situation?
It seems to me that the only people who have a legitimate reason to be against this (e.g. breeders and such) would be exempt. So, who are these 60 people that felt strongly enough to go in front of the Board of Supervisors and argue that this is a bad idea? What is the downside here? I really want to know.
In those discussions with my friends, the only real argument made against such an ordinance was that it would reduce the diversity of dogs and that we would end up with nothing but purebreds. I have sympathy for this opinion given that I've owned nothing but mixed breeds in my life. However, I just don't buy that this would be the ultimate effect. The fact is that a law such as this would not completely prevent dogs from reproducing; there would still be strays running around and -- let's be honest -- some people would simply ignore the law (as they do with all laws).
If this ordinance were extremely effective, my gut tells me it might reduce the number of dogs in shelters by half. That would be phenomenal! And guess what: it would increase the chances that those remaining dogs would actually be wanted.
Imagine that.
posted by Trekking Left @ 6:32 PM
25 comments
25 Comments:
It IS difficult to see why anyone would oppose something like mandatory S/N that is a preventive measure to mitigate the problem, and not the broken, inhumane and insane system of pet paopulation control by euthanasia. Horribly expensive, difficut for animal control staff, and just plain horrifying, period. Legitimate breeders fear not! The backyard, under the radar breeders who don't have business licenses, don't register and don't pay sales and income taxes while flooding the state with dogs and then sticking us taxpayers with the bill--your time is just about up! The animals are paying the price for your greed and indifference to suffering. These programs work --proven, with quantified results. This opposition is about money, folks--well financed, too. So write to your SB supes and demand that they say yes to mandatory s/n and give a pat on the back to the ones who already do. And also--these same moneygrubbers are busy opposing AB 1634 as well. It is in Committee in the Senate--get to your Senators and tell them to support the bill--and your city councils, etc. Get involved--you can make a difference! LOok at LA, Santa Cruz--it's happening in Houston, in Kansas, in Chicago--Yoo hoo, AKC....weeeerrreeee hhhheeerrreee!!!!
thanks for your post on this. i was there too. and the room was not split---the locals were by far in support of this. The breeders who are opposed are well-organized, out of the area anti-any government "interference" folks. who have now derailed a well thought out, locally driven proposal strongly urged by animal controlstaff-who have to deal with the overabundance of kittens, puppies and mixed-breeds brought into the SB shelters on a daily basis
The proposed mandatory age for spay/neutering is too young! I agree pets should be neutered, but not at an age that impacts their growth and future health.
The solution in Santa Barbara County to pet over-population would be 1) Strictly enforce the requirement to license dogs and require cats to be licensed too and 2) Charge a great deal more for unneutered/unspayed dogs and cats that are over the age of 6 months; charge huge fines for those whose pets are not licensed.
At present, it only costs $22 more a year for a license for an unneutered dog and a mere $21 fine for an unlicensed dog. Cats don't even need to be licensed.
It important that you know that the majority of the opposition who were present were from out of the area. These people were bussed in by PACs and Lobbyists who are adamantly against ANY such ordinance or legislation. So while they may say that the room was split the reality is that there were over 80 local proponents ans less than 24 locals in opposition.
What is even more disturbing is the fact that our county Sups chose to ignore the majority of people (citizens of the county), the facts as presented by unbiased studies, the experts who run the shelters, the vets, and the successes of such programs elsewhere.
The Sups simply ignored all the evidence and the wishes of the locals and voted no.
Once again our elected officials ignore the will of the people in exchange for their own self serving interests.
My only problem with this ordinance is that it doesn't go far enough. Why limit it to only pets. The number one enviromental problem, by far, is over population (of humans). Since it seems to be polically incorrect to call for actual immigration enforcement perhaps we will have better luck with mandatory S/N of humans....
As the primary proponent of the ordinance, I can tell you that the Independent's coverage was grossly inaccurate. We had 80 speakers in favor, all but one from SB County; the opposition had 49, many from L.A. and even northern California. The Board did NOT pass the measure back to staff; they decided to form a citizen "task force" composed of people appointed by each Board member -- i.e., a polarized group representing the two sides, not a study group composed of experts. And the taskforce was not given any kind of charge or direction.
We had all the facts; all the opposition had was a right-wing whine about how government shouldn't tell people what to do with their pets. Well, the government already tells us we have to license our dogs, tie them up properly in pickup trucks, provide minimum care . . . the list goes on. The real problem with Tuesday's vote was that we have a conservative, anti-regulatory Board that would rather subsidize the irresponsibility of pet owners than cut the budget by pushing responsibility back on those who are burdening our shelter system with unwanted dogs and cats.
And lest anyone think there isn't a problem in this county: I have 18 foster animals at my house, that I had to rush home to take care of after the Board killed my ordinance. Seven of those are mixed breed puppies dumped in the overnight cage at the shelter on May 2nd.
Excessive breeding causing misery.
Much thanks to everyone who responded (especially Anon 11:07 AM). I now have a much clearer picture of the situation and understand the forces who are against the measure.
I have to say, however, that I'm more angry than ever. The fact that a bunch of outsiders with a conservative political agenda can come in and derail something that the community desires is so frustrating.
You know, the Right always talks about smaller government. But that only seems to count for things they care about; it seems that they are more than happy to have big government when it suits their needs (e.g. listening in on your phone calls). And, quite frankly, their anti-regulatory mantra leads us to things like the sub-prime mess.
At the end of the day, this should be about what's best for the animals ... not best for the Board.
Sorry - had a small typo -
1. Dogs and Cats are personal property.
2. It's UN-Constitutional to take away personal property without due recourse of law.
3. It's PROVEN UN-healthy to castrate/hysterectomy young animals - and age depends on the breed.
4. WHY are your rescue groups IMPORTING thousands of dogs every year from 3rd world countries???
Think on these first - then re-visit your stance.
1. true.
2. Right, that's why people are proposing a law.
Limiting the additional animals that your (or my) "property" creates is almost certainly good for our society overall. That's what laws are for.
It's kind of like the motorcycle helmet law. In theory, sure, nobody should tell you how to ride. But in reality, the burden of fixing your broken head falls on the rest of us when you show up at the hospital with no insurance.
3. What "proof"? Give us a link or two.
It could be completely against the norm, but my dog was neutered at 6 months and is still running around like a puppy at 12 1/2.
4. What? Where'd you hear that? Again, give us a link or some other proof of that claim.
Has Santa Barbara succeded from the USA. is it agaisnt the law to have any one from the "outside" have a say?
Have any of you looked at NO KILL? as am alternative? Why is every preceived "problem" met with "there ought to be a law".
Santa Barbara killed 600 dogs last year.. who know why the AC person who was asked had no idea..there are 400,00 thousand people in SB.. is this a "problem".? the numbers have DROPPED EVERY YEAR .. and are getting better and better.. but hey wait.. "there ought to be a law"..why bother with statistics and education.. and POSITIVE projects.. ban em .. spay em castrate em.. It is the American way.. oh and don't forget.. fine 'em.. arrest 'em a and take their property..like a proper "Merican should...
Anon, you think the Constitution has any relevance to life in modern day Amerika? Don't be naive. BTW, George W. is watching you.
You people need to get your heads out of your ass , And OLD Bob Barker show be in jail for Sex Harassment on the model who work on his show . Who would want that old man dic-.
You all need to read
Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America
by Nathan J. Winograd
Voluntary low-cost spay/neuter is the answer, not taking the rights of pet owners away and forcing early castration and spay on all animals. There are many health reasons NOT to spay/neuter early. See the link here
http://goodpups.googlepages.com/spay-neuterhealtheffects
It is a complex issue, best left for the pet owner and veterinarian to decide on a case by case basis.
Also, there is a better way--low cost spay/neuter and education. Mandating what pet owners do with their own pets is big government gone amuk. Education is already working. The numbers have been going down dramatically for 20 years.
As to the people speaking at the hearing on May 6 in Santa Barbara, I was there, I am local. Nearly all of the opponents were local. Those in favor brought in a purported "expert" from Santa Cruz and another one from Lake County, and a bunch of LA County people as well. Although the proponents may have submitted 76 speaker slips, while the opponents submitted 49, many of the supporters left and never spoke, (were they ever there?) and the local opponents stayed and spoke from their hearts. I love dogs, but this "solution" is nothing but more and more government control. I favor the "carrot" not the "stick" approach to this issue.
Hmmm... I was there. I listened to each and every speaker. I even spoke myself. I'm a long time Santa Barbara resident. I am not a breeder, I'm not money grubbing, my dogs are legally licensed and I am against MANDATORY spay/neuter. I'm against it because I don't want a law that tells me when I have to neuter my dog. I'm against it because I don't want PETA and HSUS getting their disgusting claws into our county. Talk about money grubbing.
I was one of many locals who spoke against the ordinance. I don't know of any out of towners that were "bussed in". Many came, on their own dime, because the care about the future of our animals. But the locals speaking againsts the ordinance far out numbered the out of towners who spoke against the ordinance. The proof is in the video archives.
I don't breed dogs. I've had dogs for my entire life. Sometimes I've even had an intact male and female at the same time. But I've never produced any puppies, not even once, not ever. I want my dogs to stay intact until they reach full physical maturity - around two years old - at which time I will voluntarily spay and neuter. I would even be willing to pay a slightly higher licensing fee, as long as that fee is donated to low and no cost spay and neuter programs.
There are health consequences to spaying too young, especially if you have an athletic dog that does agility, or flyball, or is a frisbee dog.
I am not the problem because I am a responsible dog owner. So, I resent the government making medical decisions about my dog's current and future health.
Good enough for Bob Barker is good enough for you?? LOL.. you are really BELOW average...
Yawn another .. it just like the helmet law.. guess what .. YOU CAN TAKE OFF A HELMET AND PUT IT ON AT WILL.. it is a bit difficult to stuff ovaries back into a pet.. and to tack the testicles back onto a dog..perhaps people should be forced to wear helmets all day every day from the time they are 6 months old until death..that way "we' will be protected from paying for them.. if they fall down, slip, get into an accident.. or are unable to keep their brains intact any other way...and while we are at it.. no cars,, bikes.. motorcycles.. no bath tubs.. ballons or slippers.. all of these cause DEATH every year...the very best way to make sure the dog and cat population is controlled is a small thing.. it is called a lEASH and we ALREADY have laws that call for leashes.. at least for dogs.. the KILL popualtion of most shelters .. including yours .. is FERAL cats.. with NO owners.. so how do you propose to castrate them.. who will "pay". As for "difficult for animal control staff".. why do they work there is it so "difficult"? No one forces them.. The "average" man or woman does not stay in a job they do not like.
Mikey..where has this "program" worked? I can tell you NO WHERE..
Here is an "average" question for the 'average" guy.. what happens if the state FORCES you to castrate your pet agsint your will and the pet DIES?
What happens if you pay the fine of 500 and still do not have your pet castrated? Will the 'state" confiscate your property ( your pet). Will you go to jail ( at HUGE taxpayers expense)?
This is ludicrious when the numbers of animals killed is DROPPING every year.. EVERY YEAR.. get it.. GOING DOWN.. but it will never be "enough" for some people// like "Mikey" who obvioulsy knows nothing about pets .. or anything else.. I pity the world if these people are 'average"...what does that make the "slighty below average"?? I shudder to think
...I am not the problem because I am a responsible dog owner. So, I resent the government making medical decisions about my dog's current and future health.
I agree w/ anon on that one. Catch twenty two anon, as a responsible owner you are vastly outnumbered by cretins. I hate big gubbermint intrusion, so I am reticent to suggest this, but maybe they could make provision for waivers or something?
Average guy asked for "proof" that dogs are being brought in.. here you go:
The Center for Disease Control.. states that in 2006 a stagering 300,000 dogs were brought form foriegn sources into the USA.. this does not count those thousands smuggled in across the mexican border. So there you go in black and white..
Wow, the tone of the comments sure took a 180; somebody must have spread the word :) ... Anyway, a few thoughts:
1) The Bob Barker thing is just a silly headline. Let it go.
2) There's been a lot of discussion about the negative health effects of spaying/neutering too young, but is this fact or speculation? And what does the ordinance actually say about the age? It seems to me that -- if an overwhelming number of vets say it's safe -- we kind of have to go with the best science we have. This sort of feels to me like people who say that global warming is a myth even though the vast majority of scientists say it isn't. Here's my question ... if the ordinance said you had to spay/neuter your pet at 2 years, would you folks be okay with it then?
3) I've noticed that no one is really talking about the other benefits of spaying/neutering. It is a fact, for example, that this procedure can make a dog less aggressive. As a responsible pet owner, I really can't understand why you wouldn't want to do this as a general principal. When I'm walking my dog, I am quite wary of unneutered male dogs that cross my path. And, by the way, your dog doesn't know or care that they've been spayed/neutered.
4) A couple of comments mentioned the fact that the number of animals killed is going down every year. This is a red herring ... Santa Barbara shelters have a no kill policy; that's why the number is going down. But that doesn't mean the overpopulation problem is getting better.
5) The biggest argument here seems to be of the "I want the government out of my hair" flavor. Look, no one wants the government breathing down their neck. But we are a country of laws, and they are there for our best interest. Without laws, there is anarchy. This is pretty much the same argument made by the NRA when fighting gun safety laws, and I don't buy it for that either. This is better for society as a whole ... including people who love animals.
6) I'm not going to entertain the thing about animals coming in from other countries. That's like blaming immigration for our health care system. It doesn't change a thing about validity of the spay/neuter debate.
I'm going to go back to my original statement that this is about what's best for the animals. It only takes one trip to a shelter to realize pet overpopulation is a big problem, and people who support this law believe it will help. The "volunteer" approach is clearly not working (just like it doesn't work with polluters), so now it IS time for a stick.
No "red hereing'.. the number of animals killed in EVERY shleter across Ca is going DOWN on average.. and has been.. No one disagrees with spay/castrate. We all can agree that surgery is a risk. When you ( or your pet) has surgery you MUST sign a waiver saying that it is voluntary and you ( or your pet) could die. S in this vein.. the government intervention is no differnt that you being fored inot a surgery you do not want.. and being fined for it if you do not comply.This law takes the care of your property out of our hands and out it into the vets who is forced to write youe a "note" every 90 days to take to the "principal" AKA Animal Control to show you are in compliance with the law.. Do vets want to be the sole person making medical decisions for YOU.. do you want that.. I sure don't.and neither do VETS.That is why the California Veterinary Medical Association does NOT support MSC ( thats Mandatory spay/castrate. thye do not want to be the "watchdogs" (excuse the pun)of your pet.. Medical decisions of owned pets should be made by the owner and the vet.. not by the government...
The "volunteer" approach is certainly working. that is why shelter numbers for DOGS is going down.. feral UNOWNED cats are another story.. but this laws does not affect them does it? They have NO owners..and make up a huge percentage of animals killed in CA shelters. The CVMA reports that over 85% of owned cats are ALREADY castrated.. and over 75% of owned dogs..
Someon here called dog owners who do not castrate 'cretins"..don;t forget to put your helmet on before going to bed...you might fall out and hurt yourself...
Anon (5:45 PM) - You said "the number of animals killed in EVERY shleter across Ca is going DOWN on average.. and has been"
Does that mean the number of dogs ENTERING shelters is also going down? Please clarify.
You also said "No one disagrees with spay/castrate"
Then why oppose the law? If you are correct that 75% of owned dogs are spayed/neutered, then the owners of the other 25% aren't doing it. And don't say the other 25% are breeders or whatever, because then you are really saying all dog owners are being responsible.
You also said - "When you ( or your pet) has surgery you MUST sign a waiver saying that it is voluntary and you ( or your pet) could die. S in this vein.. the government intervention is no differnt that you being fored inot a surgery you do not want."
I get that this bothers you, and I agree that there is risk with any surgery. But it's just not the same as you being forced to have surgery. Your pet (and I say this as an animal lover) does not get a say in this matter. I would also add that the risk is minimal compared to the death rate of euthanized dogs, which is 100%. That's who I'm trying to fight for here.
Yes, the number of dogs entering shelters all over CA, including Santa Barbara, has been going down for 20 years. In Santa Barbara, intake of animals has gone down 25% in the last 5 years.
The problem with spay/neuter is the MANDATORY part. Most owners choose to spay/neuter but they should be permitted to make that choice, and should also be permitted to decide WHEN to do it. Early spay/neuter CHANGES the health and condition of a dog.
We oppose the law because
1. It forces early spay/neuter when that is not the best choice for many dogs. Didn't you see my earlier post with a lengthy, footnoted, well-researched article on the health effects?
http://goodpups.googlepages.com/spay-neuterhealtheffects
To quote a small passage: "One cannot ignore the increased risk from osteosarcoma,hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less frequently occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs."
2. Other alternatives to forcing owners to make a potentially unhealthy choice for their pet work better. Education, low cost spay/neuter, spay and release of feral cats, etc, etc.
3. The law also forces owners to submit to government inspection of their homes simply because they have an intact pet.
4. Enforcement would cost money, no enforcement does nothing. There is no source of funding for enforcement in the proposal.
5. It is impossible to draft a blanket ban and include "exemptions" (actually you have to qualify for and buy an annual permit to keep an intact dog) that would be fair and include everyone who should be included.
Why shouldn't an owner be allowed to choose whether or not to submit his/her pet to surgery? What are they doing to cause a problem? Prove that to me. It is extremely rare for a shelter to take in a healthy puppy. Why do we need to be regulated? We are an easy target I suppose. I, for one, would rather support funding for low/no cost spay/neuter clinics to make spay/neuter affordable to everyone who wants it than FORCE PEOPLE TO SPAY/NEUTER WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD IT OR WANT IT OR NOT. I have actually bred a couple of litters of chocolate Labradors from my show lines. My puppies are taken before they are born. I hold myself responsible for these puppies FOR LIFE and no puppy of mine would EVER be found in a shelter--over my dead body. I want my puppies to be spayed/neutered if they are not going to be shown (AKC shows/competition), but only after they are physically fully mature--it is more healthy for the dog. That is my choice. All responsible breeders follow these policies.
Anon (1:20 PM) - Well, you've done your homework; I'll give you that. And you've made some good arguments that I will consider. A couple things, though ...
1) You said "...than FORCE PEOPLE TO SPAY/NEUTER WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD IT OR WANT IT OR NOT."
This really sums up the issue for me. Firstly, if someone can't afford this procedure, they shouldn't have a pet. Properly taking care of a pet takes some coin. Secondly, it's not fair to me if someone doesn't get their pet spayed/neutered because "they don't want to" and then it makes a littre of puppies that gets dropped-off at the shelter.
2) The other point I'd like to make is that you tipped your hand a little here. You are a breeder, so this is why you are fighting so hard. Let's be honest: you're a little biased. If you were just an "average man" pet owner who cares about the number of dogs at shelters, would you be so passionate about this issue?
Hi Trekking left: I didn't "tip my hand"--I told you. I am not ashamed that I have bred a couple of litters. I am proud. They are healthy beautiful dogs who are owned by wonderful families. I am pretty average however. A 40 year resident of Santa Barbara, volunteer in all kinds of community groups and just a basic citizen. As a lover of dogs, I probably know a lot more about this issue than most of us. That is why I spoke up.
I agree that people who cannot afford to spay/neuter their dogs should not own them--but they DO own them, and unintentional litters are a problem. We need to help these people with low/no cost spay/neuter clinics, not threaten them with fines, etc. Carrot, not stick. Low cost spay and neuter options have already helped, along with education, and are still helping, and we need to keep going on that path. That way we can deal with those who are part of the problem, without hurting those of us who have a great hobby, showing and improving the health of dogs.
Post a Comment
<< Home