[DogAdvocat]

http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_6159878

Healthy Pets Act could save millions of dollars
Lloyd Levine
Article Launched: 06/16/2007 09:18:10 PM PDT


The California State Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 1634 - the California Healthy Pets Act - by a 41-38 vote. If enacted, this legislation would require most pets in California to be spayed or neutered.

I authored this measure because every year, nearly 1 million cats and dogs pass through the doors of animal control agencies throughout California. And every year, more than 50 percent of them - many perfectly healthy and adoptable - are euthanized by overcrowded shelters which are unable to find them good homes.

Perhaps those numbers don't bother you, but this one might: Collectively, our state and local governments are spending 259 million taxpayer dollars to house and care for dogs and cats in animal shelters each year. That figure doesn't include the cost of killing and disposing of about half a million dogs and cats each year. When you include those costs plus the intake and processing costs, the total price tag climbs to well over $300 million each year. In addition, stray dogs roam through many neighborhoods, increasing the danger of dog bites and the transmission of rabies.

Under AB 1634, dog and cat owners who don't comply would be cited if their pet comes in contact with a local animal control officer, but will be given time to spay or neuter their pets before a fine would be assessed. A portion of those fines would be used to expand the availability of free or low-cost spay and neuter programs.

The vast majority of people I've spoken with about this measure are very supportive. We've received over 7,000 letters of support in my office, hundreds of phone calls, and many willing volunteers asking how they can help get AB 1634 signed into law. These people come to us from animal shelters, rescue groups, law enforcement agencies and veterinarian groups - a wide array of backgrounds united by the common goal of reducing the number of pets needlessly killed each year.

But with any high-profile legislation there is always a vocal opposition as well, and in this case, breeders from across the nation have gone on the offensive. They will stop at nothing to defeat this common-sense measure - even if it means calling local Assembly members and threatening them with relocating their AKC National Championship out of Long Beach. These threats were made despite the fact that this bill very specifically and expressly exempts show dogs and animals from out of state.

I commend Long Beach-area Assemblymembers Laura Richardson and Betty Karnette, who would not be bullied or intimidated by these unfortunate and undeserved threats. They read the legislation and noted the exemptions and had the courage to join me in trying to address the severe dog and cat overpopulation problem in a responsible way.

This legislation already contains a number of common-sense exceptions, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, cats or dogs who are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals. But we will continue to try and address everyone's concerns while crafting the strongest possible piece of legislation.

If signed into law, Assembly Bill 1634 will not only establish California as a national leader in the humane care for animals, but it will save our state's taxpayers millions of their hard-earned dollars.

And if you're not convinced, consider this: The bill is modeled after a highly successful mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that has been in place in Santa Cruz County since 1995. Within two years of the county's adoption of the measure, it began to see a noticeable reduction in the number of animals entering its shelters. Within eight years, despite a 15 percent growth in the county's human population, the number of animals entering the county's shelters had been cut 60 percent. This example shows just how effective AB 1634 can be if given the chance.

Lloyd Levine, D-Sherman Oaks, represents the 40th Assembly District in the California Legislature.

[Orange County Ca]

Although the act needs tweeking it should be passed. As problems crop up they can be addressed. The California legislature passes hundreds of these "clean up" bills yearly.
I will bet that 100% of those against this bill have never seen the animals dying in capativity.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Orange County Ca

I will bet that 100% of those against this bill have never seen the animals dying in capativity.

If they have, they want to pass the buck solely onto owners...as if dogs are capable of asexual reproduction.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by Orange County Ca

I will bet that 100% of those against this bill have never seen the animals dying in capativity.

You'd lose that bet bigtime. Been there, seen it as have MANY other opponents.

The anti-pet agenda of animal rightists is pretty well documented in their own literature. I have some of it. There's also some public documents you can see below. Don't forget Mancuso has close ties to PETA. It makes no sense for her to propose something that has never worked unless its to get a step closer to pet extinction.

http://animalscam.com/sources.cfm

Yes the above is very much an anti-AR site but it uses public documents which can't be spun. Neither can the recordings of Ingrid Newkirk calling for "total animal liberation" or Bruce Friedrich advocating violence.

Also, the HSUS is pushing hard for this. Here's an article worth reading about them -

Do you know ther real PETA and HSUS?

http://www.centennialsharpeiclub.org...A_and_HSUS.pdf


Animal rightists...working hard to make us all petless vegans. Say no to the AR pet extinction act.

[skunkstripe]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

If signed into law, Assembly Bill 1634 will not only establish California as a national leader in the humane care for animals, but it will save our state's taxpayers millions of their hard-earned dollars.

Not everyone see it this way. There are parts of the country where education and low-cost spay neuter programs have been successful in reducing shelter populations in a way that California can only dream of.
http://www.spayusa.org/main_director...op_control.pdf
http://content.petfinder.com/journal...gi?article=437
http://www.spayusa.org/main_director...e_programs.pdf
http://bobmckee.com/Vets/Spay%20neut...mmendation.doc
California chooses to go another route. If signed into law, California will establish itself as a state that made an attempt to clean up its own mess without bothering to learn the lessons that led to success elsewhere. That does not fit my definition of a leader.

[DogAdvocat]

Peta has never had any problem with being vocal about it's campaigns and it's involvement with those campaigns. If this bill was being managed by Peta, the official website would be a Peta website. It's not.

Your website about the FBI and Peta is interesting. It reminds me of when the FBI targetted John Lennon and Martin Luther King. Some people thought they were a threat too. Of course it's kind of telling that such investigations have not led to the arrest of the leader(s) of the group, nor has it lead to them losing their non-profit status. So to my way of thinking, the FBI investigations are just as meaningless as they were with Lennon and Dr. King.

I do wish you'd stop trying to turn this into a discussion about Peta. This is a discussion about how to stop the killing of homeless animals, and in particular about this bill as a vehicle to do that. Surely there must be a place where you can discuss Peta to your hearts desire and actually be on topic? You have me at a disadvantage because I can easily contradict your claims, but I don't believe this is the forum to do that, and I don't intend on being banned for trying it.

[RedyreRottweilers]

What this bill will do is ensure the steady progression of the state of California towards the extermination through whatever means of all pet dogs and cats.

First breed specific spay/neuter, and now mandatory spay/neuter of all animals unless one goes throught the red tape to get and keep a permit.

And at 4 months.

That is OBSCENITY.

Healthy pets? I think not.

NO MORE PETS is more like it.



PS I wonder if Long Beach will miss the 65 million or so the Eukaneuba brings, since it will be leaving? Along with countless other Specialties and dog shows. I know the American Rottweiler Club is already considering an alternate location for a future Specialty show that was to be held there.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by skunkstripe

Not everyone see it this way. There are parts of the country where education and low-cost spay neuter programs have been successful in reducing shelter populations in a way that California can only dream of.
http://www.spayusa.org/main_director...op_control.pdf
http://content.petfinder.com/journal...gi?article=437
http://www.spayusa.org/main_director...e_programs.pdf
http://bobmckee.com/Vets/Spay%20neut...mmendation.doc
California chooses to go another route. If signed into law, California will establish itself as a state that made an attempt to clean up its own mess without bothering to learn the lessons that led to success elsewhere. That does not fit my definition of a leader.

Actually, what California has done is learned from their own programs that more is needed. After briefly scanning the above websites (I'll try to go over them more carefully later), they seem to mostly target low-income people with reduced spay/neuter - Los Angeles already does that, and it's not solving the problem. Not only are low-income people aided, but there is low-cost s/n available for everyone, regardless of income. The websites above talk about targetting low-income folks by their use of various social services they already take advantage of. Los Angeles even has people going door-to-door in lower income neighborhoods, offering free spay/neuter, and has mobile spay/neuter vans to help implement it. And still Los Angeles kills thousands of adoptable animals - a lot of them being unwanted puppies and kittens.

On other websites listed above, they talk about giving low-cost incentives to spay/neuter animals adopted from their shelters. In Los Angeles, that's done prior to release from shelters. In fact, that's being done, by law, all over the state.

You sound like you think we're sitting on our hands, doing nothing, and then turning to this law as the only available option. That's just not so. Our humane community is very active - some places in California more so than others - but using Los Angeles as an example, the programs and people working on the problem are really prolific - but the bottom line is that no matter how much you offer, there will be some people that won't take advantage of it, for whatever personal issue they have. Some want their children to see the miracle of birth, some feel that animals should be free to have as many litters as they choose, some feel that their animal's sexual prowess is something to be proud of - even though they don't want what the animal produces, some just don't care enough to make an effort - even when it's free and it's brought to their door. There's as many reasons as there are homeless animals in the shelter, but all of the programs in the world aren't going to work as long as John Q Public knows that it's his right to do anything he wants with his pets, including reproducing them and dumping them at the shelter.

In my opinion, we've run up against a wall of apathy and selfishness that won't allow education and programs to make improvements. The guy down the street who allows his cats to produce litter after litter because it's his right to do so, and because he thinks they're cute for a week or two, and who refuses to be educated, is typical of why we need a law. Without one, he will just keep doing what he's doing. And there are many many just like him.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

What this bill will do is ensure the steady progression of the state of California towards the extermination through whatever means of all pet dogs and cats.

First breed specific spay/neuter, and now mandatory spay/neuter of all animals unless one goes throught the red tape to get and keep a permit.

And at 4 months.

That is OBSCENITY.

Healthy pets? I think not.

NO MORE PETS is more like it.



PS I wonder if Long Beach will miss the 65 million or so the Eukaneuba brings, since it will be leaving? Along with countless other Specialties and dog shows. I know the American Rottweiler Club is already considering an alternate location for a future Specialty show that was to be held there.

Suggesting that the bill and it's resultant red tape in order to breed, will cause the extinction of pets is like suggesting that licensing contractors will cause the extinction of new construction projects. Considering all the "red tape" that a responsible breeder goes through in order to breed responsibly - like OFA, CERF, other health screenings, competitions and all the paperwork and fees involved with that, etc. etc. etc., I'm amazed that any responsible breeder would think that a license would be that one document and accompanying fee too much. Of course for backyard breeders who do none of that, then I suppose the process of getting a license does seem like a chore to them - but why would a responsible breeder fight for the rights of backyard breeders to breed irresponsibly? It makes no sense.

It also makes no sense to think that there will be 100% compliance, and therefore pet extinction. No law has ever had 100% compliance. But even 50% compliance will bring down the number of shelter animals.

You complain about 4 months altering, and yet it's been done successfully in shelters across the state for years, and is mandated for all shelters now. Where is your outrage about that? Or don't shelter animals matter?

The obscenity is adoptable animals dying in shelters for lack of homes.

[skunkstripe]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

You sound like you think we're sitting on our hands, doing nothing, and then turning to this law as the only available option. That's just not so.

Actually it sounded to me like Levine was saying that the rest of the country was sitting on its hands doing nothing and needed California to lead the way in reducing the population of homeless animals. Targeting low-income pet owners HAS worked tremendously well where it has been implemented in the northeast. Now what I am hearing is that Californians are somehow different because what has been successful elsewhere doesn't work out there. If indeed more drastic measures are needed in California, then the lofty words of this politician are all the more inappropriate.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

On other websites listed above, they talk about giving low-cost incentives to spay/neuter animals adopted from their shelters. In Los Angeles, that's done prior to release from shelters. In fact, that's being done, by law, all over the state.

Yes they talk about it in those case studies and reports. And this was one of the measures that was dismissed in the second link as ineffective. The people who are getting their puppies the BYB neighbor (who make up a huge portion of the dogs that end up in shelters) are not reached by that measure. So perhaps this is one of the areas where California has room for improvement.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by skunkstripe

Actually it sounded to me like Levine was saying that the rest of the country was sitting on its hands doing nothing and needed California to lead the way in reducing the population of homeless animals. Targeting low-income pet owners HAS worked tremendously well where it has been implemented in the northeast. Now what I am hearing is that Californians are somehow different because what has been successful elsewhere doesn't work out there. If indeed more drastic measures are needed in California, then the lofty words of this politician are all the more inappropriate.

Yes they talk about it in those case studies and reports. And this was one of the measures that was generally dismissed as ineffective. So perhaps this is one of the mistakes that California is making.

I seem to remember from past discussions that you seem to hold a lot of animosity for California. I've run into that prejudice before. California is different from other areas. Every state is. We each have our unique problems and interests. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize a politician for talking positively about his bill. If you disagree with his bill, then it's appropriate to discuss the merits of the bill, but to criticize him because he thinks that the bill will be successful and be a model for the nation is just petty.

How can it be a mistake to alter animals before they leave the shelter?

[Ceph]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I seem to remember from past discussions that you seem to hold a lot of animosity for California. I've run into that prejudice before. California is different from other areas. Every state is. We each have our unique problems and interests. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize a politician for talking positively about his bill. If you disagree with his bill, then it's appropriate to discuss the merits of the bill, but to criticize him because he thinks that the bill will be successful and be a model for the nation is just petty.

How can it be a mistake to alter animals before they leave the shelter?

I think my main problem with altering animals before they leave the shelter are the young pups - they wont develop as well if they are neutered at a yong age.

Jay had to be neutered at four months as per the contract I signed with Virginia when I adopted him. And he hasnt an ounce of testosterone in his body - he's a gorgeous dog and sweeter then pie - but he is also not as developed as he probably should be - he looks like a girl dog...I sort of wonder if his muscle development would have been better if we could have waited a little longer...I know our male cat went from being girly to looking like a tom in terms of musculature - he was neutered at nine or so months.

After having done the early neuter thing I think I would prefer it if I could do it later....I think it is better for the dogs in the long run to get that last bit of development.

I also question putting young pups under anesthesia...at that age you really dont know what they are going to have problems with and what problems may become more apparent when they are older such as MDR-1.

~Cate

[borzoimom]

I have to agree with Cate here.. ( uh not about jay but in generall...)
A dog under stress such as being in a shelter, or a young dog under the age of 4 months ( min. a vet will do it- and only if well and in full weight etc..) and the exposures of possible disease from a shelter- then under anethesia??? Highly risky to me...
Even dogs I have received in rescues etc, I let the dog come in, settle down etc before such a potentially serious operation. No operation is " procedure" and "norm.." .. Its always a risk- slight as may be- but would more so be with a dog under stress.. Rarely is a dog in good weight, healthy etc out of a shelter- its not the dogs fault- .. They could have been running at large, lost etc but as anyone knows that has adopted- the dogs always improve after a few months of care.. If nothing else than better food, and at scheduled times.
Any medical procedure should have the decission made BY a Vet- not a law...

[rpe]

Originally Posted by skunkstripe

Actually it sounded to me like Levine was saying that the rest of the country was sitting on its hands doing nothing and needed California to lead the way in reducing the population of homeless animals. Targeting low-income pet owners HAS worked tremendously well where it has been implemented in the northeast. Now what I am hearing is that Californians are somehow different because what has been successful elsewhere doesn't work out there. If indeed more drastic measures are needed in California, then the lofty words of this politician are all the more inappropriate.

Levine is being coached on what to say like so many politicians. Remember the maxim of animal rightists is to keep repeating lies over and over no matter how big the lie. Show them proof that negates what they say and they just say "it works".

Its very telling that Mancuso is going for all out elimination when places without mandatory s/n have been more successful than Santa Cruz County. Shady goings on when someone doesn't model after something thats been much more successful like the San Francisco program.

So many facts point to why this bill is bad (other than animal rightists wanting to end all breeding). The numbers, the studies, etc. all show Levine and Mancuso are spreading disinformation. The proponents rely heavily on emotional appeals. "Don't you want to stop the killing?" they whine all the while ignoring the prevalent reasons why animals (mostly dogs) are in shelters in the first place. Its not overbreeding but rather more who are turning in animals for the wrong reasons.

Yet another PETA connection is Mancuso working with Jane Garrison who is a PETA activist and is also working with her on her group Social "Compassion".

PETA has sent "alerts" to its members telling them to support the pet extinction bill.

And from the head pet hater herself Newkirk (just a few) -

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.
- Harper's (August 1, 1988)

One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.
- The Chicago Daily Herald (March 1, 1990)

The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.
- Animals (May 1, 1993)

In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.
- Newsday (February 21, 1988)

The HSUS is complicit in this as well. They are pushing hard for the bill knowing very well what it means.

Animal rightists...working hard to make us all petless vegans. Say no to the AR pet extinction act.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Ceph

I think my main problem with altering animals before they leave the shelter are the young pups - they wont develop as well if they are neutered at a yong age.

Jay had to be neutered at four months as per the contract I signed with Virginia when I adopted him. And he hasnt an ounce of testosterone in his body - he's a gorgeous dog and sweeter then pie - but he is also not as developed as he probably should be - he looks like a girl dog...I sort of wonder if his muscle development would have been better if we could have waited a little longer...I know our male cat went from being girly to looking like a tom in terms of musculature - he was neutered at nine or so months.

After having done the early neuter thing I think I would prefer it if I could do it later....I think it is better for the dogs in the long run to get that last bit of development.

When talking about shelter puppies, who are assumably mixed breeds, how can you tell what their development would have been if they hadn't been altered early? You say you wonder if your dog would have had better muscle development, but how do you know that his muscle development isn't normal for his ancestry, and would have been the same if he had been neutered later? And even if you are right, what has your dog lost that's so important that it makes it okay to risk unwanted litters by releasing him from the shelter prior to neutering?

Originally Posted by Ceph

I also question putting young pups under anesthesia...at that age you really dont know what they are going to have problems with and what problems may become more apparent when they are older such as MDR-1.

~Cate

According to the veterinary experts in early spay/neuter, they know the risks and can easily be prepared to counteract those risks. Could you please explain MDR-1?

Originally Posted by borzoimom

I have to agree with Cate here.. ( uh not about jay but in generall...)
A dog under stress such as being in a shelter, or a young dog under the age of 4 months ( min. a vet will do it- and only if well and in full weight etc..) and the exposures of possible disease from a shelter- then under anethesia??? Highly risky to me...
Even dogs I have received in rescues etc, I let the dog come in, settle down etc before such a potentially serious operation. No operation is " procedure" and "norm.." .. Its always a risk- slight as may be- but would more so be with a dog under stress.. Rarely is a dog in good weight, healthy etc out of a shelter- its not the dogs fault- .. They could have been running at large, lost etc but as anyone knows that has adopted- the dogs always improve after a few months of care.. If nothing else than better food, and at scheduled times.
Any medical procedure should have the decission made BY a Vet- not a law...

But the final decision IS made by a vet - the vet that will do the surgery. If they feel the animal isn't a good candidate for surgery, then they won't do the surgery.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Ceph

Jay had to be neutered at four months as per the contract I signed with Virginia when I adopted him. And he hasnt an ounce of testosterone in his body - he's a gorgeous dog and sweeter then pie - but he is also not as developed as he probably should be - he looks like a girl dog...I sort of wonder if his muscle development would have been better if we could have waited a little longer.

Male dogs are charged at birth with testosterone. This is what makes them male. There is a short period of time when their testosterone is at it's highest, when the dog reaches adolescence, but drops to the low level found in adult dogs. It's believed that this spike in testosterone is to prompt other male dogs to put this new dog in its place, as the scent would be threatning to the pack hierarchy. Otherwise, the main thrust of testosterone in the male dog is at birth.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by rpe

Yet another PETA connection is Mancuso working with Jane Garrison who is a PETA activist and is also working with her on her group Social "Compassion".

So?

Originally Posted by rpe

PETA has sent "alerts" to its members telling them to support the pet extinction bill.

Please show any "alert" coming from Peta that uses the words "pet extinction bill" in regards to AB1634.

Originally Posted by rpe

And from the head pet hater herself Newkirk (just a few) -

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.
- Harper's (August 1, 1988)

One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.
- The Chicago Daily Herald (March 1, 1990)

The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.
- Animals (May 1, 1993)

In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.
- Newsday (February 21, 1988)

Is 10 and 20 year old, out-of-context quotes, the best you can do?

[Ceph]

DogAdvocat - Jay is GSD and Husky - based of that I am about 99.9 percent sure that he should be quite a bit heavier than he is - and since we are playing the what if game - what if something happened to him while he was under anesthesia that caused his epilepsy??? What if there was some trauma or some reaction to the medication? The Vet was against having him done even that early - that much I know - but I honor my contracts and I wasnt going to risk them taking him away from me...can you imagine how they would be against doing a pup between 6-12 weeks?

MDR-1 is a genetic mutation called the multi drug resistant gene - it does what it sounds like - now how much would it suck if you put that pup under and started cutting and he or she was awake still - and what if any pain killers used didnt work - how adoptable would that pup be? Not only that but some of the carriers cant pump the drugs out of their brain which may cause major neurological issues.

If the vet doesnt have the choice they will do the surgery...in the end they do what their customer wants - and it doesnt matter if it is blow joe or the state - though I think the state trumps joe blow.

You may be right that the initial testosterone rush comes at birth - but at the same time - Jay is lacking in secondary sex charecteristics - especially since he resembles the shepherd more and I can usually (not always, but usually) tell the difference between male and female shepherds.

I have also read a couple of articles and about three or four of them have said urinary incontinence is associated with early alteration. Thats yummy.

Here is PETA supporting the bill :

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/0...ornia_heal.php

http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/b...hy_pets_senate

http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/CalActElimiPets.htm

Just thought I would add some more recent info on their stance on pets :
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

if you go to their website and type 'Pets' into the search engine you'll find sever articles about how they support this bill.

~Cate

[borzoimom]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

...
But the final decision IS made by a vet - the vet that will do the surgery. If they feel the animal isn't a good candidate for surgery, then they won't do the surgery.

So can you please explain this to me.. -If a pet is not able to be spay/neutered at the time- is the pet adopted out anyway? If they do not have the space, and it doesnt fall under " the guidelines of being adopted", ( ie cant be s/neutered at the time), is the pet killed, or cared for by the shelther until such time as the guidlines can be met...?

[RedyreRottweilers]

* * * PERMISSION TO CROSSPOST * * * * *

ASSEMBLY BILL 1634 WILL DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS

Release Date: 15 June 2007

Maddie's Fund President, Richard Avanzino, has confirmed today that if CA AB
1634 passes into law, no community in the state will be able to benefit from
Maddie's Fund grants.

The California-based Maddie's Fund, founded by People Soft guru David
Duffield and guided by Richard Avanzino, the visionary former president of the San Francisco SPCA, awards millions of dollars through multi-year grants to
animal welfare coalitions to end killing of healthy and treatable shelter animals
at no cost to taxpayers. Since its founding in 1999, the Fund has gifted
over 54 million dollars to humane organizations in 22 states, including an
estimated 19 million dollars to California-based charities, educational
institutions and animal shelters. Thousands of lives have been saved thanks to Maddie's Fund grants.

Avanzino clearly addresses the Maddie's Fund policy on funding government
mandates in his statement, "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." As a government mandated spay/neuter law, CA AB1634 will effectively deny California communities Maddie's Fund grants.

California's pets have benefited tremendously from Maddie's Fund community
grants.

· Over 7.9 million dollars in funds to the CVMA Feral Cat Altering
Program since 2001. This program subsidized the altering of over 100,000 cats
who might otherwise have been destroyed.

· Almost 500 thousand dollars to a collaborative project in Lodi which
lowered euthanasia rates over 46% in two years.

· Supplied almost 1 million dollars to found the UC Davis Shelter
Medicine Program, the first such program in the nation for training
veterinarians in the complexities of animal shelter medicine.

These innovative programs are just a few examples of Maddie's Fund grants in California. The loss of future funds to finance such wonderful and
effective programs will be a serious blow indeed.

For months, opponents of Assembly Bill 1634 have been crying out that the
unintended consequences of passage of such an overreaching law could be
disastrous for animals in the state. The loss of Maddie's Fund to California will
be catastrophic.

To learn more about Maddie's Fund, their mission, and the programs they have funded, please visit their website at www.maddiesfund.org.

For further information, please contact:

Diane Amble
650.296.2169

Brat Zinsmaster
707.486.7226.

[skunkstripe]

Originally Posted by rpe

Levine is being coached on what to say like so many politicians. Remember the maxim of animal rightists is to keep repeating lies over and over no matter how big the lie. Show them proof that negates what they say and they just say "it works".

Exactly my point. Politicians use rhetoric to put a spin on things. Even if / when this bill produces results which are at worst disastrous and at best ineffective, it will not stop politicians (like Levine) from trying to make it look otherwise. Again, California is hardly going to be regarded as a leader in the area of animal welfare because of this bill. Did anyone else catch the fact that one of the earlier versions of the bill listed the ADBA as one of the registries (rightup there with the AKC and UKC)? Here are quotes from their website:

The American Dog Breeders Association Inc. is the largest registration office of the American Pit Bull Terrier.

and here is another one:

We believe that the proponents of PAWS are basing their arguments on sensational dramatic media reports of abuse in puppy mills in years past and not on the facts of the current situation. They fail to realize that conscientious hobby and show breeders have been the foundation of support for improvement in animal welfare standards across the country.

source: http://www.adbadogs.com/p_pdetails.asp?fpid=2&pg=2

Obviously somebody was lobbying hard when Levine authored this bill. Or does he have a soft spot in his heart for Pittie owners and hard-core PAWS opponents?

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Actually, what California has done is learned from their own programs that more is needed. After briefly scanning the above websites (I'll try to go over them more carefully later), they seem to mostly target low-income people with reduced spay/neuter - Los Angeles already does that, and it's not solving the problem. Not only are low-income people aided, but there is low-cost s/n available for everyone, regardless of income.
On other websites listed above, they talk about giving low-cost incentives to spay/neuter animals adopted from their shelters. In Los Angeles, that's done prior to release from shelters. In fact, that's being done, by law, all over the state.

Yes you scanned it breifly. So briefly in fact, that you touted the low-cost incentives to s/n from shelters as one of the measures which California has been using. However, hard data show that this measure is not as effective as low-cost s/n, which is why it does NOT make sense to use limited funds to subsidize this measure. Those funds are better spent elsewhere, namely on targeted low-cost s/n.

From the beginning our neutering program attempted to reduce the shelter death toll by attacking it from two directions: neutering subsidies for low-income pet caretakers were designed to reduce the number of cats and dogs coming into shelters while subsidies for shelter adopters aimed to increase the number going out. We hoped that our shelter adoption rate would increase substantially if potential adopters could get shelter animals sterilized for a $25 (now $30) copayment.

Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way. While the shelter adopter's program has proven to be very popular with adopters and veterinarians, the shelter adoption rate has only increased by about 20% over the past ten years. Subsidies for the low-income program have proven to be a much better investment.

source: http://content.petfinder.com/journal...gi?article=437

But, you say that with at least a decade of a positive track record in both one of the most densely populated states (NJ) and one of the least densely populated states (NH) do not work in CA. Do you have any idea why California is different?

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I seem to remember from past discussions that you seem to hold a lot of animosity for California. I've run into that prejudice before. California is different from other areas. Every state is. We each have our unique problems and interests. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize a politician for talking positively about his bill. If you disagree with his bill, then it's appropriate to discuss the merits of the bill, but to criticize him because he thinks that the bill will be successful and be a model for the nation is just petty.

I do not see where it is appropriate to call me "petty" because I point out inconsistencies in a politician's hot air. Name-calling does not add credence to your arguments nor does it damage mine. I think the bill has good intentions but is so seriously flawed that it will end up being a waste of resources with few positive effects. The fact remains that effective programs are in place elsewhere in the country and that California is bringing up the rear.

Speaking of which, please provide evidence to support your accusation that I have a "prejudice" or "animosity" against California. If this is an attempt to discredit me personally by insinuating that I find the bill flawed because it was written in California, be aware that most people will see through it.