Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51

Thread: California AB1634 Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    25,224
    My big bugaboo is with the use of any dogs by a police department to apprehend/subdue suspects.

    I do not mind drug and bomb sniffing dogs, but to have any officer send a dog-who does not realize the danger invovled - into a situation where harm may come to the animal, shows a disrespect for the animal and the bond, loyalty and fearlessness that it shows to it's handler.

    -----

    A while back there was a post about some idiot cop who left his K-9 partner out in the yard. The dog traveled into a neighbors yard where the dog was shot-because the neighbor thought it was a threat.

    The question was -should the man who shot the dog face charges?
    Sure, but so should the officer-and he should pay for the training costs of that dog.

    It really angers me is to see dogs hurt or killed by some crazed AH because they were put into those situations by a K-9 handler.

    ---------


    I'd be aggressive if someone snipped my batonga wongasm THEN I'd run after people and bite them.

    The plea from a PD for funds to buy a "flakjacket/BP vest" after a dog is killed or mained is especially maddening.

    -------------------------

    Breeders sell animals for beau coup dollars- for them to pretend that they care for the animals they breed and love -but balk at spending the money to keep them doing "What they love" make me wonder.

    A nice "donation" to the local PD looks good on anyone's taxes.
    Pets or profit?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    california
    Posts
    8,397
    don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die....

    I have been frosted!

    Thanks Kfamr for the signature!


  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    indianapolis,indiana usa
    Posts
    22,881
    Here is an online list of people's comments concering this Healthy Pets
    Bill. There is also a nice concise Summary of Provisions that lists exactly
    what this bill does & does not do. Interesting.

    http://community.livejournal.com/ab1634/
    I've Been Boo'd

    I've been Frosted






    Today is the oldest you've ever been, and the youngest you'll ever be again.

    Eleanor Roosevelt

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by caseysmom
    Good for you Bob Barker
    Actually a lot of women cannot stand him as you probably know. (You can add men to that group of anti-fans as well, lol) He has a huge ego and he likes to win.

    He does not own pets (it is slavery), he's a vegetarian and an animal extremist. His funding for animal rights law school is no secret. I think we're very likely to see more in the way of the sort of legal help used for helping PeTA get out of their recent animal killing and dumping spree in North Carolina. They got a handslap for "littering". Research labs are under attack by ALF and they certainly get some legal help as needed as well. Interesting in light of the medical issues Bob has had. Generally Animal Rights advocates are okay with animal testing that helps "them".

    A brilliant bit by yet another celebrity regarding biomedical research- "To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off." Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman

    Anyway, Bob loves being in the limelight and having power. He now has more time to nurture projects that from his level of the world, need fixing.

    He was successfully sued for millions for harassment in separate law suits by at least half a dozen different women.

    Celebrity doesn't (or shouldn't?) give anyone immunity to the law but Bob gets more respect than Paris does. He's got money, he knows how to manipulate people. He is also behind why on the eighth writing of AB 1634, just about anything goes. The main thing is he hates to lose. People see him behind the bill, everything goes out the window. They no longer have to read and comprehend the bill. The hero of "The Price is Right" makes it 'all good'.

    I don't even want to go there but we either actively choose our politicians and their supporters whose ethics will lead our children into the future or sit back and let it happen.

    Bob Barker to face courtroom battle after model's suit ruled valid (sample)
    Semavi Lady Visit the blog!


  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by lizbud
    Here is an online list of people's comments concering this Healthy Pets
    Bill. There is also a nice concise Summary of Provisions that lists exactly
    what this bill does & does not do. Interesting.

    http://community.livejournal.com/ab1634/
    LOL. Actually, that's not a site that gives unbiased information and it does not tell you what the bill will really do.

    Here's where you get unbiased information.
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&

    Semavi Lady Visit the blog!


  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    indianapolis,indiana usa
    Posts
    22,881
    AB 1634 Summary of Provisions
    Jul. 5th, 2007 | 10:55 pm
    posted by: ldragoon in ab1634
    SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

    OVERVIEW: AB 1634 would


    · Require a cat or dog over the age of 6 months to be spayed or neutered, unless issued an intact permit or given a veterinary extension or waiver (see below)

    · impose an intact permit fee, limited to an amount ‘reasonably necessary’ to help pay for the cost of the permit program, replacing the current ‘unaltered’ animal license

    · make failure to obtain a permit or spay/neuter one’s pet punishable by a civil penalty ($500) to be waived if the owner has his or her pet spayed or neutered

    · require revenues derived from civil penalties to be used for funding outreach efforts, as well as administration and enforcement, and to the extent funding is available, fund free and low-cost spay and neuter programs and outreach efforts for those programs (i.e., be fiscally neutral or positive)


    EXTENSIONS, WAIVERS AND INTACT PERMITS:


    Owners of intact dogs or cats may delay spay/neuter if they obtain a veterinary letter, authorizing a delay for medical reasons (see below for permits for pets to remain unaltered due to permanent health problems)
    Complete exemption for dogs or cats visiting the state temporarily, as well as guide, signal and service dog programs
    ‘Intact permits’ are available for the following:

    licensed breeders of pure or mixed breeds
    owners of dogs or cats registered with an approved breed registry that qualify under any of the following conditions:

    (a) shows or competes in a show or sporting competition, or is being trained to do so (if too young currently);
    (b) has earned or is working towards a title in conformation, obedience, carting, protection, agility, rally, herding, sporting or other activity
    dogs being bred for work (police, fire, rescue, etc.)
    dog is trained or being trained as service, guide or signal dog
    dog is trained or being trained for law enforcement or rescue work
    dog is being used to herd or guard livestock
    dog or cat is determined by veterinarian to be too old or sick for spay/neuter
    ‘Family dog permit’ allows one litter for dog owners committed to breeding
    responsibly under the terms of the law
    Permit fee:

    only what is ‘reasonably necessary’ to administer permit program
    fee waived for police and rescue dogs and breeders of such dogs
    local jurisdiction may waive fee for veterinary exemption-based permits

    EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2008
    I've Been Boo'd

    I've been Frosted






    Today is the oldest you've ever been, and the youngest you'll ever be again.

    Eleanor Roosevelt

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHARD
    My big bugaboo is with the use of any dogs by a police department to apprehend/subdue suspects.

    I do not mind drug and bomb sniffing dogs, but to have any officer send a dog-who does not realize the danger invovled - into a situation where harm may come to the animal, shows a disrespect for the animal and the bond, loyalty and fearlessness that it shows to it's handler.
    Taking consent to a new level.

    I have enough problems with the complicated EULAs on software. Yeesh. When one has almost trusted the vendor for years, they sometimes slip a new rule in that you would never have clicked to agree, if you knew what it meant.

    But yes, it makes sense to me at some level, more like idealism if it could happen. On the same token with the same logic, we would then need animal consent forms for neutering.

    - Do they understand what is going to happen to them?
    - Do they agree with the reason that it is done?
    - Do they agree that the belief system of another species to surgically alter them to in order to effect convenient behavioral traits to them is appropriate?
    - Would they rather reproduce? (LOL)

    And right there at that level, one is eye to eye with the dichotomy of Animal Rights Extremism . We don't have a right to own them and make decisions for them.
    Semavi Lady Visit the blog!


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,182
    From what I've heard, the bill has been withdrawn until further amendments in Jan 2008.

    I'm happy. That bill was hypocritical. "Family Dog policy"?? How stupid can you get? I read about it in the newspaper. Apparently, Levine introduced that amendment so that California won't be devoid of mutts.

    "It's okay guys! Breed one litter per family and we won't have a surplus of kittens or dogs! That's how it works, don'tcha know?"

    Politics. Psch.

  9. #39
    http://www.ktvu.com/news/13663488/detail.html

    yup, the bill has been withdrawn. Good riddance.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,004
    Just an idea... If CA wants to be this draconian could they be a little more fair about it? (Sorry for the contradiction.)

    I had an idea but had no idea who to write to for this to be more effective.

    I know we don't want the pets being put down but i figure this solution is more fair than the negative effects AB1634 would have had.

    What about REQUIRING ALL canine and feline pets in CA be microchipped. IF an unmicrochipped pet ends up in the shelter it is held for a minimum number of days then euth'ed (scare tactic to keep the irresponsible responsible.) If a local jurisdiction decides otherwise or has the necessary funds it may still decide to keep the unchipped pet for so long. Have HUGE fines for re-claimed unmicrochipped unsterilized pets. (have a mediocre fine for chipped pets that end up in the shelter.

    I'd also like to see some sort of sponsorship for increased Trap Neuter Release. (Sure I'm against all ferals, BUT I'm willing to keep an open mind to compromise and working towards a solution that WILL work.)
    .

    Let nature guide your actions and you will never have to worry if you did the right thing. ~ crow_noir

    The pet world excels where the human world is lacking; sterilization and adoption. ~ crow_noir

    Please, if your dog is arthritic look into getting it Elk Velvet Antler. Look up my posts on it, PM me, or look it up on a search engine; but please if you love your dog and want it to live many more years consider this option. I've seen so many posts on here about dogs needlessly suffering. I can't make a new post about EVA every time so this plea is going here. EVA also helps with other ailments such as anemia.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kentucky, LAND OF THE EASILY AMUSED
    Posts
    25,224
    Quote Originally Posted by crow_noir
    Just an idea... If CA wants to be this draconian could they be a little more fair about it? (Sorry for the contradiction.)

    I had an idea but had no idea who to write to for this to be more effective.

    Here in Cah Lee Fuh Nee Ah we are trying to get a bill passed to neuter Gavin Newsome and ANtonio Villaraigosa.

    Those two morons are human and it seems that the cats and dogs in the state have more disgression on who they sleep with than they do.


    Neuter and spay your State Officials.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by lizbud
    AB 1634 Summary of Provisions
    Jul. 5th, 2007 | 10:55 pm
    posted by: ldragoon in ab1634
    SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
    Sorry, the difference between linking to it and pasting it doesn't change its meaning. It is essentially "The Reader's Digest Version" of the "intent" of the bill.

    The bill has a lot of fine print that the summary neglects to mention.

    Mancuso herself for one, has LAUGHED, and said that extermination of mixed breed pets is not possible. Because there will be more, they keep on coming.
    TOUCHE! YES, Judie, we all agree this bill will not accomplish the proposed “INTENT” of the bill. You are too proud to admit it.

    It is had EIGHT rewrites with line after line, conflicting its own text. (see the lines in the bill regarding vets for one)

    1. This bill ENDORSES commercial producers with the broadest and complete exemptions. Commercial breeders are for profit, they do not waste time and money on health testing. They do not follow up on their placements which may well be brokered just about anywhere.

    2. Since 27 June, this bill actually mandates the breeding of immature and untested dogs because their one year ticket cannot be renewed til the dogs are old enough to have any kind of offical health test.

    3. The bill does not grandfather in many owners who will NOT be able to dole out the cash. Elderly, disabled, young couples, singles, poor folk of every kind, hundreds of rescuers who are working out of their pockets and homes. Where are these animals going to go? Will pets will be torn from their settled homes and euthanized if the owner doesn’t have the means?

    4. Every different jurisdiction can have a different way to define many of the rules. It is a Tower of Babel with local jurisdictions being given total control.

    5. NO FIT. The bill heavily profiles all owners and all breeders alike and therefore has numerous NO FIT and illogical assumptions. The majority of problems in the bill are right here.

    Do you know what ‘no fit’ means? Example:
    Someone is put in charge of all vehicle regulation, mandates that all vehicles with NO exceptions, must have four tires in good condition plus a spare (sounds good so far maybe?), and be parked in a garage next to the owner’s residence - or each will be fined $500. Unleash this on the constituents and THEN watch out for the bicycle, the boat, the plane, the semi, the tractor owners. What about people living in condos or apartments? What if car owners have four vehicles, is it time to hire a contractor, what if there is no room on the property that will allow them to get a permit? They have all been profiled into a law that didn’t take them into consideration. They are gonna get awfully upset. Now some of the nicest people are law breakers. Righteous people who live in a house with a garage and have a car with the requirements will of course, say, “It’s all about money!”. They are going to say to those selfish tractor drivers, “if you weren’t so selfish, you would get your act together and you too could be exempt.”

    This bill is horrendously guilty of profiling and no fit. It will increase the numbers of animals killed.

    It does NOTHING to promote ethical breeding nor healthy pets. The principle designers of this bill do not even own pets nor understand the population that they are trying to control.
    Semavi Lady Visit the blog!


  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by crow_noir
    Just an idea... If CA wants to be this draconian could they be a little more fair about it? (Sorry for the contradiction.)
    I'm with you. I think something should be done but I'm not going to reinvent the wheel when some groups have already written very well on what the solutions might be and they are actually doing it.

    I cannot get this PDF to convert, but it is important for all rescue oriented persons to read.
    See http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/...datorylaws.pdf

    Also see this movie clip

    First we have to realize that many issues are local ones. Punishing everyone is not the solution. There is also too much profiling. The lady with 5 Portuguese Podengo dogs and struggling with a tiny gene pool that she does genetic testing on as well as hunt tests, is not in the same population as the teenaged pit bull owners and fighters in her neighborhood who are at an age where they feel immortal, above the law, and testosterone is a native fuel.

    Quote Originally Posted by crow_noir
    I had an idea but had no idea who to write to for this to be more effective.
    Here is good! Perspective from other sources is educational.

    Quote Originally Posted by crow_noir
    What about REQUIRING ALL canine and feline pets in CA be microchipped. IF an unmicrochipped pet ends up in the shelter it is held for a minimum number of days then euth'ed (scare tactic to keep the irresponsible responsible.)
    Well we already have a problem here. Animals going into shelters are not routinely scanned for chips.

    Here is a recent story:

    Robert Jaechens is a volunteer for the Nor Cal GSD rescue. He goes into the shelters looking for and pulling German Shepherds for rescue. I had the pleasure to meet him a week ago when he and rescue helped me retrieve a GSD of my breeding that was picked up as a stray. The dog was microchipped by me as a pup and sold to a family, (as of this moment I still have not been able to get hold of those people). The dog was being prepped for euthansia when they found the chip and got hold of me. Luckily they were able to help me by pulling the dog, and meeting me so I could bring him home. Having done what Robert does, I can understand his frustration with shelters and rescueing dogs. Other breeders frequently tell rescue they couldn't care less about one of their dogs in the shelter. This is one reason so many shelter workers are for this bill. I am a breeder (for 35 years) and proud of it, and yes, I am totally
    against this bill!

    Someone responding to the above story said:
    Just think of how many animal/shelter days it would save them, not to mention the $$$ savings for that care, if they called pet owners when the animals arrived so that they could be retrieved promptly.

    It makes me wonder if the shelter folks really want owners to be able to
    redeem their animals, or if they really just want the animals dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by crow_noir
    If a local jurisdiction decides otherwise or has the necessary funds it may still decide to keep the unchipped pet for so long. Have HUGE fines for re-claimed unmicrochipped unsterilized pets. (have a mediocre fine for chipped pets that end up in the shelter.

    I'd also like to see some sort of sponsorship for increased Trap Neuter Release. (Sure I'm against all ferals, BUT I'm willing to keep an open mind to compromise and working towards a solution that WILL work.)
    A problem with punishing people who obey the law and microchip their pets, is that what if part of the fence goes down, what if the kids forget to close the gate (anyone not familiar with kids here?), and dozens of other scenarios which can occur, it is up to the local jurisdiction to automatically assume guilt of the owner. And will act bureaucratically due to "principle".

    In the New York case with Spartacus, they have put into their ordinance that the owner can get an exemption from their rulings from their pet's vet, yet when this guy did, the ACO vets overruled any voluntary exemption possible for the dog. They even threatened to euthanize the dog. The owner could not find a bail bondsman willing to bail out a dog. (I had some Monty Pythonish musings on what the guy might have gone through on that) and he had to post his own bail in cash. Most of us do not have money to get our case in the media. Most cases like this just 'disappear' and do not get into the news.

    Check out this report from L.A.:
    source: LA Voice
    Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gets an "F" from the animals


    Our Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made a campaign promise to make Los Angeles a NoKill City for animals. After two years in office it is clear that he has failed miserably. Last week in order to stem the flow of animals coming into the shelters they decided to just refuse them because the shelters are full. The shelters are so overcrowded that now twice as many animals are dying from illness and injuries suffered in the shelters. Fewer are making it out alive. What went wrong? And is the Mayor going to do anything about it? L.A.VISION
    Last week General Manager Ed Boks announced that he would only accept owner surrendered animals during a small window of time midweek. This caused a huge public out cry which caused him to "revisit" his policy twice. Even PETA chimed in with a national phone campaign demanding that people contact the Mayor. Ultimately he rescinded the new policy saying he never meant to enforce it anyway. The policy was just an attempt to "educate the public" he said. In response the Daily News released an article entitled "Animal Services head makes a fool of himself - and us."

    Meanwhile, unofficially they are still trying to refuse as many animals as possible. They are telling people to TNR (trap neuter return) feral cats, bottle feed orphaned kittens themselves and to re-home their unwanted pets with private parties or rescue groups, who are of course all full. The Rescue and Humane Alliance of Los Angeles believes that most people will just dump these pets on the streets if refused at the shelter.

    A crisis still looming over the shelters is the lack of veterinarians. March 28th of this year writer and animal rescuer Daniel Guss of the Stand Foundation wrote an op-ed piece for the Daily News about the lack of veterinarians. They only have two veterinarians to care for over 56,000 animals a year in seven shelters spread throughout our large City. Eight positions are vacant. Boks denied that this was a problem saying those empty vet positions are for the spayneuter clinics which haven't been built. If we look at the budget reports, there were ten shelter vet positions before the clinics were even planned.

    Fortunately, Councilmembers recognized the problem and got involved. Councilmen Dennis Zine and Richard Alarcon made a motion to solve the problem even after Boks denied the problem in his "Fact vs Rumor" page in the Department website. Since then Boks merely sent a letter to City Council basically saying that "things are fine. Thanks for your concern." Why does he refuse their help? As of the writing of this article, only one new vet was hired after yet another vet quit so nothing has improved. We are still down eight vets and the shelters are completely full. We have more animals than ever before in larger shelters yet fewer vets and vet techs.

    Why are the shelters so full even after three new larger shelters were just built? Boks has been trying to keep the euthanasia rate as low as possible in order to make it seem that he is successful. The euthanasia rate is the number of animals euthanized divided by the total number that enter the shelter. In the past 12 months the euthanasia rate was about 38% or 21,000 animals. In the previous 12 months it was 39%. Instead of euthanizing the animals which are not adopted or returned to their owner, they are warehousing them. This is causing overcrowding with many animals in each cage and kennel. This overcrowding is causing animals to die from disease and injuries suffered in fights in the kennels. Part of this is also due to the lack of vets to treat these animals. In the last 12 months, 2,075 animals died in the shelter. During the previous 12 months only 1,109 animals died. The number has almost doubled. The percent dying in the shelter has risen from 2% to 4% of intake. Some of these animals could be someone's lost pet.

    Why would Ed Boks allow these animals to just die in the kennels? This is the harsh reality of his "NoKill" plan. If an animal dies in the shelter on his own, it is not included in the "euthanasia" column. Boks is allowing this to happen in order to improve his numbers. If we add the number of animals euthanized and the number of animals that died in the shelter together, we get a better indication of what is happening. In the last 12 months 23,145 animals were euthanized and died in the shelter or 41.59%. In the previous 12 months it was 23,117 or 41.62%. There has been no improvement in the number of dead animals. Does it matter how they died? I personally would prefer that they be euthanized humanely instead of being left to die a painful death from illness and injury.

    Another way to gauge the success or failure of a shelter is to look at the live release rate. The live release rate is the number of animals that leave the shelter alive be it by adoption, rescue, foster or returned to owner. In the last 12 months 30,007 animals left the shelter alive or 53.92%. In the previous 12 months 31,173 animals left the shelter alive or 56.13%. Live release has gone down 2%. 1,166 fewer animals made it out alive in the last 12 months. In Boks first 12 months here in LA, 751 fewer animals made it out alive than the previous 12 months. Boks is now doing even worse than his first year.

    At the very end of April Boks released the much anticipated Annual Report for 2006. In his report he stated that live release would go down 2%, which it now has. He said it will go down because intake will go up. Intake is about the same actually. After City Controller Laura Chick heard about this, she instructed the Public Safety Committee to investigate. She said she may even audit the Department. So what did Boks do? He merely rewrote his Annual Report. Now it reads that live release will go up 2% because of "new data." Two months later live release is indeed down 2% and going lower which shows that his second report was not honest.

    Boks mentioned the budget in this same report. He went way over budget on veterinary expenses and medical supplies. This of course is caused from the overcrowding and lack of on-site vets. If we take a look at the 2004 audit of Maricopa Animal Control when Boks was the Director, they had these same cost overruns to the point that there was a large shortfall of cash. If we take a look at the depositions in the current lawsuit against Boks in New York City when he was the Director, we again have these same cost overruns, only this time Boks went to a bank and took out a line of credit without permission to make payroll. He was later reprimanded. He left both of these shelters a shamble on questionable terms. Most say he was pushed out though Boks said he left on his own.

    In February of this year New York magazine stated that "workers unanimously point to (Ed Boks)" as the reason they were not able to meet their nokill goal. "One Alliance member snipes 'Boks' programs had catchy names, but they had no substance and weren't sustainable." Yet Boks claims to have made NY NoKill. People said the same thing about Boks in Maricopa. Boks claims in his bio to have "established the first municipal no-kill shelter in the United States while in AZ." Maricopa which is one county in the state had a 50% euthanasia rate. Later Boks revealed that he made one of the three shelters NoKill. It turns out there are only two shelters, and one adoption center. He later claimed to have made that center NoKill. After speaking to people who volunteered in that center, ill animals, animals with behavior issues and animals that just plain weren't adopted, were sent back to the shelter to be killed. That's not NoKill in my book.

    Recently in LA, even more problems have surfaced. Dana Bartholemew of the Daily News wrote an article in May about a problem with the Animal Services Call Center. A threatening dog was running around a school playground while the teachers were frantically calling the Call Center. No one picked up the phone. They were on hold for 45 minutes then finally gave up. Fortunately a member of the public was able to lure the animal away from the children. Boks refuted this story saying that the well respected journalist made it up. I verified this same problem with the Call Center. I later discovered that Boks had changed the protocol which is what caused the call not to be routed to a live person at the shelter. Councilmen Dennis Zine and Tony Cardenas realizing that this was a definite public safety issue made a motion to investigate the problem. Boks has yet to respond to City Council.

    Meanwhile Boks is having Town Hall meetings to brag about his "success!" He is saying that euthanasia is at it's "lowest ever!" Cat and dog euthanasia only is down a tiny bit at this moment because of the warehousing. Boks also bragged about success in the first half of last year. All he did was warehouse animals from the fist half of the year into the second half. When the shelters filled up, his euthanasia rate went sky high, yet he released absolutely no news about it. His year end results showed absolutely no improvement. I predict the same will happen this year.

    After my first article in March Boks wrote "Fact vs Rumor #4" refuting part of what I wrote. After documents which supported the claims were sent to the person who oversees the Department for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor Jimmy Blackman, Boks backpedaled and changed part of his rebuttal yet he still lied about a few issues. Again, Boks ordered a paid volunteer to write his own fan website and he provided the content. Imagine, the head of an LA City Department touting himself and attacking all naysayers.

    Where do we go from here? I see no quick fixes to these problems. The shelters are totally full. They will have to start euthanizing animals to make room for more as we're in the middle of baby season. Boks' complete and utter failure to make LA NoKill is now a big ugly stain on Antonio's already stained term in office. Antonio's recent divorce, rumors of infidelity, loss in the LAUSD battle and his problems with LAPD and LAFD aren't helping his faltering reputation. He's losing control of the City. The Mayor needs to take charge, keep his campaign promises and make some major changes.

    Past article
    http://www.geocities.com/annangeleno
    Semavi Lady Visit the blog!


  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHARD
    Here in Cah Lee Fuh Nee Ah we are trying to get a bill passed to neuter Gavin Newsome and ANtonio Villaraigosa.

    Those two morons are human and it seems that the cats and dogs in the state have more disgression on who they sleep with than they do.

    Neuter and spay your State Officials.
    LOL, I guess my previous post gives a generous serving of gravy to support this idea.
    Semavi Lady Visit the blog!


  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Giselle
    Apparently, Levine introduced that amendment so that California won't be devoid of mutts.

    "It's okay guys! Breed one litter per family and we won't have a surplus of kittens or dogs! That's how it works, don'tcha know?"

    Politics. Psch.
    Agreed. FWIW, I don't think he and Mancuso wanted that in the bill, but they did promise one of the senators to work something in to address an issue she had with the bill.

    It is quite true, especially for Family owners of larger breeds which have the bigger litters, that often they cannot find enough homes when they get a dozen pups that start eating them out of house and home by the time the cuties are four months and older!

    Small dogs are much easier to place and shelters actually have a system to try and supply the demand for small dogs. They can sell small dogs and cute puppies of breeds in demand. The income from this can sometimes be used by the shelter to support the more problematic loads they have.

    I am aware from other forums that owners of pure and mixed breed small dogs that have 'extra pups' usually get some cash by selling these to local pet stores. (which usually will advertise their pups as not being from puppy mills and are from local breeders).

    My objection to that amendment included the fact that such litters would be coming from immature dogs, that could not be officially cleared for health issues because the one year permit would not allow the dog to become mature enough to be evaluated. Sure, few families even know about health testing.

    So the whole matter doesn't help with education, responsibility nor healthy pets.

    Now here is some education from research by National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy.
    Top 10 Reasons for Relinquishment*

    Dogs:
    1. Moving (7%)
    2. Landlord not allowing pet (6%)
    3. Too many animals in household (4%)
    4. Cost of pet maintenance (5%)
    5. Owner having personal problems (4%)
    6. Inadequate facilities (4%)
    7. No homes available for litter mates (3%) --Breeding?
    8. Having no time for pet (4%)
    9. Pet illness(es) (4%)
    10. Biting (3%)

    Cats:
    1. Moving (8%)
    2. Landlord not allowing pet (6%)
    3. Too many animals in household (11%)
    4. Cost of pet maintenance (6%)
    5. Owner having personal problems (4%)
    6. Inadequate facilities (2%)
    7. No homes available for litter mates (6%) --Breeding?
    8. Allergies in family (8%)
    9. House soiling (5%)
    10. Incompatibility with other pets (2%)

    Specially trained researchers completed confidential individual interviews with pet owners who were relinquishing their dogs or cats to animal shelters. Pet owners were allowed to give up to five reasons for relinquishment. Interviewers did not, however, prioritize the responses. They simply recorded them in the order stated.

    Characteristics of Pets Being Relinquished

    In addition to the reasons for relinquishment, the study collected data on the pets being relinquished. According to the study: The majority of the surrendered dogs (47.7%) and cats (40.3%) were between 5 months and 3 years of age.

    The majority of dogs (37.1 %) and cats (30.2) had been owned from 7 months to 1 year. Approximately half of the pets (42.8% of dogs; 50.8% of cats) surrendered were not neutered. Many of the pets relinquished (33% of dogs; 46.9% of cats) had not been to a veterinarian.

    Animals acquired from friends were relinquished in higher numbers (31.4% of dogs; 33.2% of cats) than from any other source.

    Close to equal numbers of male and female dogs and cats were surrendered.

    Most dogs (96%) had not received any obedience training.

    Characteristics of Pet Owners Surrendering Pets

    During the confidential interviews, researchers also gathered data on the people surrendering the pets. "Owners represented a broad range of age, ethnicity, education, and income level, indicating continued efforts will need to reach wide and far into communities across the country," say Dr. Mo Salman, the article's senior author.
    The major reasons for pets being in the shelter is NOT Overpopulation, but it is due to issues of convenience. These issues all need to be addressed as they are.

    Profiling every situation as having one cause is about the same as deciding that all HUMAN children should be "neutered" to solve the problems we have of world hunger, violence and crime.

    Yes, that solution would work, but you won't make many friends.
    Last edited by SemaviLady; 07-12-2007 at 07:13 AM. Reason: add info on relinquishment
    Semavi Lady Visit the blog!


Similar Threads

  1. Mandatory Spay Neuter Gone Wild!
    By SemaviLady in forum Dog House
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 05:27 AM
  2. Mandatory Spay/Neuter bill
    By CathyBogart in forum Dog House
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 10:00 PM
  3. Possible mandatory spay/neuter of cats in R.I.
    By Maresche in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-25-2006, 11:26 AM
  4. look at my new spay/neuter tag!!!!!!
    By Sara luvs her Tinky in forum Cat General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2003, 10:39 AM
  5. look at my new spay/neuter tag!!!!!!
    By Sara luvs her Tinky in forum Pet General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2003, 09:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com