This was originally posted from 2008 When Los angeles Claimed “Mandated Spay and Neuter” Altering (MSN) Would Save Them— The animals.
It didn’t of course, so instead of fixing it, They moved to outlaw sales of pets!
PEOPLE–THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUTLAWING ALCOHOL (PROHIBITION) AND OUTLAWING ANIMAL SALES……… It will Not Happen, it will just drive up the PRICES of pets!
Outlawing and banning sales of animals is just the BEGINNING—- ARs will not stop at that.
It will create a larger black market, a larger UNregulated market, a larger non taxable cash market, a larger number of under the radar sellers, a larger number of animals that might NOT get rabies shots, a larger number of animals that may become ill due to lack of care because of having to hide the animals inside without defecating outside, a larger number of animals that are housed in crates or other housing which cannot easily be cleaned properly, an increase in disease related to children-pets from improper handling due to substandard cleaning, the foreseeable death of more animals due to being housed inside in crowded unsanitary conditions, an increase in the work for animal control, an increase in the desire to set up sting operations (which takes away from time needed for dangerous calls), an increase in the unwanted “search and seizure” illegal actions that we see, an increase in related lawsuits, an increased drain on public defenders and prosecutors and the court system, an inability to collect on “restitution” fines, an increase in hostility amongst animal control and general compliance, the sprectre of viewing animal control as the bad guys who hunt down errant kennels rather than as helpers to the community safety, an increase for animal control budgets to have to seize and then increase their intake numbers, and the fallout being that —— this can be PREVENTED by clear logical thinking— in advance.
We should recall that if Los angeles cannot enforce mandatory spay and neuter, how can other large cities enforce it? They can’t. It would be much EASIER to TEACH the areas of most concern (usually least economically viable areas) so they can TEACH their own kids. We are talking social welfare people— it’s not rocket science, it’s not new, and it’s been done before. But Southern California is ignoring it and failing to help their own people who are less well off. That is what it amounts to in a sentence.
All the people so worried about “sales” of animals should be focusing on the altering of those animals we don’t want to see in shelters, so that additional unwanted animals won’t end up in shelters. There is no other way to reduce shelter populations, and animals sold in “pet stores” do not contribute to shelter population to any real measurable degree.
That is BECAUSE they can easily be SOLD on the open market– and will not end up in a shelter. This fact is LOST on Animal rightists who get caught up in the nonsensical emotion of animals are not property. In fact, animals are property and instruments of commerce whether they like it or not. The pet trade is hovering at about $53 billion (like Walmart somewhat) and the bulk of that is through pet food sales.
One does not STOP a business in the United States simply because one does not like what is happening in every third world country. One can simply not patronize any business since this is the United States, but our laws do not necessarily allow us to simply wipe out a business because of some other issue in another place or country, or in another area which is already overseen by another branch of the government which controls it? These are commerce issues and can involve many facets of the law.
Just because ordinances or laws are passed does not make them legal. Our entire system of case law indicates that most published cases define the parameters of case precedence, which is subject to change and often modified when new cases come out.
Here (link below) we see that the shelter killing has RISEN in So Cal:
2005 Intake: 25, 740 Euthanized: 8,127 (-19%)
2006 Intake: 24,999 Euthanized: 6,949 (-15%)
2007 Intake: 25,792 Euthanized: 6,051 (-13%)
In 2008, the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was passed:
2008 Intake: 30,813 Euthanized: 7,518 (+24%)
2009 Intake 31,869 Euthanized: 7,624 (+1.5%)
2010 Intake : 33,396 Euthanized: 8,210 (+7.7%)
2011 Intake: 35,589 Euthanized: 9,452 (+15.1%)
In 2011, 5 years after the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was put into effect to try to DECREASE shelter euthanasia, 38% more dogs were impounded and 56% more dogs were euthanized than the year prior to the ordinance taking effect. Ouch.
WE MUST ASK OURSELVES— IF PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO STOP THE KILLING OF SHELTER ANIMALS THEN WHY ARE THEY FOCUSING ON SALES OF ANIMALS WHICH DO NOT END UP IN SHELTERS?
Does stopping the “sale” of animals in stores “stop” any errant kennel? Is EVERY kennel a bad kennel? Is every kennel breaking the law? Is every kennel illegal? For animal rightists, the answer is that all pet stores should be SHUT DOWN simply BECAUSE the ARs do not like commercial kennels, no matter how good they might be. OH wait— the ARs are saying they don’t “want” to shut down the pet stores– they just WANT PROPRIETORS TO SELL ONLY RESCUED/SHELTER/NON PROFIT ANIMALS…………..
AB1634 was the failed attempt at passing a California law calling for the mandated altering of every animal with very few exceptions.
WELL… First it was that Los Angeles’ local MSN which passed in FEBRUARY 2008–was an absolute MUST for LA city. Which “would have started” in October 2008. They previously passed the same dumb type ordinance for the county (which I seriously doubt is working at all).. NOW suddenly after AB1634 has FAILED–we have the city controller saying this:
1. AC is “ill-equipped” to ENFORCE the ordinance. DUH?
Excuse me, but were they E-V-E-R EQUIPPED to ENFORCE it when you passed it? Could they EVER ENFORCE IT? Do they have 1,000 AC officers?
2. There has been no public education of the “NEW LAW”.
What were the ‘educators’ doing since February when it passed?
3. There is no money to “ENFORCE” THE LAW.
Exactly WHAT THE HECK did pet advocates say in opposition to the ordinance that admittedly now “cannot be enforced?” Did they not collectively say:
1) You cannot enforce it 2) You will end up killing more animals 3) It doesn’t affect feral cats 4) Punitive laws do not work on social welfare problems like this 5) INCREASED costs of at least 300% would transpire 6) Dog licensing drops off 7) Shelter killing goes up due to impounds/non redemption 8) Has been a total failure in 95% of cases attempted in the past 9) CVMA is against the ordinance 10) Pet advocates are against the ordinance, as well as owners/breeders/service+working dog owners/breeders, and just about all of the public that isn’t an AR nut case.
There is an approx. average of 1,000+ animals coming in per week. It could be done over time, but certainly not quickly. And by that we mean we are looking at years. Even if they were lucky and had the funding, it would still be very difficult. The programs that work are usually implemented by organized groups with many volunteers, many dedicated workers, and the procedures to carry these tasks to completion. They usually work with private SPCA groups.
Within the plans to ramp up for NO KILL or even aggressive targeted pet altering— nearly all resources should be FOCUSED and targeted on: 1) low income families 2) Underserved areas/citizens 3) Marketing to #1+#2 and 4) Additional Fund Raising Usually all this is done by a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. In our opinion, would target the highest kill shelter which in this case, are the shelters under Boks’ control. However they perhaps should have started with only 1/2 of them, since there are six-eight separate shelters under Boks if we remember correctly, holding about 1055 kennels.
The evidence shows that in 2003, the city aimed to be no kill by 2008. It is now 2008 and obviously that goal has not been realized.
The Executive Summary of 2005 indicated that 85% of cats killed were KITTEnS. Pups allegedly accounted for 45% of the killed canines. (I seriously doubt this but they probably counted dogs of 1 yr as a pup) It also stated that cats, pitbull types and German Shepherds were 60% of the animals killed. It was admitted that altering programs did NOT address the feral cat population. *(AB1634 did not affect feral cats and neither does MSN. Since cats are accounting for most of the killing–with dog killing having dropped 50%–why use unenforceable MSN when it won’t affect the killing rate of any cats???!!!)
The number of cats killed 2001-2005 remained steady, but dog killing dropped by more than 50%. They also had problems with finding vets for the mobile spay units (not paid enough) and the relationship with local humane groups was not good. (In part, due to the ARs smoke bombing, shelter workers fired, quitting; constant fracas and demonstrations by ADL Los Angeles, a militant animal rights group; the Executive Summary of 2005, specifically mentions the hostility from ARs–personal threats to AC staff and vandalism of private homes–damaging the already low morale and motivation.)
We noted one recommendation was to obtain a “second” mobile spay unit. That is way way off base. They would need either a complete animal hospital, or about 5-7 mobile units. Or both. [Bad legislation and MISREPRESENTATION is ALREADY prolific w/AR groups-- working on a piece for that]
South LA, a mostly Hispanic area was named as an ‘overwhelming’ area. They could have concentrated the mobile units only in that area for several months, utilized bilingual marketing materials, and arranged for volunteers to round up the pets/owners.
Seriously doubt they did anything of the sort. Based on population projections, there will be more minority citizens (includes Hispanic population) than white citizens in perhaps 15-20 years. If that is the case. LA is nothing but a big time bomb when it comes to arresting the uncontrolled animal population in this area.
AND– we didn’t write this below, but Brent did, and it pretty much says what we have said:
…….In most cases, when you increase the opportunities for animal control to seize animals from homes for reasons other than abuse, you will inevitably find that it will have a dramatic increase in Intake — which inevitably increases euthanasia, because shelters aren’t able to handle the influx of animals when they are already overcrowded.
The bite numbers would initially seem confusing — why would all the regulations lead to an increase in bite numbers?
However, last week, the Louisville Courier Journal had an article about attempts by animal control, 2 years after passing this ordinance, to crack down on people who were illegally breeding dogs and owning unaltered dogs. Their methods include poring over newspaper ads and online ads (like Craigslist) looking for pets for sale, and then calling the unlicensed breeders, going in undercover as a potential buyer, and then stinging them. Many in the Louisville area are questioning their tactics.
The amount of resources being used to enforce this no doubt has taken away from essential duties like rounding up stray dogs and dealing with truly aggressive dogs.
From looking at these numbers, it is difficult for me to see any way that someone could twist these numbers and declare that the Louisville ordinance is working so far. While other cities look to pass similar ordinances, mandating spay/neuter with the hopes of decreasing aggression or the dog population, I think it is important for them to look at how other cities have performed with similar ordinances. In Louisville’s case, it certainly hasn’t been working.
(Bite and euthanasia numbers came to me via email from people within Metro Animal Services in Louisville. Their response was easily the fastest and most polite I’ve ever received fro a city.)