Most of the public outside of Los Angeles (which spawned AB1634)—does not realize that the shelter system there is so broken–there is no workable quick fix.  One cannot undo years and years of allowing people to own dogs which might run at large,  animal control picks up the dogs  like garbage collectors, and then suddenly expect those owners to line up for mandated altering,  or— paying complaint driven fines for owning an intact dog which is the subject of a complaint (notice we did not say “verified” or substantiated complaint.)

AND as of 7/15/08, it appears that the sadistic L Levine has NOW changed AB1634 so that SHELTERS WONT HAVE TO REPORT THEIR STATS TO THE STATE???????  Can this be true? 

Pet owners gear up for spay-neuter law dogfight

POLL: Revised state bill still faces steep opposition, even after its bite is removed. Is this another ‘nanny’ law?

The Orange County Register

SACRAMENTO – The state Legislature has pet owners barking up a storm once again.

Nearly a year after controversy stopped the mandatory spay and neuter bill in its tracks, the proposal is back, this time in a watered-down form that hasn’t ceased the “nanny-state” howls in Orange County and across the state.

While the original version of Assembly Bill 1634 called for sterilizing all puppies and kittens in California at 6 months old, the revised proposal affects pets impounded several times by animal control agencies.

Supporters say the amendments offer gradual steps to control pet overpopulation, but opponents maintain it’s a “punishment looking for a crime.”

“The bottom line is that the bill still requires mandatory spaying and neutering as a punishment,” said William Hemby, the leader of a board coalition of more than 42,000 pet owners and 800 dog and cat clubs opposing the bill, PETPAC.

Hemby and other pet owners oppose the bill as unnecessary and unfair, but their central criticism is that it infringes on their personal rights.

“You try to mess with my kids, my pets, my home, I’m going to be quite upset,” said Diane Amendola, a Huntington Beach resident who went from no interest in politics to leading a grass-roots campaign against the bill

Community intervention for this type of social problem requires more of a social work type intervention which uses a roundup of more than just a few techniques. There has to be a marketing element, a cultural understanding, simplistic strategy, focused target as opposed to shotgun spray targeting, multiple methods of advertising and showing animals which focus on education, proper care, and instruction.  In other words, spoon feeding must be used to change societal behavior.  Instead, extremists are now just trying to bring in more money from the state to make this so-called “program” workable. Hmm–CA has a gigantic deficit in the billions right now?  And the extremists crafted this? If ever there was a HUGE use of subterfuge—this is straight out of HSUS!

…..The Legislative Analysts Office report (full report can be found on the CDOC website) on page 106 points out that the effect of the Hayden Act is “shelters do not get more funds if more households adopt animals. 

Rather,  shelters that euthanize the most animals receive the most state funds.  Shelters that are the most successful in promoting adoptions receive the least state funds.” 

The report recommends repealing the elements of the Hayden Act that make it a mandate.  It further states that “Given mandate law’s focus on reimbursing local governments for activities, rather than the achievement of policy objectives, few state objectives are suitable to implementation as mandates.”

None of the reimbursement language was in the original bill.  The reimbursement language is worked out by the Commission on Mandates when the states apply for reimbursement.  Given the budget problems in California, it is inconceivable that all the Democrats will fall in line to create another multi-million dollar budget burden.AB 1634 is flawed in that the goal is not met by the bill. Making the keeping of an intact pet an actionable offense will do nothing to reduce the overpopulation of unwanted animals. The focus should remain on animals that are roaming “at large” without owner knowledge and control.
It comes down to what we have said before, the shelters budgets are guided by how many pets they kill. They actually seem to be rewarded for killing more?  And there have already been lawsuits with government agencies suing one another over it. 
The Hayden law was meant to help shelters do a better job for animals.
The issue now (2012) is Governor wants to get rid of the mandates to pay for keeping animals longer, and if that goes, there are a few other services that are likely to be tossed as well. H$U$ Fearing claims it won’t matter and it will be business as usual. Yet in 2010 Fearing argued to keep the mandate in place.
Most welfarists would like to keep the longer length of time for animals. To say that would happen automatically though, is hogwash.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s