HAHAHA! Just about EVERYTHING.
Oh it’s held out to be just another “AB1634” but as pointed out at CDOCdogtalk post here http://www.ckcscsc.org/blog.htm you will see it’s a very pervasive and dangerous proposal. A sneaky one at that………………..
Let’s just look at a few reasons why. Reasons that welfarists probably don’t address? Any of the following will cause your dog to be mandated altered against your will:
Dog in car/someone says it’s too hot, business involving dogs w/o a license, dog in allegedly “unsanitary or unhealthy” condition” (means it could be anything they CLAIM it is), a tethering violation has been issued, or a violation at a kennel if owned, or a leash law violation, or dog isn’t licensed, or no “up to date” rabies vacciantion, or dog is out of the yard. WOW—even for drunk drivers you don’t lose the right to drive forever even if you kill someone. Think about it. Is owning an intact dog equal to being able to drive? The question isn’t whether one has the right to drive or own an intact dog. It’s whether the law that allegedly punishes to DETER unwanted conduct is appropriate to the thing that caused the “violation” in the first place?
Let’s pretend that your cable man or woman left your gate open and your dog got out. You might get cited. but if the 2nd cable person does it again, or PGE or Smud or ANYONE doesn’t ensure your gate is 100% locked, guess what? Your dog is mandated altered.
The proposed law purposely uses the WORD “CUSTODIAN” meaning it can be anyone–the GROOMER, THE TRAINER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD KID, THE PET SITTER, THE DOG WALKER, ANYONE. Basically whoever is walking the dog. What about the pet store? What if someone at a pet store wants to take the lead of your dog and walk it around? And then the dog escapes? You are in trouble.
And you can just IMAGINE the problems this will cause for dogs in a dog park? Further, if you do receive one citation for anything mentioned, then all of your OTHER intact dogs must ALSO be sterilized. While the majority of people cited will likely be owners that cannot afford to replevy their own dogs, and pay the fines and for the surgery, then that means what? It means they will be either sold by AC or killed. That’s a nice law isn’t it? It promotes more killing. Isn’t that what they are trying to allegedly ‘STOP?”
Apparently the ARs have learned from HSUS. So if dog owner or custodian is cited for anything EXCEPT barking–the intact dogs are all subject to the mandated altering at your expense. However the law doesn’t even consider ALTERED dogs because you can’t alter an altered dog. So if the altered dogs do the SAME EXACT THING–there apparently is no punishment [by altering, no forced MSN]–because they are already altered.
And we all KNOW–that Animal Rights want every last damn dog altered!!!! Why? Because they want NO breeding! That’s what this is really about. It is NOT about shelter animals. And as we all KNOW, CA has no money to pay for this law. Understatement of the year. Highest unemployment in CA since the Great Depression, but you still have ARs spending $$$ on useless laws that kill more animals belonging to poor people. That’s pretty sick if you ask us.
Shelter animals is a ploy to take out breeding, and it has been a ploy ever since the decades of altering shelter animals has shown numbers of killing in shelters go down.
If they really were concerned about shelter animals now, they would have made the LAW FOR CATS. Since most shelter animals killed ARE CATS, NOT DOGS. Dog killing has dropped, cat killing has not dropped. Why not focus on CATS???? Same reason HSUS doesn’t focus on CATS. Because they kill a lot of them already, and HSUS doesn’t like cats anyway. Just in case you didn’t notice.
That obviously is the very INTENT of this law–to stop breeding of dogs, not save animals. Saving animals would focus on shelters/intakes, AND CATS—not the intact dogs.
You can’t keep using the “shotgun approach” to intact dogs, breeders, petstores, MSN, ignoring low income owners, and then expect shelters to have zero intake. It obviously doesn’t work, has not worked, and Los Angeles is living proof that it does not work. How darn stupid do people have to be to get this realized???
We have said it 1,000+ times. The focus has to be on what comes into shelters. NOT the breeders, pet stores, or the owners. The focus MUST be on what is coming in, in order to figure out a proper solution. The solution has to be targeted, not a shotgun approach. Clearly, ARs don’t want a “solution”, they just want NO intact animals, esp. no intact dogs. NO breeding. NO selling. NO buying.
Let’s call a spade a spade eh? It’s called dementia thinking by ignoring the reality and pretending to be “helpful” like HSUS is so keen on–all that “helpfulness”, raiding, killing, seizin’ and sellin’, commercial kennel dogs re-sold, Hell they are all on Petfinder as we speak. Go look. We looked, and we saw tons.
Remember—the largest breed rescue in the United States is the Small Paws Bichon “rescue” out of Oaklahoma–and they BUY 300+ dogs every month from commercial kennels to sell as RESCUED DOGS. YES–they were on OPRAH. How disgusting.
They have over 800 volunteers, and they bring in well over $500,000 just on selling the dogs. When was the last time you saw 300 Bichons ANYWHERE—except on that so-called “rescue” site online—and in a commercial kennel? If they close all the commercial kennels down, the Small Paws won’t be able to even buy them to re-sell! Guess they won’t need rescuing then huh? Then they also opened up some type of sponsorship in Mexico for such dogs! This is just a scam to get people to buy the dogs from them and HSUS and friends to the same thing. Seize and sell.
The real reason for AB250: To get rid of ALL intact dogs where owner or custodian has been cited for anything except barking
What we really have here is just another SNEAKY way of saying that all dogs need to be altered. It has long been known that most animals in shelters are from lower income, lower education, economically deprived areas. That is not a secret, it’s a social welfare issue. It is NOT actually a safety issue but Los Angeles makes it one by ignoring the dogs in those areas and only picking them up and killing them. Not altering them, just killing them.
Unfortunately, the elitist non-minority (meaning white people ARs) that made up this crap, are aiming at two groups: 1) poor minorities with intact dogs and 2) show dog owners’ dogs, which are usually intact for show purposes/breeding. There is no evidence that show dogs are running amok and creating problems, [meaning there is absolutely no proof that dogs kept intact for shows are in shelters, or that their offspring are in shelters] so that means that poor minorities are targeted, and any unlucky show dog owner with a former ticket by AC.
But the premise that we see lacking, is that the intact dogs (that they claim must be altered)—-are the actual so-called “problem” that they are trying to allegedly “cure?” If they were truthful and just looked in their own BACKYARD–meaning Los Angeles shelters—they could see that most NON adopted dogs are mixed breed juvenile males of med-large size. Instead of targeting the area that most of those dogs come from, they ignore it and charge only $5 to take in a surrendered dog. Then the same owners can just get another dog (ostensibly if from a shelter, it would be altered.) NOW— would you call that “helping?”
They don’t set up the low income/free altering in the low income gang areas. They don’t even go there, yet that’s where the dogs are. Instead, they try and take out every intact dog alive by penalizing anyone who owns one? And then they target Westwood breeders? Huh?
And now Ed Boks is “retired” “resigned” “fired” or whatever? Changing out Ed Boks won’t change their problems. It will give the new GM the chance to see how much guts he/she has when the Animal Rights start smoke bombing his car, house, or whatever. Just wait. We forsee a very dismal future for Los Angeles Animal Control.