AB1634 COULD DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS

It appears that Maddies Fund is a group that tries to save homeless animals from being executed in shelters by providing funds for these animals.  To withhold these funds because of  a law that is enacted that will substantially reduce the number of dogs that wind up in shelters, is rather ridiculous and counter productive in my opinion. The millions and millions of dollars that the entire state of California will save because of AB1634, will far outweigh any potential funds that Maddie's Fund would have provided anyway...

The millions and millions of dollars

 
I would like to see the accounting of how the state could save millions and millions of dollars.  Considering most of the budget of a AC is fixed costs and the actual sheltering of the animals is not the major part of the budget I really want to see the numbers of how they expect to save so much money. 
 
Also I have never seen the 250,000,000 number spent accounted for.  How was that number arrived at.  Lets see the listing by county of how nuch is being spent. 
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

The millions and millions of dollars

I would like to see the accounting of how the state could save millions and millions of dollars.  Considering most of the budget of a AC is fixed costs and the actual sheltering of the animals is not the major part of the budget I really want to see the numbers of how they expect to save so much money. 

Also I have never seen the 250,000,000 number spent accounted for.  How was that number arrived at.  Lets see the listing by county of how nuch is being spent. 

If you would look at the link that is on my signature, you would find your answer. 

If you would look at the link that is on my signature, you would find your answer.

i read this article...
http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/061707-levine.pdf

those are hefty numbers he comes up with, but there is no supporting documentation as to how he arrived at those figures. can you specifically point out a link (perhaps directly from a government agency or a non-biased news source) to support what the claims are in this article?

if those numbers are true, it seems that it would be a shame to turn away an organization that is willing to help monetarially and putting that burden on the tax base just so a few politicians can feel good about themselves. [sm=2cents.gif]

The millions and millions of dollars that the entire state of California will save because of AB1634, will far outweigh any potential funds that Maddie's Fund would have provided anyway...

Rather than "will", how about at least saying "is projected to"?  Whether or not AB1634 will save a lot of money is still speculation. 

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

If you would look at the link that is on my signature, you would find your answer.

i read this article...
[linkhttp://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/061707-levine.pdf]http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/061707-levine.pdf[/link]

those are hefty numbers he comes up with, but there is no supporting documentation as to how he arrived at those figures. can you specifically point out a link (perhaps directly from a government agency or a non-biased news source) to support what the claims are in this article?

if those numbers are true, it seems that it would be a shame to turn away an organization that is willing to help monetarially and putting that burden on the tax base just so a few politicians can feel good about themselves. [sm=2cents.gif]

Do I need God to vouch for these numbers, or will this do? [] Now I realize that this might be off by a few thousand dollars, and if so, I guess I will have to jump off a tall building.  

[linkHV35QI4YQQJemocrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CASheltersFinancialImpact.pdf+10+year+cost+of+animal+shelters+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a]http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cacheHV35QI4YQQJemocrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CASheltersFinancialImpact.pdf+10+year+cost+of+animal+shelters+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a[/link]>http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cacheHV35QI4YQQJemocrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CASheltersFinancialImpact.pdf+10+year+cost+of+animal+shelters+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a]http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cacheHV35QI4YQQJemocrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CASheltersFinancialImpact.pdf+10+year+cost+of+animal+shelters+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a[/link]

To withhold these funds because of a law that is enacted that will substantially reduce the number of dogs that wind up in shelters, is rather ridiculous and counter productive in my opinion.

AB1634 would probably reduce the number of small puppies in shelters.  I don't think it will do diddly-squat to reduce the number of older puppies and dogs in shelters - unless the state plans to use those breeder's license bureaus to reduce breeding in the state and goes further to reduce the interstate and international importation of pups.
 
Maddies Fund helps people that want to s/n their animals.  They don't agree with government mandates, so they don't use their funds support them.  To support AB1634 would be hypocritical on their part and counter productive to the organization's goal of supporting voluntary s/n.

Do I need God to vouch for these numbers, or will this do? Now I realize that this might be off by a few thousand dollars, and if so, I guess I will have to jump off a tall building.

HV35QI4YQQJemocrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CASheltersFinancialImpact.pdf+10+year+cost+of+animal+shelters+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a>http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cacheHV35QI4YQQJemocrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CASheltersFinancialImpact.pdf+10+year+cost+of+animal+shelters+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a

gosh, you seem to have taken my request so personally. i didnt realize asking for supporting data was akin to jumping off a bldg?

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

To withhold these funds because of a law that is enacted that will substantially reduce the number of dogs that wind up in shelters, is rather ridiculous and counter productive in my opinion.

AB1634 would probably reduce the number of small puppies in shelters.  I don't think it will do diddly-squat to reduce the number of older puppies and dogs in shelters - unless the state plans to use those breeder's license bureaus to reduce breeding in the state and goes further to reduce the interstate and international importation of pups.
 
Maddies Fund helps people that want to s/n their animals.  They don't agree with government mandates, so they don't use their funds support them.  To support AB1634 would be hypocritical on their part and counter productive to the organization's goal of supporting voluntary s/n.

Unless something has changed dramatically, older dogs and puppies start out as small puppies.... If this group has to pick apart  the reason  that is used to S/N animals, and therefore decides not to help in situations that they don't 100%approve of, then I think they are hypocritical.  Besides that, the money that they could possibly contribute, would be pocket change compared to the money that the government will save by not having to house thousands and thousands of dogs and cats  that are products of being unspayed .

if ca is going to force everyone to spay/neuter, then what incentive does a group like this have for giving money? the people are assumedly going to be forced to find a way to spay/neuter their dog or risk a fine.

a group like maddie's offers assistance in an effort to entice people who would normally not spay/neuter becasue of cost to spay/neuter. if it is gov't mandated, people need no other incentive than risk of a fine.

i dont see it as hypocritical, just good business sense. the money that they would spend in ca can be more effectively spent elsewhere.

hypocritical will be when/if the  vets in ca try to capitalize off of a new law that mandates spay/neuter. [sm=2cents.gif]

If you would look at the link that is on my signature, you would find your answer.

 
"Holding and euthanasia costs calculated on estimated total operational cost per animal of $308.00, submitted by the General Manager, City of Los Angeles Department of Animal Services."
 
This is the biggest piece of voodo economics I have ever seen.  You know how they came up with the $308 per dog figure.  They took the entire budget of the LA AC department and divided by the number of animals that they took in.  Much of the cost that AC incures is fixed costs and has nothing to do with the shelter intake.  Does that mean that if shelter intake is halved then their budget is half.  I don't think so.  If you look that the costs maybe 20% at best of the budget relates to the the cost of sheltering an individual animal.  Also the $250,000,000 number comes from the same 308 figure and extrapulating it out across all other shelters.  They didn't even take the time to get the budget numbers for all shelters.  These $ quotes from "Lightbulb" Levine are completely bogus.  If I tried to do that type of analysis in my job I'd be fired.
 
 
 

Here are some more interesting facts from the City of Angles.
 
Here are the financial, shelter intake and euth numbers from the last 5 years.
 
               2002         2003         2004         2005      2006
Budget    $12.7m     $13.4m     $14.4m     $14m     $16.3m   Budget increase from 2002     28.35%
Intake    
Cats        22282       21316      22536       20976    21222     Decrease of  4.76% from 2002
Dogs       37467       33036      28747       26823    24617     Decrease of     34% from 2002
Total       59749       54352      51283       47799    45839    Total decrease from 2002        23.28%
 
Euth
Cats         15260     13704       14766       12449    12210     Decrease of 20% from 2002
Dogs        20057     15721       11328         9539      7314      Decrease of 63% from 2002
Total        35317      29425       26094       21988    19524    Total decrease from 2002            44.72%
 
So as the intake and euth numbers have decreased from 2002 the budget has increased 28%.
 
From this analyis if they keep decreasing the intake the budget should keep rising to infinity!!!!
 
Btw,
I can site the above number from [linkhttp://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm]http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm[/link]
 
 

if ca is going to force everyone to spay/neuter, then what incentive does a group like this have for giving money? the people are assumedly going to be forced to find a way to spay/neuter their dog or risk a fine.

 
IF the bill passes, perhaps this group could get the word out that they're available to help people who couldn't otherwise afford to comply.  Perhaps there are some people who would surrender their et before they'd spend the $$s to get them spayed or neutered.  Now I personally don't think people like that should own a pet in the 1st place (meaning anyone who feels that $80-$100 is too much to spend to keep their pet), but I also hate to see them surrendered.

i think the burden of providing low cost spay/neuter should be on the state if they make it mandatory.