AB1634 COULD DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS

[linkhttp://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/Kill%20Rate%20Report%20-%20June%2011,%202007.pdf]http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/Kill%20Rate%20Report%20-%20June%2011,%202007.pdf[/link]
 
Having read the memo from the City of Los Angeles (link above), it appears that they've begun a few new programs that might account for the increased budget.  Interesting memo to read and it sounds like they're making some progress.  They do support the passing of AB 1634.  Is that because they're anti-breeder or could it just be that working in the trenches everyday, they know that this might be part of a solution?
 
"This is the lowest number of neonate kittens ever killed in the month of May thanks to our Bottle Baby Program."
 [size=4]

"There are limits – both practical and medical – to retaining animals in the shelters for prolonged periods of time, and while we look forward to making use of the expanded capacity offered by the new Animal Care Centers that will be opening this year, we understand that holding animals for longer periods of time is not a solution. "

 

 

[/size]

Perhaps there are some people who would surrender their pet before they'd spend the $$s to get them spayed or neutered.

 
Cathy,  Read the linked article about why manditory S/N doesn't work by Nathan Winograd of No Kill solutions.  This gives some insight as to you question.
 
[linkhttp://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf]http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf[/link]
 
 

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

 
But Bradley maybe we're just viewing it differently.  If I want to drive my car, I have to have it smogged every other year.  Now that's a state requirement but they certainly don't pay me to do it.  It's the cost of driving and it's my choice to drive or not.  Same with pet ownership.  You don't have to have a dog or cat, but if you do, you must keep rabies vaccines updated, and license the animal.  This would be no different IMO.

if you couldnt afford to keep your car current with smog control, is there a group within or outside the state to provide some financial assistance? probably not. what do you think the people do who cant afford smog control? drive anyway?

assuming they drive anyways, if they cant pass smog control, the state will not renew their license plate. then not only are they driving illegal of smog control but also without a current tag and probably no insurance.

so you think someone who cant afford spay/neuter is going to do it if it is a law? maybe. but probably not. if it is easy to avoid getting caught driving an illegal vehicle, it is probably even more easy to avoid AC with an intact and unlicensed dog. (just an assumption).

i think people should alter their pets (all of ours have been, are and will be), but i dont think they should be forced to do so. i am assuming that this is the thinking of maddie's group too. they are trying (seemingly) to reward the people who decide spay/neuter is right for their pet... not the gov't who says you have to spay.neuter. i guess my biggest concern is... where does it stop? today mandatory spay/neuter....

You don't have to have a dog or cat, but if you do, you must keep rabies vaccines updated, and license the animal.

what are the numbers on people who comply with this law currently? i know there are many people here who dont.

Okay Steve, that's a good article and I appreciate the suggestions they make and the suggestion to focus on locations/programs that are having success.  I don't believe the author's inference that all mandatory s/n laws will authorize the rounding up and euthanizing of animals.  Like any group that wants to make their point dramatic, they can use hyperbole.  I also find that the article mentions no-kill shelters having success thru the use of fosters, rescue groups, etc.  But certainly no one can believe that a city the size or Long Beach or Los Angeles could ever hope to become a no-kill city simply thru the use of fosters and rescue groups. 

what are the numbers on people who comply with this law currently? i know there are many people here who dont.

 
Oh, I think the numbers are quite low.  My only point to your comment (and it was actually my initial thought too) was that just because the govt. says you must do something, doesn't mean they're going to compensate you for it. 
 

this was posted on a listserve i am a member of (partial post). i have no idea if the data is accurate or where the figures come from, but assuming it  is true this is all pre-mandatory spay.neuter...

In Riverside County, where i live, AC says in their numbers reports
that they kill ZERO adoptable animals.  ZERO adoptable animals.... and
yet on the other hand, they think this bill will decrease the shelter
killings.   They're euthanizing treatable and untreatable animals
(injured, unsocialized, owner requested, etc)...and lets not forget
the huge issue of feral cats and kittens...that's up to 75% of the
animals killedin shelters.  They're not killing litters of cute little
adoptable puppies.

i think it boils down to education and public awareness. if the above is true, i assume that they are doing a great job with both in riverside county.

doesn't mean they're going to compensate you for it.

i see what you are saying. i just dont find it hypocritical that a group would stand up for what it believes in.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

this was posted on a listserve i am a member of (partial post). i have no idea if the data is accurate or where the figures come from, but assuming it  is true this is all pre-mandatory spay.neuter...

In Riverside County, where i live, AC says in their numbers reports
that they kill ZERO adoptable animals.  ZERO adoptable animals.... and
yet on the other hand, they think this bill will decrease the shelter
killings.   They're euthanizing treatable and untreatable animals
(injured, unsocialized, owner requested, etc)...and lets not forget
the huge issue of feral cats and kittens...that's up to 75% of the
animals killedin shelters.  They're not killing litters of cute little
adoptable puppies.

i think it boils down to education and public awareness. if the above is true, i assume that they are doing a great job with both in riverside county.

 
It's easy to say they kill zero adoptable animals if they are using such strict temperament tests that no animal can pass them, making the all unadoptable.  That's something seen frequently in shelters desiring for the public to think of them as no-kill.  The question is, when given time and training, or health care, will those unadoptable animals become adoptable - and the answer is that they often do when rescue groups step in to take the animal and give it the care it needs.

AB1634 Press Release 6/18/07:
 
Dear All:
 
Today, a few of the breeders that are against our bill sent out a press release written to look like it was sent from Maddie#%92s Fund.  It was not, it was from a breeder named Braettina  Zinsmaster, aka 'Brat' employed at Travis Air Force Base. We know Brat uses the Air Force#%92s federal equipment to send emails out opposing our bill.  The other woman that sent out the hoax memo was Diane Amble, another breeder extremist type. 
 
I had a discussion today with Maddie#%92s Fund President, Richard Avanzino.  Here is the information I received: 
 
1) Maddie#%92s fund has never given grants to government mandated programs across the United States, that#%92s not what they do.
 
2) There are no organizations in California currently receiving Maddie#%92s Fund grants that would lose the funds if AB 1634 went into law today.
 
Signed Judie - which is Judie Mancuso one of the authors/founders of this bill.

It's easy to say they kill zero adoptable animals if they are using such strict temperament tests that no animal can pass them, making the all unadoptable.

 
I was thinking the same thing.  The word "adoptable" leaves a lot to interpretation and can easily be manipulated to paint whatever picture necessary to make a point.  My lab would've probably been unadoptable if they'd done temperment testing.  She was a 75 lb mouthy, skittish and fear aggressive dog.  Fortunately for me, they didn't take the time to do any type of testing or I might not have her today.

I was watching a dog show tonight on Animal Planet.  They were marching out all these pedigree dogs with each hair of their fur in place, **Content Removed - Rude Comment** handlers prancing around with the dogs, and people in the audience applauding as they picked the winners. They showed one breeder making what looked like a restaurant meal for her dogs.  As this show was going on, I was wondering how many dogs and cats were spending their last night on this earth , facing execution tomorrow in overcrowded  shelters. Might be a novel idea in the next dog show , at the end of show, to march out all the dogs that will be put to death the next day,  as a tribute to them.......  

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

AB1634 Press Release 6/18/07:

Dear All:
 
Today, a few of the breeders that are against our bill sent out a press release written to look like it was sent from Maddie's Fund.  It was not, it was from a breeder named Braettina  Zinsmaster, aka 'Brat' employed at Travis Air Force Base. We know Brat uses the Air Force's federal equipment to send emails out opposing our bill.  The other woman that sent out the hoax memo was Diane Amble, another breeder extremist type. 
 
I had a discussion today with Maddie's Fund President, Richard Avanzino.  Here is the information I received: 
 
1) Maddie's fund has never given grants to government mandated programs across the United States, that's not what they do.
 
2) There are no organizations in California currently receiving Maddie's Fund grants that would lose the funds if AB 1634 went into law today.
 
Signed Judie - which is Judie Mancuso one of the authors/founders of this bill.

All this AB 1634 debate is getting me to the point where I personally have zero respect for breeders. In my opinion, they are totally self absorbed and have no respect for dogs other than the ones they are selling.

In my opinion, they are totally self absorbed and have no respect for dogs other than the ones they are selling.

I'll be sure to tell that to Strauss and Ranger.