Turkish Dogs - particularly Anatolian Shepherd Dogs

Lately, way too much going on. Thought I get this one posted at least! I have some nice photos from my crew, and also updates from Helmut. :)

For the ongoing stuff... Legislative session continues as we work to prevent Mandatory Spay and Neuter from being implemented statewide.

Head over to LegalBroadcastNetwork.com to see video interview regarding MSN from three champions people who love their dogs.

"The LB Network is the home base for lawyers across America as well as the professional networking page of The Legal Broadcast Network. It’s entirely Free to join and it opens the door to the future of professional networking and media for attorneys."

Dog Regulations Run Amok? The CDOC vs The City of Los Angeles

No area of the law or regulation creates more controversy and passion then anything linked to dogs, cats and other domestic pets and the lawsuit brought by Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC) against the City of Los Angeles over their mandatory spay and neuter regulations is no exception. Last year they filed a lawsuit to over turn the mandatory spay and neuter regulations imposed on all dog owners in the City, in which set dates for spay and neuter are established, civil and administrative penalties are outlined and entire categories of dog breeders, owners and hobbyists now fall under increasingly strict laws and oversight...

Interviews are with:
David Frei - Westminster Kennel Club
John Jensen - lead attorney on the lawsuit against the City of California
Cathie Turner - Executive Director of Concerned Dog Owners of California

the videos are also archived here.

For up-to-date info on California animal law lobbying issues for the first half of 2009, go to True Agendas.

Labels: animal_control

This legislative session in California has really been a PAIN. We have a little problem in that California spends money like a bimbo and creates legislation to force compliance with any number of Politically Correct fads and hairbrained schemes without considering the collateral damage to businesses and farms. Additionally the voting population is not really involved with their own government. I guess we all like to believe that there are checks and balances and that our Constitution will prevail. If you are suspicious, you must be a tin foil hatter. Anyway, California is paying for these sins, left and right, and YET... while we are dealing with these mistakes, our pathetic government continues to pass more pork because of ideas that 'sound good' to the citizens.

If you want to cut right to the chase and do stuff about this bill, go here, a google document page where I have placed essential contact information and instructions on what to do.

The mandatory spay and neuter bill is one such idiot package. SB 250 is our current reincarnation of AB 1634 which did not pass last year when our legislators found the bill to be fundamentally flawed. However the people anxious to pass the bill are trying again. It does NOT work. It will be a disaster for our farms and for millions of dollars income for the state. Furthermore, the premise of the bill presents a false problem and presents an equally false solution!
Charts from saveourdogs.com -click to enlarge
See SAVE OUR DOGS for detail and more issues about Mandatory Spay and Neuter (MSN)

Why are some places passing this bill? In Los Angeles, it passed because the promoters flippantly stated (LIES) as if it were fact that Santa Cruz's problems would be helped with MSN. But as you can see from the chart, they are an unmitigated FAIL. Additionally, since Los Angeles willingly used false info to get the bill passed, they too have increased kills and are not solving their original problem. The first step in solving a problem is to correctly identify it.


The hydra strategy.......
The thing is now, the MSN groups are undaunted with their total failures. They seem to think that their failure is not due to them analyzing their problem but is due to all other people that do not have MSN. Thus, they have multiplied their 'divide and conquer' strategy; it resembles the life form known as a hydra. They have chopped up the bigger goals so that the smaller pieces can pass first and like that hydra, the small bits rebuild into a monster. The multiple bills come together after passage, with many complicated ordinances that can be much worse than the original big bill because the smaller ones are amended further and include even more invasive bits tacked onto them.

Read the news and you will see this in action--HSUS lobbyists go to the legislators of other states and say "your state is behind on animal care issues; this and that bill passed in California and other states." This makes legislators think it's really "by the people" since the other states were 'won' and they become convinced that HSUS represents mainstream thought. This is beyond disingenuous, but this is what they are doing.

HSUS and others in the extremist groups discuss this strategy to educate their peers in how successful it is and get sleepy little towns with their boards of supervisors swinging happily from imaginary "progressive" monkey vines.

JQP becomes part of the problem as they sit back and let these laws be enacted without seeing the need for checks and balance.

Anyway, a great post was on another of the forums I read, so I will copy bits of it here. Some of this material is revived from when we were fighting AB 1634.

http://www.ahba-herding.org/AB1634.htm*

It estimated* the benefit dogs give to California ranchers at *about *$140 million.* Add to that about *$1.3 million* boosting local economies by *herding trial exhibitors.*

another

The AKC conducts ongoing research regarding the economic benefits of our events, and our estimates conclude that these exhibitors contributed approximately *$92 million* to local California economies.

Registries such as AKC (American Kennel Club) and CFA (Cat Fanciers of America) conduct ongoing research regarding the economic benefits of our events, and their estimates conclude that these exhibitors contribute nearly 100 million annually to local California economies. This is the contribution from dog and cat shows and does not include the money spent on vets, groomers, handlers, supplies, pet food, etc.

* So far, this looks like AKC dog shows, CFA cat shows, herding trials and working ranch dogs contribute at least $233.3 million to California's economy every year. * This doesn't include hunting trials and other canine performance events including Schutzhund events, sighthound courses, UKC or ARBA dog shows, etc.

Senate Bill 250 is the linchpin on which all the other HSUS-backed radical animal rights bills depend. Sen. Florez -thinks California can afford to lose these animals, their genetics and their owners? In addition to the *$65 million lost by Long Beach* when AKC cancelled the Eukanuba contract a couple of months ago?

See SAVE OUR DOGS (on Twitter)/web for more updates. See True Agendas (on Twitter)/web for frequently updated brief details.

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, HSUS, spay-neuter

Helmut at the beach with a Great Dane. (pic from earlier this year, via Geno) It's just always great to see happy pics and good news about dogs. :)

'Animal Wrongs' seems to be a better and more accurate phrase than 'Animal Rights' as practiced by HSUS, PeTA and other supporters, including some local animal shelters. Lots of reports suggesting reform abound, but they are still killing pets as they see fit and making it difficult for pet lovers to keep their rights. Seems counter intuitive regarding 'humane' organizations but until reform happens, we still have quite a fight at hand.

Seen on Craigslist

CA AB1122: WHY HSUS DOESN’T WANT “TRANSFERS” OF ANIMALS
April 19, 2009
How does HSUS Work Against Pets+Owners?

HSUS passes laws (HSUS has almost 200 laws for this year) then uses those laws for cases it plans to bring forward, then uses those cases in their incremental process to bring down both interstate commerce and pet ownership, kennels, pet stores, dog breeders, along with difficulties for agriculture and other animals.

We can guarantee that the CA Prop 2 (battery cages) will come back to haunt us in pet ownership, or farming. HSUS will probably find some other ways to outlaw farm animals or make a huge problem for farming–after all HSUS right NOW is trying to outlaw all “non-native” species including birds, herps,guineas,ferrets, turtles and many other common species in the USA that have been owned for 50-100 years.

Ownership in the law, is of the highest legal nature, and as a concept, usually means the ultimate control over the item owned. It also usually refers to having the control legally over such item (property) and also the right to use it for as long as is allowed in the law, and in many instances, to bring a lawsuit where the owner’s rights are affected. Guardianship does NOT necessarily mean any of the same things, which is why animal rights prefers it over “owner.”

CA law has statutes that show one of the main incidents of ownership in property, is the right to TRANSFER it (Bias v Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14,16). Or, “A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of, transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317)

Thefore we can see why Peta wanted to take possession/ownership of different animals because after they owned them, they could just dispose of them in the garbage dump (after killing them via lethal injection)—and they suffered no consequences. [Actually it appeared there was fraud in the procurement of the animals but we don't know if they were hit for that.]

And, we can see why HSUS doesn’t want animals TRANSFERRED to others because that’s an element of OWNERSHIP.

The obvious next step for HSUS is to claim if animals can’t be sold or transferred, then that means THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.

HSUS is currently trying to outlaw the use (import, export, transport, breeding) or movement in interstate commerce of any non native species via HR669 in Congress by using the Lacey Act. See the PIJAC website for details, or see the post on this site with the link to PIJAC.

This would encompass virtually every bird, reptile, amphibian, fish and some mammals kept as pets. In general only a small number of species have caused environmental issues (in FL and HI.)

This nonsense by HSUS subterfuge has not been lost on us.

We are VERY aware of what HSUS and Animal Rights are trying to do. Clearly the agenda is to chip away at the ownership of animals until we miss the fact that the WORDS USED FOR OWNERSHIP have been eliminated, then next thing you know—-HSUS has eliminated the ownership of animals. No transfers, no selling, no bartering, no trading, etc. This has already been attempted in HSUS anti pet laws where a dog with cropped ears couldn’t be transferred/owned by a rescue because the rescue didn’t have the documents proving how the ears were done.

It would be easier to make “owning” something next to impossible, or exorbitantly too expensive or far too much red tape, than to outright say “you can’t own that”–which is Animal Rights done the HSUS way–as can be seen by the multidue of 180 Anti pet laws HSUS is pushing just this year…..

HSUS has a habit of purposely drafting bad laws, then getting them passed, then taking cases, and using the laws that HSUS has HELPED PASS—as proof that such ideas have already been cemented IN THE LAW. In other words, HSUS makes the very laws it fully intends to use as part of a case it has already planned, then if they win that case, it will set some precedent in the law. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE HSUS GOAL—TO SET ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW PRECEDENT……………………

If you value your ownership over your pets and animals, and the fact that pet-related businesses are allowed to profit over the selling, buying, trading, owning, or otherwise pet-related legal businesse ownership; if you want CHOICE in what dog or cat or bird or fish that you can BUY, own, or trade or sell; if you want the ability to eat the foods you like (milk, eggs, cheese, meat) then you do NOT want to support ANY HSUS LAWS.

As has been stated on this blog ever since it started—you don’t join the KKK if you’re Black, you don’t push Hitler if you’re Jewish, and you don’t help HSUS if you value ownership of animals.


And because the Pet connection blog online, is one that keeps saying (especially author Gina Spadafori) that HSUS can be trusted to do the right thing—where HSUS cannot be trusted at all…………….it is our opinion that Pet connection lacks the ability to discern Animal Rights in disguise—-and we do not recommend anyone following the opinions of much of the blog—mostly because Spadafori only harps on Peta–but not HSUS.

Just because one authors books, doesn’t mean that one knows Animal Rights. Further, Spadifori harped on Petland claiming that they should be OUT of business if they didn’t ADOPT out dogs, rather than SELL them? That is a very very dangerous proposition, and one that we surely don’t want to push as owners. NOT if you understand the HSUS concept of animal rights–which we don’t believe Spadafori understands [unless she is animal rights herself---]

HSUS is the FAR more dangerous group—if you understand Animal Rights. Spadifori also commended HSUS on filing the lawsuit against Hunte and Petland—that is a mistake, because it indicates that one does NOT understand what HSUS is doing strategy wise.



For example, HSUS pushed the Stevens free speech case, so that Stevens would be prosecuted for selling videos which showed dog fighting (he didn’t make the videos)—BUT the Appeals court held that the statute used (which was likely pushed by HSUS)— which was set up for “crush films”, could cause LEGAL acts to become illegal if the law was upheld, and might even cause the Disney film (Bambi) to be illegal. [See the Stevens case on the Front Page on this blogsite]

Another case is Amazon, where after HSUS pushed the Stevens case (Stevens convicted under the statute ) HSUS sued Amazon to stop the sale of chicken videos or dog video sales, claiming they were violating the law. Another case is the PA commercial kennel laws pushed by HSUS and ASPCA, where after the law was passed, HSUS then sued Petland and Hunte, no doubt so they could use their own law that passed (PA) as proof of concern over the commercial kennel issues. All of this is just a part of the pattern and practice of getting incremental steps in place, passing laws, filing lawsuits, and using the laws to set up precedence for HSUS Animal Rights. We don’t doubt for a second that their entire 16 attorney team or 160 member team or whatever, just goes to the conference room and has a session on strategy for the next 5 years.

Don’t think for a second that we haven’t noticed it, because we knew it a long time ago. Another example is the DNA testing and Breed Specific Legislation that HSUS “claims” it doesn’t support?

HSUS filed an amicus animal rights brief in the DENVER 2008 case re BSL, [yes, we did read it]—- claiming that the DNA companies claimed their DNA test “was 99% accurate.” Then on the animal law and historical society page (Michigan School of Law, Animal Rights Section)—the school has pages which show “how DNA proved” that a particular dog WAS NOT a pitbull subject to BSL. But the key really is, if they can prove it ISN’T a pitbull, and it’s actually 99% accurate, can it prove that IT IS A PITBULL?

And that’s why HSUS put that amicus brief in the Federal Court to Denver. So when that issue comes up down the line, HSUS will be the first to claim that DNA testing should be used [to have pitbull dogs killed], because it’s 99% accurate, despite the fact that the AKC and UKC don’t have the exact same breed name/types for American Pitbull Terriers, or American Stafforshire Terriers. AKC doesn’t recognize the APBT. But that won’t stop HSUS—you wait and see. They like to keep people fooled.

Any Animal Rights group like HSUS that has that much time and money into killing pitbull type dogs is definitely going to try and eliminate more of those dogs, use such dogs as a ploy to raise more funding, and then kill more of them. We have long ago figured out HSUS’ pattern and practice, and that’s why we keep telling everyone not to trust HSUS. They are just Animal Rights that think no one can figure out what they are doing.

WRONG.

You don’t have to be an attorney or have a legal education to figure that one out. And you don’t even have to be a pet owner. You just have to have some logic and common sense to see what is going on.

Not in our lifetime, never, never ever. The demise of HSUS will come first. Because too many people will see what they are REALLY doing. Help us spread the word! Tell everyone you know and make it a point to tell at least 10-50 other people. This is the only way that legislators are going to figure it out, and the only way the public will stop donating.

People that donate to HSUS Animal rights might as well donate to PETA. Because they are carrying out the Peta agenda.

There's been some good news but it's still no time to sit back. To see an example of how convoluted and disgusting some of the problems are, see this article on the removal of Ed Boks from L.A. Animal Services. He was major component in pushing some extremist bills in L.A. County and attempted to get all of California to buy the rotten goods.

One of the things that has taken so much time from me over the past weeks has been the effort to keep up with over two dozen animal related bills on the California agenda. The extremist strategy of chopping up the concepts of larger failed bills, into smaller bite sizes, makes it considerably more difficult to get people to realize that all of the bills are part of the greater goals.

Now for some fun.
I just have to share this video. No need for captions on this one. :)



And more fun!
Free game giveaway of the day is "Around the World in 80 Days", with only eleven hours left for downloads of an unlocked version of the game as I write. This is a beautiful match-3 game and it comes with a screen saver that increases options as you gain levels within the game. Gamezebo reviews this game and gives it a nice write up.

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, Helmut, HSUS, humor, Video

At some point, some recommendations become restrictions and political humor about it just isn't funny any more.

Legislative actions and criminalization of various aspects of animal ownership are coming down like a tsunami from Animal Rightists such as HSUS and PeTA. While it is going on like wildfires all over the country, California has a fresh new list of proposals from them to make many aspects of animal ownership or husbandry into criminal activities.

A member of one of my favorite animal husbandry and law related forums submitted this passage from page 436 of Atlas Shrugged:

"Well, what do you think they're for?"
Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against--then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

That playlist sound familiar?

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, Politics

The following is both hilarious

...and sad. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF (click link to read -PDF-)

From the standpoint of a microbiologist and medical technologist, the above argument (see PDF) is very selective and funny. Were I to judge this argument, I'd throw these nuts out on their glutei maximi. The man just doesn't want to get a shot, based on this. In my opinion, he should be able to have a choice on the shot but that might restrict where he can work in the hospital, as in the event of an outbreak, since people are so litigious in these times, it would help to protect the jobs of others at the hospital.

But to me... It puts flashing lights around the ignorance of vegans. NOW... if the man is truly vegan, he would not use public water nor use ice cubes manufactured for commercial use. If he were truly vegan, he would not used canned or processed foods, nor would he would eat commercial fruits and vegetables. Veganism is primarily a modern philosophical argument that does not have any strong basis in reality nor any context in human history--although some seem to believe that some primitive groups were vegan. 'Fraid not folks.

I think it might be possible to be a true vegan, and not one that just toys at the idea, if one were homesteading and lived in location where one could have control of all products utilized or otherwise consumed. Climate, diversity of life, a flexible appetite (strong stomach), and a lot of ingenuity and hard work would have to be considered. Maybe a vegan commune of sorts, where enough people could contribute their skills for vegan clothing, foods, putting things up for the winter and so on.

Want more? I generally haven't bothered to get into the mental dichotomy of the vegan philosophy. I have had family members and many friends who are vegetarian to some degree or for periods of time. The long term ones (30 years or so) are no healthier than those the same age, who lived off junk food and the vegans have actually aged faster. :( The women who were veggies prior to having a child, usually have kids with some unfortunate challenges. Younger, long term vegan mothers may not have a pelvis structure wide enough to have a baby without a C-section. And some babies from vegan moms sometimes spend some of the first days or weeks of their lives in the ICU, as they are born with various types of compromise to their health and immune systems.

Weston A Price Foundation has materials that show even the most primitive of societies ensured that women had a wide variety of food stuffs before becoming pregnant. June marriages were traditionally thought to be a favored time since the richness of nutrients in the springtime would contribute to the pregnancy to come. The richness of spring grass on dairy butter creates a naturally golden yellow product because of high level of grass nutrient early in the grazing season. Contrast commercial butter, artificially converted from ghostly white to a pale yellow with the use of annato.

Pre-pregnancy diet may be the period of time that is most critical for the development of ova (and sperm), letting the developing fetus have optimal chances to be perfect. Children, babies and fetuses are not 'lab rats' to raise on the newest vegan philosophies presented by a population of people representing between 1 and 4% of philosophical foodists... Give children every advantage--please. As I have worked in health care and clinical technology (blood & gore, analysis and diagnostic value in health care) I'm familiar with some of the patterns in some of the various dietary lifestyles, and the vegan ranks rather average or quite poorly in the long term.

Vegan IS GOOD initially, because it is an awareness training exercise; people become more aware of what they are putting into their bodies and that they begin to feel healthier because of this. They can opt to go low sugar/junk and seek nutrient dense foods, but some don't because they cannot let go of sugar and junk food habits. For some, it's easier to just generally avoid anything that seems to be animal related. ...although I have seen some enjoying marshmallow laced rice crispy treats and other animal containing foods -- oops! ...but that is okay. None of us are saints.

Older people regardless of diet may start to have less efficient absorption of some nutrients, just as all older beings can over time. Low levels of B12 with higher levels of folate in the diet can lead to rapid cognitive decline. Feel a little woozy or mental fog? ... sometimes B12 can help.

There is no such thing as a truly vegan commercial peanut butter, a truly vegan restaurant, canned food or other commercial product from a food processing facility that is properly licensed, inspected and periodically tested.

Every place has to meet inspection and cleanliness requirements. Products periodically have to be tested for coliforms and other such things and most places use water that has been tested for coliforms anyway.

This coliform testing is done by taking samples, sending them to a laboratory that plates out the specimen onto media.

Guess what this media is made of. It is an animal product.

Even ice machines, wells and sources of drinking water are periodically tested for coliforms. (remember all those lemon water scare videos on youtube?)

Your average fresh commercial tomato and lettuce is also periodically tested for coliforms using animal media. Did you hear about all that lettuce that failed coliform tests? Yes, peptone agars and broth media are not vegan.

What is this media? Here's just one recipe for laboratory media that tests water supplies & ice cubes, among other things.
http://www.bd.com/ds/technicalCenter/inserts/Lactose_Peptone_Broth.pdf

Processed sugar is not vegan although that is counter intuitive to many. Processed white sugar and most processed brown sugar (is usually white sugar that is darkened with molasses) is made that way with non vegan processing. Any place that processes foods anyway, has to pass periodic inspection as mentioned above.

So, among our modern cohorts, there is not a single vegan that truly lives a "vegan" life. They are all, every single one of them, selective about what they consider big deals. Call them hypocrites or even better, hopeless idealists. But as long as they are not trying to 'evangelize' others to join their 'religion' with the use of misinformation, and as long as children and young women planning to have families get the nutrition they need, I'm just not overly concerned unless it's a member of my family.

Heart disease, insulin resistance, gut issues and high blood pressure as well as depression, some increased inability to think clearly are traits among vegans and some vegetarians, and are common long term effects of malnutrition.

What else isn't vegan? HIV testing, premarital testing, a culture for a sore throat, and even an OTC pregnancy test all require animal media. This is different than the peptone media used in water testing. For example, monoclonal antibodies don't come from carrots. ;) So... how many vegans are celibate? Do they screen their partners? What method do they use, coin toss or laboratory testing?

I can forgive people for being ignorant about these issues in medical science because science and critical thinking is not a strong point in our activist, "politically correct" society. Even news is part of entertainment media. I get more than a little annoyed when cult figures like pretty boy Wayne Pacelle and others, pose to be so educated and go on pulling the wool over the eyes of their dittoheads'. I'd rather see that those who choose "vegan" know its limitations and the fallacy of the existence of a 'vegan' lifestyle.

There's a lot of misinformation out there on veggie and vegan bulletin boards. Even nutritionists who may have taken some courses in nursing, generally memorize a script and stick with it to keep their credentials. Many have never made laboratory media, and are generally not involved with endocrinology and cardiology. Simple things such as peptone broth, sheep blood agar plates or brain infusion media, ELISA or Western Blot for different lab tests that their patients may require lose their context, and they forget that these tests are only possible with animal products.

The vegan lifestyle is a selective one but it is often talked about with passion. It's like any other religion where you pick and choose just how 'fundamental' you want to be. It will be interesting if veganism proves to be a valid excuse to avoid getting a shot. :)


Tangentally related to vegetarianism are issues concerning cholesterol in the diet. Veggie groups tend to make a huge fuss about cholesterol. Basic issues are that cholesterol is not what most people have been lead to think it is. This wrong thinking is encouraged via Pharma industries because statins make them so much money. Science has shown that cholesterol is important, has reason for the way it behaves and actually exists to do you good. I'm a huge fan of Thincs.org, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov and Dr. Malcolm McKully. The last doctor has done a lot to clarify issues in Cholesterol. Check out his link.

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, humor, Science, Vegan

Nearly 100 Pit Bulls Killed After Dog Ban - KTHV | Little Rock, AR

a part near the end says...

As for pits like Rock, the shelter says it's seeing an increase of them without a legal place to call home. Jacksonville says before it passed its pit bull ban, they saw an influx of pit bulls because people were moving to town from other areas that already had bans in place.

And you know they aren't just killing 'pit bulls' but 'anything goes' whatever they feel like calling a given dog.

Labels: animal_control, BSL

A very useful link for those opposing or exploring the broad negative implications of 'one size fits all' mandatory spay and neuter agendas. See especially, the links in the second half of the message after the horizontal line.

Labels: animal_control

Helmut after a bath. What a head! He's still a baby tho.
He'll be two in October. Photo from Geno, who takes some of the most fun pics! :D

And YAY, major drumroll...

Today, Friday 22, 2008 we got the news that California Assembly Bill 1634 has been kicked to the curb. AB1634 was an extremist statewide, mandatory spay and neuter bill. Thank you so much Senator Cox for your support! Thank you to Senator Runner and others who realized the bill is not a solution nor an experiment that California can afford. Thank you to AKC for returning at the last minute into the flock. Major "Thank Yous" to all the people and groups who helped us fight this!
I can think of many names, such as Brat Zinmaster and Laura Sanborn whose persistent energy kept us focused but there are so many people and too many to list.

I would write more about it but I've ranted enough for now. I think the following link does a pretty good job explaining and describes the problems going on in Los Angeles. People who think that MSN can work really need to look at where some of the most enthusiastic MSN proponents live and work and get a reality check on what is really going on over there. Chicago, wake up.
Living with birddogs: AB 1634 is dying, and shelter programs will likely benefit. No time to go off guard tho. Anti-animal legislation continues to persist nation and even world wide.


And it's time, everyone. Time to buy your copies of the Anatolian Calendar which supports rescue. One hundred percent of the proceeds go to Anatolian Rescue. There are only limited numbers of copies, so be sure to get your order in NOW!

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, Helmut

I got the above picture from Geno, showing Helmut sharing something with a kitten. I love the picture, and isn't Helmut cute? (see more of his pictures on his label link) :)

Nathan Winograd's blog has some heartwretching pics and movie clips from animal control scenes. He labeled several of them as occuring at L.A. Animal Services, where Ed Boks is the General Manager. Mr. Boks has been very busy in the past year or so, trying to institute broad punitive legislation against pet owners and to cover the entire state of California. As can be seen from his actions and from his record (which includes being problematic to rescues), his interest in the welfare of animals is questionable and his interest in appropriately written legislation is poor as well.

See him below, in his own words -- what he has to say when questioned by Senator Cox.



There is a petition to have Ed Boks removed from his position as General Manager. If you agree, please sign the petition. This IS bigger than L.A. -- there are many areas around the country that are dealing with the Mandatory Spay and Neuter bills due to copycat officials that think L.A. has a good thing going. Amazingly they have not looked at the increase in animal deaths and abuse due to the MSN propaganda coming out of that area. The spending and the deaths of animals has INCREASED! These bills are seriously problematic at many levels.

See Lloyd Levine in his own words... tell Senator Cox what the bill really means in this clip.



The bill in its present form is a dangerous one and needs to be killed. Thanks for all that have been helping to get the information out there!

Happy Fourth!

Labels: animal_control, Helmut, Video

A little of everything in the above subject.

A few good articles that got my attention this week.
Thinking outside the box. Here's a read on that at Ishmael.org

After reading that; the concept of critical thinking and lucid comprehension of issues take focus again with the reader -- Yet, back to real life, we continue to witness the the most juvenile and fundamentalist/extreme thinking that is driving MSN proponents everywhere (mandatory spay & neuter). Including California's truly UNHealthy Pets Act. So focused on their own limited perception of reality that they do not see, for example, how this type of legislation adversely affects grassroots efforts at wildlife conservation, the production of food and natural fiber on the farm and issues of population genetics in our pets. Health issues in animals are simply written off as well with broad blanket assumptions, with these people blowing off the experts, as if they have degrees in veterinary science and realize the difference between long term prospective and short term retrospective data. Furthermore, these bills will NOT affect the popularly demonized, commercial mass pet producers, yet the MSN proponents continue to make disingenuous references in that direction. And the sheep continue to follow.

Somewhat related: Newsweek on PeTA and Euthanasia: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549. Euthanization is actually the cop out of MSN proponents to address the shortcomings in their logic and both HSUS and PeTA encourage killing animals rather than rehoming them. Since they are so busy killing animals, analyzing the status of the problem as encouraged in the first link is simply beyond their acceptance. I highly recommend Nathan Winograd's book, Redemption - a good take on it is here. It does encourage facing the history and issues that have compounded the lack of progression on logical solutions.


Getting away from animals for a bit... and along the lines of perhaps encouraging a new way of thinking, see this article about some indigenous people of Mexico who "live forever", from which article I gained the idea that many of our modern foot and leg problems seen in our society could be benefited from taking some core ideas regarding letting our footwear be more natural, so that leg strength and flexibility are natural benefits.


And tonight, I just discovered a new blog which covers issues that affect everyone using the internet - see Spyware Sucks. I've found that many people continue ignore the serious implications of HTML in email - especially as malware gets more sophisticated and do not understand that surfing and reading web pages results in thousands of downloads to their computer. From another source, Scott Dunn writes about security, "Visitors to USAToday.com last Thursday got more than they bargained for. A hacked Flash advertisement meant that merely viewing a page in your browser was capable of triggering a malware attack on your PC. According to an alert on the security site Websense, the ad can take control of the browser without any user interaction at all."

I'm using Firefox as my principal browser with "NoScript" which stops scripts in their tracks and another extension "AdBlock" that blocks ads which can sometimes be malicious. The combination makes some busy pages download for reading quicker since I am not getting all that garbage and it makes pages look a little different too. For example, ubiquitous links such as 'google ads' just do not show up on my Firefox browsing. NoScript does allow me to choose which sites I trust as does AdBlock.

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, compu-internet, crimeware, Firefox, No Kill, security

Have you read "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" yet?

The more you know, the better your understanding of WHY AB 1634 and similar legislation does not work.


The chat took place, Feb 1, 2008
The transcript is available now.
Thank you Rescue Network Org! (part of PetHobbyist.com)

Please go to the site to read the whole thing... :)

Nathan Winograd
Author of "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America"
February 1, 2008 (chat)

PHKeeper: On behalf of Jeff Barringer and all of us at RescueNetwork.org, I sincerely wish to thank Nathan Winograd for being our part of our 10th annual Chat Week! Nathan Winograd's 2007 book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" set off a firestorm of controversy -- and inspired an army of animal lovers across the country, calling for serious reform of the American shelter system and an end to the use of killing as a tool of animal population control.

Nathan is here this evening to help us understand exactly what the No Kill Revolution is and how you can look at groundspring efforts to reform your community into No Kill. If you have a question for Nathan, please type a "?" in the room. You will be called on in order. Please do not speak openly in the room. Do not private message the hosts or our guest. Nathan when you have completed your answer, please type GA so we know to Go Ahead. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, furkids of all ages, I present Nathan Winograd.

continued at the site---

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, Critters, Rehome, Rescue

Short on time right now, short and sweet, just a few links...

L.A. City voted on mandatory spay and neuter (MSN) of 4 month old cats and dogs on Friday without any critical analysis or study.



And... Boks entered a little poll on his blog.

As of the time I did the poll screen capture at the left:

Votes - 621 (96%) votes against MSN.
24 (3%) votes in support.


Above,the progress the last time I looked at it, Monday morning.

Blue Dog State (blog) - doesn't mince words. !!oh mama!!

Don't miss:
A thousand snakes in the grass. By Margaret Anne Cleek

"Better the dragon you see than a thousand snakes in the grass."

I think more people are waking up.

See my other posts on Animal_control

Labels: animal_control

What is the Optimal age for spay and neuter of cats and dogs?

Dr Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, Director of the Animal Welfare Division of the American Veterinary Association and member of the Pet-Law forum, has secured free public access to the following PDF from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Citation
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
December 1, 2007, Vol. 231, No. 11, Pages 1665-1675
doi: 10.2460/javma.231.11.1665

Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats

Margaret V. Root Kustritz, DVM, PhD, DACT
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108. (Kustritz)

If sharing the article with others, please direct them to the above link, to the PDF, rather than forwarding the document itself. This, in order to honor the American Veterinary Medical Association's Copyright.

Thanks!

Happy New Year to all!

Labels: animal_control, spay-neuter

Animal Lovers are suing Los Angeles County Animal Control Department.

Ed Boks, major AB 1634 supporter is majorly screwing up in Los Angeles and he appears to know it. It's turning into a battle of twisty-turny, dizzifying rhetoric on his blog. Actually, everything Boks is doing is highlighting why AB 1634 cannot work, and furthermore, why it cannot work with a No Kill solution to shelter killings.

Don't miss the commentary at Gina Spadafori's Pet Connection Blog for better clarity of what is going on.

Read the quoted material posted below if you are not familiar with the issues involved. It will help you understand some of what is going on before you go to the Pet Connection.

About the law suit-

ANIMAL LOVERS SUE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT TO END THE UNLAWFUL AND ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

This is Zephyr who came to the shelter healthy.
She is ill in the photo above.
She and many others died there.

The national No Kill Advocacy Center, Cathy Nguyen, a volunteer animal rescuer, and Rebecca Arvizu, a Los Angeles County taxpayer and animal rescuer, have jointly filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County, its Department of Animal Care and Control, and the Department’s Director, Marcia Mayeda. The lawsuit alleges unlawful and abusive treatment of animals at all six Los Angeles County animal shelters.

Among the allegations in the 29-page complaint filed today in Superior Court, the County Department of Animal Care and Control routinely:

• Kills healthy and treatable animals before their state mandated holding period expires;
• Misclassifies animals as “ill” or “injured” in order to kill them before their holding period expires even though the animals are not irremediably suffering as required by state law;
• Kills lost animals without making reasonable attempts to find the animals’ owners;
• Fails to provide adequate veterinary care to impounded animals, resulting in animal deaths;
• Fails to provide adequate nutrition, water, shelter and exercise to impounded animals and to treat the animals humanely and kindly;
• Refuses to release animals to rescue groups that are willing to care for the animals until adoptive homes can be found and, instead, kills the animals.

In addition, the County Department of Animal Care and Control unlawfully retaliates against animal rescuers and volunteers who publicize its unlawful treatment of animals.

The lawsuit asks a Superior Court Judge to order Los Angeles County, its Department of Animal Care and Control, and Department Director Mayeda to comply with state laws that protect animals from arbitrary and inhumane treatment. The lawsuit is being handled by the Los Angeles law firm of Eisenberg, Raizman, Thurston, and Wong, LLP.

“The Los Angeles County animal shelter system is supposed to provide a reasonable safety net of care for lost and abandoned animals,” said Nathan J. Winograd, Director of the No Kill Advocacy Center. “Instead, the system betrays the trust of the citizens of Los Angeles County by failing to treat the animals humanely and kindly.”

“Los Angeles County and its Department of Animal Control fought the existing animal protection laws that safeguard shelter animals when those laws were pending in the legislature. They fought the laws after they became effective through a regulatory challenge. Now, it appears they have decided they are just going to ignore those laws,” stated Winograd. “But Los Angeles County shelters are supposed to enforce laws related to animal welfare, not violate the laws themselves and then retaliate against rescue groups who want to save these animals and make their demands public. This is the worst form of hypocrisy and cannot be tolerated—especially since animals are not only suffering, they are needlessly being killed because of it.”

“I have tried to work with the Department and Director Mayeda regarding the conditions at Los Angeles County shelters for many months to no avail,” said plaintiff Cathy Nguyen, who works with rescue groups trying to save animals that Los Angeles County shelters are putting to death. “I cannot sit quietly and do nothing about this and have no choice at this point but to demand that they follow the law.”

“As a taxpayer, I don’t want my taxes to pay for the killing of animals when there are rescue groups willing to save them at their own expense,” said Los Angeles county taxpayer and plaintiff Rebecca Arvizu. “These shelters also do not reflect my values and those of my fellow citizens who love animals. Since they are supposed to be working for us, I want them caring for animals humanely. That’s the law and those are the values a majority of us hold dear.”

The No Kill Advocacy Center is a national non-profit organization trying to end the systematic killing of animals in U.S. shelters. It has drafted model legislation, works with municipal and private shelters nationwide, and helps animal lovers throughout the United States reform their local shelters.

The lawsuit is based on violations of California laws, especially the 1998 Animal Shelter Law. The law sought to reform California shelters which were unnecessarily killing in the face of cost-effective lifesaving alternatives. It follows a successful lawsuit in Kern County where a Superior Court judge held the Kern County animal control shelter in violation of law and ordered that shelter to cease its legal violations.

For a copy of the press release, click here. (Please note: Images are disturbing.)

For a full media kit, which includes a copy of the 4-page Demand Letter the plaintiffs sent to Ms. Mayeda before filing their lawsuit, the 3-page letter protesting the Department’s retaliation, the 29-page Complaint, video footage, and high resolution images of animal suffering in Los Angeles County’s shelter system, click here. (Please note: Images are disturbing.)

Please help us pay for the legal costs. To donate by check or make a secure online donation, click here or go to nokilladvocacycenter.org.

P.O. Box 74926 San Clemente CA 92673

Have you read "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" yet?

The more you know, the better your understanding of WHY AB 1634 and similar legislation does not work.

Labels: animal_control

Legislation in California and across the United States of America, fueled by extremists and misinformed and/or corrupt legislators are doing their darndest to bring more authoritarian government our lives.

See the story of Mr. Chen in China who "has been fighting for the right to own the dog of his choice since 2003". Mr. Chen is now fighting China.

Labels: animal_control

Great video from Rexano.
Woohoo! Aside from the important subject and good coverage of the matter -- there is TEXT in the video, great for deafies like me. :)

After you view the video... go to YouTube and rate HIGH!

Labels: animal_control, Video

When the voices of extremists can strong arm our democratic process with use of funds accumulated via deception. When extremists can use this financial clout to broadly and wrongly profile populations as HIGH RISK for lifestyles not tolerated by these vocal extremists.

When extremists are successful in manipulating our legislators to enact wide reaching, selectively enforced and prejudicial legislation. And when the voices of the citizens to be affected are completely ignored by our legislators... something has gone terribly wrong.

Borrowed from http://www.bloggernews.net/111851

REXANO Editorial By Zuzana Kukol, www.REXANO.org

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
(US Constitution)


Las Vegas, NV, November 21, 2007--In this country called United States of America, we have this ‘document’ many heard of in school but forgot all about it. It is called US Constitution, which guarantees us freedom of speech, which we are exercising right now, writing and publishing this editorial, as well as presenting it in video form on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDzn6CX7Q4U

US Constitution also guarantees people pursuit of happiness, which many animal owners haven’t been able to exercise lately because they have been too busy fighting all the crazy animal legislation.

Constitution also guarantees people property rights: lands and animals are some of the most ancient type of properties. Many new laws are messing with both of them, with peoples’ right to use their land without government interference and with their right to choose the types and amount of animals.

It is time to Legalize the Constitution in the USA.

Our enemies, extreme animal rights (AR) activists groups, are getting stronger and more successful at passing bans regarding how many and what species or breeds of animals we can keep, and often mandating forced sterilization of domestic pets.

It doesn’t matter if you only own one hamster, horse, domestic dog, or cat, these unfair bans will eventually affect us all, since we all have a common enemy: extreme AR groups whose final agenda is no animals in captivity, no meat on our plates and no leather good in our houses. They want to remove all animal and human contact.

Year 2007 alone brought too many mandatory spay/neuter, breed specific legislation (BSL) and anti exotic animal bills and bans to many states, localities and even federal level. In too many cases the uneducated legislators and extreme animal rights groups have been winning and responsible animal owners losing their rights to keep the animal of their choice.

Property is not a dirty word, it signifies something people love, value and cherish, and often have to work hard for. Keeping legal status of animals as property also guarantees that animals can’t be stolen from their loving owners without consequences. If we, the animal owners, continue the trend of doing nothing noteworthy in legislative area we, animal owners, are going to be extinct soon and we have only ourselves to blame. Make sure your ‘animal votes’. Choose the animal owner and animal welfare (not animal rights) friendly candidate.

Educate the legislators, friends and family, so they don’t get gagged by the anti animal propaganda.

United we stand, divided we fall, regardless of the breed or species.

As long as animal welfare and public safety laws are followed, the private ownership of all animals should be protected and legal in the USA

Just say NO! to anti animal ownership laws.
Say YES to Legalizing the US Constitution.

REXANO is dedicated to the Responsible Exotic Animal Ownership while protecting public safety.



Related:
- Individual Freedom and Rights of the People
- Initiatives and Referenda in Circulation as of November 21, 2007

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, BSL, Politics

Thoughtful comments on HSUS & Wayne Pacelle, by Gina Spadafori at the Pet Connection Blog.

I'm looking forward to Christie Keith's follow up article at SFGate on Nathan Winograd's talk about "Redemption". It will probably be in the "Your Whole Pet" November 2007 archive here. The book is on my reading list, when I get a chance. I've another post on Winograd here.


No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels: animal_control

It should go without saying that what Vick did to support dog fighting is wrong. He is not however getting a fair trial where the whole story could become public. That's a concern that borders on other issues such as some of the cover ups that can happen in our judicial system due to plea bargains. We know he denied it all at first and due to strongarming from several sources, each looking out for their own interests, a different series of events took place -- including Vick finding Jesus...

Opportunists GALORE! I'm really tired of all the focus on this event mainly due the opportunists, HSUS and PeTA being just as horrible for grabbing the event and wringing it out like a CASH COW and using it for PR. Sport figures have gotten into trouble before with all kinds of mayhem including murder and rape of other humans. People are letting HSUS and PeTA take control.

An apt caricature, see Wayne Pacelle with a 6 figure income, wringing out these events to milk the gullible public into thinking they are doing some good with this ongoing 'croc'. HSUS has 200 Millions in assets but does little to nothing to save animals and is now mainly concerning itself with forcing idealist and costly legislation that is turning everyone into criminals.

And to top it off, PETA, which is known for its alliance with terrorist organizations that via arson and bombs, animal releases, threats and other chaos, creates major setbacks in genetics, cancer research and other necessary medical advances is asking Vick to donate to THEIR cause with time or money to show he is a 'changed man'. Frankly, finding Jesus is good. Finding PeTA is not! How is it that an organization that is so proVegan, can attack research and yet use research (albeit inconclusive research) to support a vegan lifestyle and abolish any ownership or use of animals? Opportunists galore!

Who's Killed More Animals?

[Picture of Michael Vick under which it says 8]

[Picture of a policeman preparing to bury a puppy killed by PETA
workers...under which it says 14,400]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) loves to point the finger at others, when they should be looking at their own record of killing more than 90% of the animals left in their care. According to government records PETA has killed more than 14,400 animals since 1998.

Find out more about PETA's hypocrisy at:
PeTA Kills Animals

See the specific Photo Ad above at ConsumerFreedom.com

Labels: animal_control, Animal_Rights, BSL

The little guy at the left could well be me or anyone else trying to deal with stress, dilemmas, and General Pandemonium (...the latter guy whose uncle must be that famous fellow by the name of Murphy).

I got a just got a chuckle out of a recent Doug Savage Savage Chickens comic. If you're not familiar with it, it's a daily comic which is drawn on a square, yellow, sticky note. I get a kick out of it since I'm quite fond of chickens, humor, sticky notes, and Doug Savage's Savage Chickens. :) Check out the Wednesday, August 08, 2007 comic called Jigsaw. While it probably isn't a political cartoon, it struck me as being rather apt in characterizing bad political "solutions" to various problems. When one or more problems with the "solution" is pointed out by the opposition, you often get flocks of adamant "chickens" with a narrow perspective, who persist with their arguments that their solution is the ONE right solution. Of course, the issues of California AB 1634 come immediately to mind but I'm sure that all of us can certainly come up with many more examples inside and outside of politics and personal lives.

Check my label's links below for misc related topic including some free jigsaw puzzles for the PC.

Labels: animal_control, games, humor, puzzles

2006 Photo by Dave Koerner
Big sister, Ruya, watches over a half sibling baby brother.

Christie Keith writes "Forget all the rhetoric on both sides, and just keep the goal clear in your mind: Reducing the number of dogs and cats who die in California shelters."
Can the two sides of mandatory spay/neuter find common ground? See the whole article at SFGate.

From the very start of the issues involved with AB 1634, I've felt that if more people had a better feel for the complexity of elements involved with reducing the euthanization of pet animals and finding successful "forever homes" -- we'd have more in the way of cooperative and successful teamwork. So many have been saying, "Education doesn't work" and argue that brute strength of law is the only solution. AND then... THEY go on to illustrate by their own arguments, amazing ignorance in the complexities of the equation. Hello? Education? How about starting with up close and personal.

Education is the key.
Divide and conquer, and punitive legislation are hurtful and counterproductive.

Mind opening newsletters. . .

Seeding ideas for thoughtful consideration... see Nathan Winograd's No Kill Advocate newsletters here. A recent one, for example, had a good bit of info on how to increase successful placement of adoptable pit bulls is Issue #2 2007 (direct link to specific PDF article)

He's got a lot of articles on reforming Animal Control - under Legislation, The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws(PDF)
Which points out HSUS's dichotomy, for example, spreading fear about feral cats. He, in another document, writes (p6) also about how HSUS opposed King County in Wa State when they were adopting a real No-Kill philosophy.

There's a youtube vid featuring Nathan (about half an hour)


Go on a tour of shelters here. Shelter accountability needs to be addressed.

Nathan Winograd is doing a lot to educate and promote working together. Spend some time checking out his site, subscribe to the free e-newsletter, consider becoming a No Kill Advocate member and get the hard copy version of No Kill Sheltering Magazine.

Link:
No Kill Advocacy Site

Labels: animal_control

Semavi Nipper at left in a 1992 photo.

Many Anatolians and their progeny will NOT qualify for an exemption under AB 1634 as currently suspended until 2008.

The so called "exemptions" are little more than misleading hocus-pocus and bluffery designed to appease the unknowing.
Past President of California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and animal advocate, writes from experience of twenty five years in trying to find solutions to the problems of animal relinquishment and euthanasia. Go here to read the TESTIMONY OF JOHN HAMIL, DVM on seven false premises of AB 1634.

At Sandiegodog blog, a piece by Laura Finco fleshes some some of it out as she writes about a neighbor. Meanwhile, in L.A. stuff like this goes on under General Manager Ed Boks - shown here to be manipulating his shelter statistics while under scrutiny.

Mandatory spay and neuter is a NON-solution to relinquishment, abandonment, lack of responsibility and the issues of unowned strays.

Deliberately choosing to ignore the above complex problems and lack of accountability in most animal shelters, while shifting "the blame" flaunts ignorance, denial in perception and problem solving ability.

Well, humans are fickle.

Humans and long term relationships will always have dynamics. Consider marriage, 50% of which are said to end in divorce - The remaining 50% cannot even be considered uniformly successful. Who knows how many 'stick together' despite abusive or other malignant activity? Relationship failures are complex.

Why should it be no surprise that not every pet which starts out with a home has a permanent one.

Pets being relinquished or left to run free are not caused by an "over population" problem but something more far more complex.

Labels: animal_control

WE THE PEOPLE PRESS RELEASE
JULY 10, 2007

LASSIE GOES TO THE STATE CAPITOL - Brings Legislators to their knees!


Lassie arrived late afternoon at the State Capitol and went right to the top. No, not to the Governator, but to Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chairwoman of the Local Government Committee that will hear bill AB 1634 on Wednesday morning. Nearly 1000 Californians are expected to show up for a hearing in a room that only holds 60 people. Sounds like a morning on a Los Angeles freeway!

Lassie then went calling on Legislators seeking their opposition to the bill that many are calling "the Pet Extinction Act". Lassie is really Laddie, a 7 year old massive specimen of a collie, and certainly a fine actor since he has been cast as a female dog! This is a continuation of the tradition to use a male to represent the beloved Lassie, American icon of family values and courage. And the answer is yes to the question to whether Laddie is an intact male. Her owner, world famous dog trainer, Bob Weatherwax, heir to 65 years of Lassie lore and legend, plans to breed Laddie in the near future to insure another generation of the unique collies. The Weatherwax collies are not registered since they all carry the trait of a large white blaze on the head that collies registered with the American Kennel Club do not bear. Senators and aides alike agreed that this marking was one of Laddie's best features! This unique line of collies would not be eligible for exemptions under the complex mandates of AB 1634.


Accompanying Lassie and Weatherwax was Jon Provost who played "Timmy" on one of the longest running shows in television history, over 20 years! Mr. Provost charmed all with his timeless boyish good looks as he spoke eloquently not only for Lassie but also all the mutts of California who are more often used for canine assistance dogs than purebreds due to cost and availablity. Mr. Provost is a honorary member on the Board of Canine Companions for Independence. Laddie is also trained and certified as a service dog.


The halls at the Capitol thronged with admirers and fans as Lassie brought them all to their knees for close-up photos snapped with the world's most famous dog that has been a favorite of Hollywood and one of California's best known icons.

It remains to be seen if even our beloved Lassie will fall victim to this far over-reaching leislation. In Bob Weatherwax's words, "It's like casting your net for tuna, and then pulling in a bunch of dolphins." We agree, it's just not right -- for California. Let's hope this ends as all the episodes in the past, with Lassie coming to the rescue!


Lassie, Lassie, everywhere!

Contact information and photo files:
Diane Amble 650-296-2169 wethepeople2007@gmail.com

Labels: animal_control

Lobbying efforts to fight this draconian bill have been exhausting but the efforts have been very positive. People are learning that there is a need to spay and neuter! People are also learning that the pet world is very complex and profiling is dangerous here, as it can be in other areas of concern.

Mancuso herself for one, has LAUGHED, and said that extermination of mixed breed pets is not possible. Because there will be more, they keep on coming.
TOUCHE! YES, Judie, we all agree this bill will not accomplish the proposed “INTENT” of the bill. You are too proud to admit it.

It is had EIGHT rewrites with line after line, conflicting its own text. (see the lines in the bill regarding vets for one)

1. This bill ENDORSES commercial producers with the broadest and complete exemptions. Commercial breeders are for profit, they do not waste time and money on health testing. They do not follow up on their placements which may well be brokered just about anywhere.

2. Since 27 June, this bill actually mandates the breeding of immature and untested dogs because their one year ticket cannot be renewed til the dogs are old enough to have any kind of offical health test.

3. The bill does not grandfather in many owners who will NOT be able to dole out the cash. Elderly, disabled, young couples, singles, poor folk of every kind, hundreds of rescuers who are working out of their pockets and homes. Where are these animals going to go? Will pets will be torn from their settled homes and euthanized if the owner doesn’t have the means?

4. Every different jurisdiction can have a different way to define many of the rules. It is a Tower of Babel with local jurisdictions being given total control.

5. NO FIT. The bill heavily profiles all owners and all breeders alike and therefore has numerous NO FIT and illogical assumptions. The majority of problems in the bill are right here.

Do you know what ‘no fit’ means? Example:
Someone is put in charge of all vehicle regulation, mandates that all vehicles with NO exceptions, must have four tires in good condition plus a spare (sounds good so far maybe?), and be parked in a garage next to the owner’s residence - or each will be fined $500. Unleash this on the constituents and THEN watch out for the bicycle, the boat, the plane, the semi, the tractor owners. What about people living in condos or apartments? What if car owners have four vehicles, is it time to hire a contractor, what if there is no room on the property that will allow them to get a permit? They have all been profiled into a law that didn’t take them into consideration. They are gonna get awfully upset. Now some of the nicest people are law breakers. Righteous people who live in a house with a garage and have a car with the requirements will of course, say, “It’s all about money!”. They are going to say to those selfish tractor drivers, “if you weren’t so selfish, you would get your act together and you too could be exempt.”

This bill is horrendously guilty of profiling and no fit. It will increase the numbers of animals killed.
It does NOTHING to promote ethical breeding nor healthy pets. The principle designers of this bill do not even own pets.

NO on AB 1634

Labels: animal_control

Cartoon by Ed, aka borzoipet :)

And here it is ....drumroll ............... another sequel to our ongoing series
-the bill has now had 8 edits.


click this link to see the bills

Each edit reveals yet another, and then yet another problem that will need yet another go to get (almost) fixed.
The bill remains broken!
Each new layer makes the bill dizzier, and dizzier, defeating whatever good intent may have been fantasized.




Perhaps now there is a little more awareness of the complexity of issues in the scope of our cat and dog influenced world. Maybe the policy makers have learned that generic policy that mandates and profiles every breed of dog and every breeder and owner of cats and dogs exactly the same way, is just bad policy -- the main thing they still don't admit is that the real sources of the problem are not being addressed or remain under the radar.

I know dogs better than cats, so I'll be speaking mostly from that perspective again.


Would you believe, it's taken several rewrites but finally the "Ugly American" Levine and his equally dysfunctional animal policy advisors finally expanded the bill after repeatedly being told that the two major American dog show registries are not legitimate registries for hundreds of breeds and their varieties from around the world (there are well over four hundred distinct breeds in the world). Limited populations of these varieties in California would have been decimated because they had no "legitimate registry". This unfunded mandate had decreed that they must all undergo the knife.

You don't even have to go to international breed books to find some beloved dog breeds that would have been affected.

Targeted by the original bill, I've noted that in many forums in previous months and now... many self described pet or dog loving persons who present themselves as knowledgeable about dogs/breeds totally forgot (or actually never knew, even when they owned one!) that one of our country's favorite Made in America breeds, the Australian Shepherd (also called Aussie) has thousands of dogs registered with its own parent club, Australian Shepherd Club of America (ASCA), and not with AKC nor with the UKC.

Many more breeds or individual dog examples exist which are not AKC or UKC registered. Many individual working breeds from police dogs, to native hunting and regional bully breeds, to varieties of the Parson/Russell Terrier types, to farm dogs such as livestock guardians used in herd protection & wildlife conservation, and hard working herding breeds are among many dogs that are not registered in a "legitimate" registry. Some are new imports which have been selected for contribution to genetic diversity. I have involvement with a breed that cannot always be registered until various requirements are met to verify the quality of the animal and these requirements often cannot be met in a puppy. I know of many other dog enthusiasts who can reel off names and recognize many rare breeds on sight. These people knew that the breeds and the livelihoods of their owners who depended on them could be jeopardized.

People who work in rescue, and Animal Control Officers that are not trained in breed matters, when shown a picture, they see these dogs as collie or pitbull or mastiff or shepherd crosses or heinz's goodness knows what else. Go figure. Many shelter workers only know a handful of breeds and and often misidentify the ones they think they know! The same people who can't identify breeds want to make our animal laws and some even want to tell us which breeds are dangerous.

Levine, Mancuso, the AB 1634 supporters don't know much about our country's dogs, the clubs, the pet industries, the sports, the people that own the dogs and in their haughty ignorance and disdain of pet people, they have "profiled" all of them.

You can't miss this on many of the interviews or emails that come from Mancuso. Quick, the Mancuso Mantra!! "It's all about Money!" Gah, listen to the woman go on about how it's all about profit and that breeders are not reporting their income!

And the parrots! My goodness she has lots of mindless little parakeets uttering the same commentary, just about everywhere. Little capuchin monkeys turning a crank and just blurbing whatever they are told. I love original dialog that shows distinct interest in a subject and pursuit of knowledge. I seek that sort of company. But when it comes to issues like this, I am so disappointed in all the little monkeys and parakeets.

Ethical breeders, reputable breeders, they are not in the majority. The bulk of those who are law abiding, income reporting, pet loving and responsible breeders who ARE fighting this bill -- are not covered by the first so-called "exemption" (they are not DEALERS who ARE required to report income) nor do the other wonky exemptions apply!

Many people who have never raised a dog for show or trained for any of the (alleged) "exempt" working purposes haven't walked the walk yet they too are eager to profile all to a lowest common denominator. Come on, point to a 4-6 month old puppy and tell me you can 100% guarantee the dog won't be nervous, gun-shy, too outgoing, lack drive, lack working ethic, have hip dysplasia, develop a serious malocclusion, cardiomyopathy or other health problem before actually passing testing to do the work required. Come on Newbies, you write the law, let's see you do it.



Profiling again. But for SHAME!


Why are some of those cage raised little dogs so hard to housebreak? When they are, do they get relinquished to the shelter?

Levine and his advisors have, with the rewrite of the bill of June 27, have built in even more problems. A permit is mentioned that can only be applied once to a dog for one year... and cannot be renewed.

• Accidents happen on farms and working situations and dogs get killed.
  
• AS the bill is written: The breeding permit given is only being given for one of their female farm dogs, to produce replacement dogs. The farmer is allowed one male and one female to be intact for exactly one shot at breeding - actually this is very odd from a breeder's perspective to assume that the exact pair on hand is the best breeding match plus the dogs will be immature -- it goes to show that the government officials know zip about genetics and animal selection)
  
• After that litter is born, it's scapel time for the parents.
• The permit cannot be renewed under any circumstances after that one year.
  
• What if the female is not fertile til she is older? What if the male dog is a klutz (it happens) and the fireworks and lullaby don't happen (sorry I'm going through severe The Sims 2 withdrawal!)
  
• What if during the year the dog is run over by a tractor and what if the puppy that is kept turns out to have issues making it unsuitable for the work required? What is the farmer to do then? His carefully selected working stock has been selectively destroyed by the state mandate by reducing genetically available options of maintaining tested stock.
• Since the parent dogs and the allowed litter are so close in age, if the young dogs are not bred their first year of life, this would mean that when the parents are approaching middle age, there are NO young dogs from the farmer's line to carry on with keeping young stock dogs in training and for replacements. (couch potato yuppies with their rescued cats don't know about these kinds of realities, but they sure know how to legislate!)
• In my breed, the dog is immature when this "one year only" clause is in effect. Breeding an immature dog without having the results of adult tests for hip dysplasia and other important factors, then forcing the parent dogs to be neutered means that the government endorses breeding immature animals that have not been tested for breeding quality.
• AB1634 Supporters are also in favor of the problems in red. They WANT this. They are voting for it.
  

AB 1634 supporters. Look at the bill with comprehension before you endorse.

Healthy Pets Act, indeed.

Hope everyone has or had a Happy Fourth!

Related link:
APHIS/USDA Info for Dealers
Subsidized Spay Neuter - added July 5, 2007

Labels: animal_control

A part of (most) everyone's education as they become an adult is to learn to read and comprehend any form or bill before signing and approving it. You can't trust everyone nor assume everyone thinks just like you do about a certain issue. You can't automatically assume things. You are encouraged to clarify any points that seem vague or ambiguous before agreeing.

How much can we really control? When we have an opportunity to vote on something, this does offer a little toe hold on what may be unleashed.

We have sure gone through a lot recently, learning about how our food industry and government oversees the quality and control our our pets' food. Maybe you know how twisted things can get when bureaucracy has jurisdiction over prevailing common sense. Remember Reno? How about Spartacus?

One of the amazing things about some people is that they are so trusting. That if someone says animals are dying because this bill hasn't passed yet, they sometimes need no further information. If for example the fine print is left to interpretation and you are feeding a food, or using equipment that someone in control doesn't think is appropriate for your pet in your jurisdiction, with the passing of this bill, you have given them permission to use whatever logic and power they feel is necessary to enforce the letter of the law as they interpret it.

Common sense isn't common...

Thanks for the follow basic layout by Michael S and formatting fixes by Jan B.
The following provides food for thought on items in the bill

BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2007

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine
(Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Nava and Solorio)

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6 of Division 105 of , and to repeal Section 122336.21 the Health and Safety Code, relating to pets.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Healthy Pets Act.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) is added to Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

CHAPTER 9. SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM FOR CATS AND DOGS

Article 1. Definitions

122336. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) "Intact permit" means a document issued annually by a local jurisdiction or its local animal control agency if authorized to issue these permits, that authorizes a person to own or possess within that locality an unaltered cat or dog and meets the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 122336.2. A dog or cat license that meets the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 122336.2 shall be considered a permit for purposes of this chapter.

• (PROBLEM: Here an intact permit is for one dog or one cat. In later sections the permit is addressed as being for the owner. WHICH IS IT?)

(b) "Local animal control agency" means the municipal or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws.

(c) "Local jurisdiction" means any city, county, or city and county.

(d) "Spay or neuter" means any procedure, as performed by a duly licensed veterinarian, that permanently sterilizes an animal and makes it incapable of reproduction.

• (PROBLEM: Note that “permanently” excludes tubal ligation and vasectomy, both of which are reversible and healthier for the dog or cat as they mature since it keeps the organs that produce the hormones intact.)

Article 2. General Provisions

122336.1. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), a person shall not own or possess within the state any cat or dog over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336.

• (PROBLEM: Pediatric s/n has a host of medical consequences and risks and is discounted by reputable vets as being unsafe and inadvisable.)
  

(b) (1) Subject to subdivision (c), any person who violates subdivision (a) shall, for each animal for which a violation has occurred, be issued a citation subjecting the person to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) if the person fails to provide proof that the person has met the requirements of subdivision (a) within 30 days of the date of the issuance of the citation. This penalty shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction.

• (PROBLEM: Now a violation is a “fix-it” ticket that gives the owner 30 days to prove intact permit or spay/neuter is done. Note that the owner is presumed guilty until presumed innocent and that there is no due process.)
  

(2) At the time a citation is issued, the citing authority shall provide the person being cited with information as to the availability of spaying and neutering services at reduced cost.

• (PROBLEM: And if no such service exists, then no such information will be provided?)

(c) If an owner of a cat or dog provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that it is the medical judgment of the veterinarian that the cat or dog should not be spayed or neutered prior to the age of nine months, the owner shall not be in violation of this chapter. No earlier than 30 days after the cat or dog has reached nine months of age, the veterinarian may provide a letter to the owner extending the date for spaying or neutering the cat or dog to 12 months of age. The letter from the veterinarian shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, and a description of the cat or dog in question.

• (PROBLEM: Okay, get this scenario: A puppy is born, the vet issues a letter saying no s/n until 9 months according to this section, then has one month for a second letter to extend to 12 months, but then what? What about s/n when it is best after 12 months? No provision for that, either!)

(d) Any civil penalty imposed under subdivision (b) shall be waived, in whole or in part, by the local jurisdiction if the person in violation provides verification that his or her cat or dog has been spayed or neutered.

• (PROBLEM: Changing “may” to “shall” is superficial because local discretion is still in play.)

• (PROBLEM: Waiving a fine “in part” can mean waiving only $1 if the ACO desires. In other words, if cited, an owner may be in compliance but be fined anyway even if the pet is s/n. This reeks of a money grab.)
  

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(e) (1) Any person who is in possession of any document issued by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency that permits the owner to possess an unaltered cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with this act until the document expires or January 1, 2009, whichever occurs first.

(2) Upon expiration of the permit, the owner of the intact cat or dog permit shall obtain a new permit pursuant to the applicable provision of Section 122336.2 in order to be in compliance with this section.

• (PROBLEM: How long is the new permit good for? Not specified.)

(f) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose any obligation on a veterinarian to enforce the provisions of this chapter or to require the veterinarian to provide information to a local animal control agency as to the spay or neuter status of a cat or dog.

• (PROBLEM: This was added to placate the CVMA board. It’s also garbage as the vet is in fact required to provide the s/n status in the letter for the dog or cat to get them out of doing it! If this subsection is to be valid then subsection (c) cannot be valid, and if subsection (c) is valid then this subsection is not valid!)

Article 3. Permits

122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if the owner provides proof acceptable to the local jurisdiction , as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that any of the following conditions are met:

• (PROBLEM: “acceptable to the local jurisdiction” is a completely subjective term and will result in a patchwork of requirements that have little uniformity and result in a dog /cat being legal in one place and illegal in another.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her business license and federal and state tax number, or by other proof, as required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency has issued a breeder license.

(2) The owner's cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by an approved registry or association, and complies with at least one of the following:

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “approved” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized registry or association within the last two years, or by whatever proof is required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency that the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.

• (PROBLEM: “whatever proof is required” is a completely subjective term and will result in a patchwork of requirements that have little uniformity and result in a dog /cat being legal in one place and illegal in another.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “approved” is and isn’t? Ditto for “recognized”. A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: It is impossible to tell at 6 months if a dog or cat has the aptitude and/or temperament to be a show animal. Therefore it is impossible to train them at 6 months and this exception is impossible to achieve for new dogs and cats.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(B ) The cat or dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved registry or association.

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “approved” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: Not all of these animals earn or need a title to do their work. Most farms and ranches don’t bother to spend the time earning a title; they just put the animal to work! This shows an urban mindset ignorant of rural activities and operations.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(3) The owner is a legitimate breeder of mixed breed or purebred working dogs, or is supplying mixed breed or purebred dogs for training as working dogs to law enforcement, fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector working dog organizations.

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “legitimate breeder” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  

(4) The dog is being actively used by law enforcement, fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector working dog organizations for law enforcement, fire service, search and rescue, or medical service activities, or is being raised, groomed, socialized, or otherwise prepared for duties for any of these purposes.

• (PROBLEM: It is impossible to tell at 6 months if a dog or cat has the aptitude and/or temperament to be one of these animals. Therefore it is impossible to train them at 6 months and this exception is impossible to achieve for new dogs and cats.)

(5) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. The letter from the veterinarian shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat or dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat or dog, and the date by which the cat or dog may be safely spayed or neutered.

• (PROBLEM: This conflicts with 122336.1-f, above.)

• (PROBLEM: If a vet is seen by these records as being more favorable to s/n exceptions, they may become targets for backlash and professional reprisals, especially license revocations on bogus charges since these letters are not protected medical files but are public licensing records!)

(b) Any cat or dog owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat or dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other legitimate reason.

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “legitimate” is and isn’t? Isn’t breeding a legitimate reason? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(c)(1) Any individual or organization breeding animals for services provided by guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs, as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be presumptively entitled to an intact permit issued pursuant to this chapter.

• (PROBLEM: Is this intact permit entitlement actually for the person or organization as is stated here, or is it one for each animal?)

(2) Any animal possessed by any individual with a disability protected by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter if the animal is providing guide dog, service dog, or signal dog services, as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code.

(3) Guide dog, signal dog, and service dog programs licensed by the State of California are exempt from all of the provisions of this chapter.

(4) A person in possession of a cat or dog to be used for any of the purposes set forth in the federal Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. SECTION 2131 et seq.) shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 122336.1, provided the person is licensed by or registered with the United States Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act.

• (PROBLEM: This section exempts animals for medical research and out-of-state breeders, including PUPPY MILLS, meaning that the overpopulation problem cited as the reason for this bill will continue, making this entire bill nothing more than a giant fraud!)

(d) An unaltered cat or dog for which an intact permit was issued who ceases to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) is subject to the spay and neuter requirements set forth in Section 122336.1.

• (PROBLEM: Since subdivision (a) above has local discretion worded into it, the mere act of the ACO “changing its mind” on what is acceptable proof will put people out of compliance!)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(e) (1) The amount of the fee for an intact permit shall be determined by the local jurisdiction, and shall be no more than what is reasonably necessary to fund the administration of that jurisdiction's intact permit program.

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “reasonably necessary” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(2) A local jurisdiction shall waive the intact permit fee for an unaltered cat or dog that meets any of the requirements described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subdivision (a), and the provisions of subdivision (c) and may waive all or part of the intact permit fee for an unaltered cat or dog meeting the requirements of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a).

• (PROBLEM: Waiving a fine “in part” can mean waiving only $1 if the ACO desires. In other words, if cited, an owner may be in compliance but be fined anyway even if the pet is s/n. This reeks of a money grab.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(3) Any fee assessed by a local jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter shall not be duplicative of any other local fee in that jurisdiction.

(f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay or neuter program pursuant to Section 122331, provided that the program allows for a cat or dog to be temporarily or permanently exempted from a spay or neuter requirement for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (3) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (a), or the provisions of subdivision (c).

122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female dog per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for this purpose have a duration in excess of one year. In addition, the following conditions shall be met for purposes of obtaining and retaining the permit:

• (PROBLEM: WHAT ABOUT CATS?)

• (PROBLEM: In no event are these intact permits extended beyond one year. Most dogs are too young to have hip and other certifications so this bill promotes the breeding of immature dogs that have not undergone screening as adults. )

• (PROBLEM: In seeking an intact permit and the animal is too young to breed, but is not shown or trained for anything listed above, then what?)

(1) The animal has been examined by a licensed veterinarian and is following the preventative health care program recommended by the veterinarian.
(2) The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of the following offenses:

(A) Section 121705 of the Health and Safety Code. (Rabies concealment)
(B ) Section 286.5 of the Penal Code. (Bestiality)
(C) Section 596 of the Penal Code. (Animal poisoning)
(D) Section 597 of the Penal Code. (Animal tortue/overwork.abuse/neglect, including endangered species violations)
(E) Section 597.5 of the Penal Code. (Felony dog fighting)
(F) Section 599aa of the Penal Code. (Animal fighting)
(G) Section 487e of the Penal Code. (Grand theft animal-napping > $400)
(H) Section 487f of the Penal Code. (Petty theft animal-napping < $400)
(I) Section 487g of the Penal Code. (Animal fraud)

(3) The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of any local ordinance involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.

(4) The owner has not received an order from the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.

(5) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought has not been determined by local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency to be a "vicious animal."

• (PROBLEM: Breed-specific discrimination.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(6) The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:
(A) The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water.

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “sufficient quantity” is and isn’t? Ditto for “good and wholesome”—does that exclude raw food diets, for example? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(B ) The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to stand up, turn around, and lie down without lying in its feces, and the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and disinfected.

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “properly cleaned and disinfected” is and isn’t? Does that mean the entire house for those people who do not crate their animals? The entire yard for those who keep them outside? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(C) The animal is fully contained on the owner's property and provided appropriate exercise.

• (PROBLEM: Who defines what “appropriate exercise” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(D) The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state law concerning the care and housing of animals.

(7) The owner furnishes the director of animal control services with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:

(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may be adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.

• (PROBLEM: If the puppies/kittens cannot be sold, then how can the owners recur anything of the expenses?)

• (PROBLEM: Why at 8 weeks?)

• (PROBLEM: By this wording, the puppies/kittens can be adopted with a fee before 8 weeks, but that is before weaning, and no responsible breeder does that!)

• (TRAP: If we claim this section as bad then supporters will come right back with a claim that it really is about the money after all!)

(B ) Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were produced and who adopted them.

• (PROBLEM: This creates a list of who to go after to check for not being s/n for more fines. This reeks of a money grab and a witch hunt.)

(8) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought is currently licensed pursuant to local requirements.

(9) The owner has considered having the animal microchipped for purposes of identification.

(b) The owner shall maintain records documenting how many offspring were produced or adopted, or both, and shall provide proof that the dog has been spayed or neutered after a single litter. This information shall be made available to an animal control agency upon request.

• (PROBLEM: Poison pill here. The sire and dam are required to be s/n after they have the litter? It’s one and done? How does this affect artificial insemination or animals raised specifically for stud purposes only?)

(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit issued under this section shall be determined by the local jurisdiction and shall not exceed the cost of administering this section.

• (PROBLEM: What are the costs for this mess, and how will they be constrained to keep the fees from skyrocketing?)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2012, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2012, deletes or extends that date.

• (PROBLEM: After 1-1-12 this section ends, leaving the other sections in play, which means breeding exemptions will end as well! All this does is postpone the whole point, which was to end legal pet breeding in the state!)

Article 4. Funding

122336.3. (a) (1) Any civil penalty collected pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 122336.1 shall be used for funding the administration, outreach, and enforcement activities set forth in Article 5 (commencing with Section 122336.4).

(2) To the extent that funding is available pursuant to this chapter, a local animal control agency shall establish a free and low-cost spay and neuter program for low-income individuals. The agency shall undertake outreach efforts to inform qualified persons about these programs.

• (PROBLEM: What are the costs for this mess, and how will they be constrained to keep the fees from skyrocketing and allow for low-cost s/n?)

• (PROBLEM: What does “low-income” mean? What dollar amount?)

• (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(b) All permit fees collected pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 122336.2, and subdivision (c) of Section 122336.21, shall be used for funding the administration of the permit program in the local jurisdiction in which the permits are issued.

Article 5. Enforcement

122336.4. A local animal control agency shall be responsible for enforcing, conducting outreach efforts in connection with, and administering, this chapter.

• (PROBLEM: There is no accountability for the ACOs here.)

SECTION 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

SECTION 4. This act shall become operative on April 1, 2008.

Labels: animal_control

Hey everyone.
The bill has been rewritten as of 27 June 2007.
Please read the bill. Supporters and opposition both.

Well bred dogs are normally tested when they are two or three years old and older to attain certifications that show they are free of such things as hip dysplasia and health defects BEFORE being bred.

Previously I believed that no one who truly loves pets wants to intentionally support the breeding of defective dogs. Certainly not advocates of Healthy Pets. Of course not.

Smell the coffee. Things HAVE changed!
As of 27 June, however, ALL Supporters of AB1634 -- every single one of them, are now truly advocates for breeding immature and untested dogs. This is because the bill as now written, specifies that intact PERMITS cannot be renewed after one year. The wording on this is more than clear. There is no renewal and there's allowance to allow someone to test for qualifications before the animal is bred. Advocates have been told for MONTHS now that the quality of an animal cannot be ascertained at 4 months or 6 months, which is the current mandated decision deadline - and this pretty much seals the deal.

Many breeds are not considered mature until two years and older. Vets and other people who REALLY are concerned about pets realize that official health tests cannot be done on breeding animals before maturity.

What has not changed... AB 1634 advocates endorse puppy mills which have been exempt since day one of this bill. Advocates have endorsed this for MONTHS now so this isn't news.

And now, they can be proud that not only do they endorse sexual mutilation of immature dogs and cats but they also wholeheartedly endorse the breeding of immature, untested pets without using the tests required for ethical breeding of mature animals.

What's more that hasn't changed. Areas where MSN are in effect do not show better stats for euths and animals processed than areas that don't have MSN. In fact where people have free choice to do the right thing, the numbers are better.

The solution is to kill this bill. To not profile every pet owner nor treat every single dog and cat as identical objects or things that the state can control.

The real solutions have been shown to the supporters but they do not care about Healthy Pets.

Have you see the MSN poll? Marvel at the people that endorse the above things.

Remember, when you vote for something, you're not just voting for what you think it means, but you're implying approval for what it can become.

Labels: animal_control

Meet Pete Georgoutsos and his dog Spartacus.

Imagine going to visit some friends in another state. And your car gets broken into, and your 5 year old dog escapes from the car. You are relieved to find your dog finally and it is located at "Animal Care" (misleading term for "Animal Control") in that city. When you go to retrieve your dog you find out that it has been shot by many tranquilizer darts and that the "Animal Care" people will not release the dog back to you even though you have been a victim of crime in their fair municipality. The reason for this is that your dog has testicles and no dog leaving "Animal Care" is allowed to leave without being sexually mutilated.

Okay, now you end up having to get a lawyer and fight the City to get your dog back. You end up spending thousands of dollars because the "Animal Care" group threatens that if you don't neuter your dog, they will take your dog, put him up for adoption, or euthanize him.

Welcome to the world of Mandatory Spay and Neuter where logic and interpretation of law has more loops and swirls than young Miss Shirley Temple's hair.

Advocates of Mandatory Spay/Neuter may/might (who knows?!) have never intended for something like this to happen but do realize that once a law has gone into place ("because something has to be done") one may have inadvertently given powers to control and exercise intolerance however they may.

"I love him. I'll do anything for him. He's my constant companion . . . Even my mailman loves him," Peter Georgoutsos, 46, said of 5-year-old Spartacus.

In the dog-eat-dog battle, Georgoutsos is suing city for $30,000.

Here are two news clips from different dates, each with different details.

DOG JUDGE: 'FIX' IS OUT
By ALEX GINSBERG

June 16, 2007 -- A Brooklyn judge ordered a city animal shelter yesterday to release a runaway mastiff it's been holding since last month because the facility demanded that the owner agree to the pooch's sterilization first.

"What he was brought in with, he leaves the center with," the judge, Arthur Schack, added as he announced his decision in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

Owner Pete Georgoutsos - who lost his mastiff, Spartacus, May 28 when his truck was broken into on a Queens street - praised the decision.

"I am grateful that the judge listened to the facts and made his own decision," he said. "The evidence spoke for itself."

A lawyer for the city, Paula Van Meter, said she would appeal the order and the dog would be held.

The judge found that the City Council had clearly not intended the law to apply to cases like this one. And he ripped the shelter's tough line.

"We'll hold him hostage and then we'll kill him," said Schack. "That's what it sounds like."

---

Man bails out pet, but maybe not from vet
New York wants to neuter Jerseyan's once-stolen dog
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
BY RUSSELL BEN-ALI
Star-Ledger Staff

Pete Georgoutsos was thrilled to learn that his beloved brindle mastiff, a hefty 120-pound dog named Spartacus, had been found hours after a burglar broke into his vehicle and released the dog in Queens last month.

But his elation was short-lived.

Within hours he was told that the return of his pet from a Brooklyn animal shelter would be no easy task. Spartacus would have to be neutered, the city told him. A 2000 city ordinance designed to reduce the number of stray, abandoned and unwanted cats and dogs on city streets mandated the procedure.

The policy led to a heated and expensive legal battle in Brooklyn Supreme Court, prompting officials and animal-rights activists to question whether it is applicable to pet owners just passing through New York.

"It makes you want to hit your head against the wall and say, 'Stop wasting taxpayers' money,'" Georgoutsos said yesterday. "The law was meant to protect the health of citizens in New York City. But by neutering my dog you're not protecting their health; you're violating my property rights."

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack ruled in Georgoutsos' favor June 15 and ordered the unmolested return of his pet of five years. But the city appealed the decision the same day, extending Spartacus' incarceration.

Since the appeal may not be heard for months, Georgoutsos agreed to post $10,000 bail and was reunited with his dog yesterday.

If the city wins, however, Georgoutsos may be ordered to drive his dog from his Warren County farm, located in Asbury [New Jersey], back to New York to be neutered.

"I'm the victim of a crime, and yet they want to fight me tooth and nail to keep me from getting my dog," he said.

Georgoutsos was visiting friends late Sunday of Memorial Day weekend while Spartacus remained Georgoutsos' truck, caged, with the windows partially open. Georgoutsos returned to find the truck broken into and the dog missing. He said he immediately filed a police report.

A PANDORA'S BOX

Passed in 2000, the city administrative code noted that 67,000 unwanted, stray or abandoned dogs and cats entered city animal shelters in 1998. Of those, about 70 percent were not spayed or neutered.

"While wandering the city streets, homeless dogs and cats reproduce at alarming rates, exacerbating a potentially unhealthy and dangerous situation," the ordinance reads.

It grants exceptions, however, for show dogs and cats and in cases where neutering can lead to adverse health effects.

Georgoutsos' attorney, Gabriel Tapalaga, argued the health exception in court. He said the mastiff, which already suffers from an ear infection, was struck by five tranquilizer darts and taken to the shelter.

"Any further sedation may cause Spartacus more harm," Tapalaga said yesterday, citing a letter from the dog's vet in Ridgefield Park, who advised against the procedure.

The city health department, which oversees the animal shelters, referred calls to the city law department because of the litigation.

In a statement, city senior attorney Paula Van Meter said several city veterinarians found that the procedure would not harm Spartacus.

"Neutering and spaying procedures are critical -- and humane -- methods used to curtail animal overpopulation in the city," she said.

Lisa Weisberg, a senior vice president at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York, said she doesn't believe the law applies to Spartacus. "If the person (owner) is just passing through the city for whatever reason, the spay-neutering requirement does not apply," she said.

Privately, several city officials said granting an exception in what has become known as "The Spartacus Dog-Neutering Case," could open a Pandora's box of litigation.

Meanwhile, back in New Jersey for the first time in four weeks, Spartacus frolicked on the grass in front of his owner's Bergenfield construction company yesterday. The dog was released about 2 p.m., after Georgoutsos posted $10,000 in cash, noting that he could find no bondsman interested in bailing out a dog.

"The dog jumped up in my arms," Georgoutsos said of his pet's release from the New York Animal Care and Control shelter, where he said he visited him daily. "He was ready to play. It was adorable."

But Georgoutsos, 42, a former Montclair State University wrestler and wrestling coach, said it may be months before he can relax.

"You go to court and spend thousands of dollars," he said. "I don't know what's going to happen."

I noted that at least "one article had called this dog a Cane Corso".
Hat tip to http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/

UPDATE: July 8, 2007
Found this update, with not much more detail but includes a better photo.
Does look like a Cane Corso. Ears were not cropped. Other articles just called the dog a 'mastiff' so I'd been wondering.

George says, "I believe that he comes to the world one way, he leaves the same way,".

Being that the dog doesn't have the ear crop, which some owners will opt to have done after they get these dogs when the breeder doesn't do it, this adds another element of interest regarding his passion for his dog and greater weight to his words.

Labels: animal_control

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception
Lloyd Levine, Judie Mancuso, Ed Boks, other AB1634 supporters and journalists that like a hot story and simply cannot be bothered with facts, have all been doing their part to propagate misinformation. I think they hope to turn it into fact if they say it long enough. Levine goes on paper and on the air saying the same things over and over. Pretty pathetic.

Levine's lectures unceasingly of how mandatory sexual mutilation of animals spay and neuter can save the state money. The graph above shows that costs skyrocket when Santa Cruz (Levine's favorite topic for "MSN that works") is examined in reality. But these are not the same things he says when Santa Cruz is rolling off of his twisted tongue. I don't suppose he wants the same to happen all over California - he'll probably already be infamous for this sorry bill as it is? Sure hope our Governator doesn't want this.

I also have some preliminary data showing that Ed Boks' area (L.A. another gung ho socialist animal control haven) has also had abrupt increase in costs with the attempt to 'make' MSN work since MSN was adopted last year in his region. They are also implementing increase enforcement in their area since apparently the major sources of their problems are still under the radar, while they punish everyone else. They are piling on the new animal control ordinances there, rather than waking up to the fact that they are screwing themselves and their constituents.

You can see more about these numbers at the links below. These numbers were obtained from the State of California data.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/BigLieGraphs.pdf

http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/California_graphs.htm

https://petpac.net/PetPAC_Truth_Graph.pdf

From the above, you can see how Levine's darling, Santa Cruz (red), compares to local counties with respect to dog impounds. Full sized graphs won't fit on the blog so check out the links above and get clarity.


Check out the Cat impounds of Santa Cruz (red) compared to other counties.
Santa Clara County (green) has quite a story here. Take note of the years on the graph if you check out the story.

Many counties in California do NOT have near enough numbers of discount spay and neuters. This means that many singles, young folk, new couples, elderly, who have an unneutered pet will have to pay a fine of $500 if their pet isn't neutered. What's this about exemptions? Ah if they can qualify they just have to pay their vet (35 bucks to walk in the door, before anything else?) the visit fee and then pay the mandated intact fees and permits. Total probably costing up to $400 or so. Chances are, people won't have money. Pets are going to be turned loose if there is a fine for dropping them off at the shelter. Neutering a medium to large dog can cost $200 to $300 bucks. Some people may have multiple pets.

Check out this entry from PetPAC Blog:

"Senator Simitian's Town Hall meeting in Palo Alto was an overwhelming turnout of his constituents who were opposed to this measure. The issue of the Santa Cruz 'model' has now been brought into the light. And when you expose the truth about Santa Cruz their whole argument falls apart. Santa Cruz since their mandatory spay/neuter went into effect have done WORSE on reducing shelter intakes than the rest of the state. Their shelter expenses INCREASED by 93%, while the state average went down 10%. The buzz in the State Capitol is how Judie Mancuso, the Campaign Director on the Yes side has misled legislators on this critical foundation for AB 1634 and they are not happy about it. Also at the Town Hall meeting, Judie Mancuso approached Bill Hemby and pleaded with him not to mention PETA was supporting the bill. Judie swears PETA isn't giving her any money. Well PETA is supporting the bill and spending a lot of money trying to get this bill passed. Judie is particularly upset that Bill made a reference to PETA extremists throwing animal blood on people in the past."

Further on down in the article, there is this bit too...

Two hours after I started my 11 minute interview the program ended with Judie Mancuso agreeing to meet with me on Monday at 2pm across the street from the Capitol so I can show her the Santa Cruz study conducted by PetPAC which exposes the truth about AB 1634 and how inaccurate, irrational and misleading her claims have been. I told her I'm bringing my dog Kobe, I don't get to spend enough time with my dogs (although my cat loves how much time I'm spending in the office) since I've been working overtime to defeat this bill. She said she wouldn't mind if I brought my german shepherd dog as long as he didn't "attack" her. I couldn't believe her words and it really shows her disdain for our pets.

Labels: animal_control

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception
How many supporters of this atrocious bill know what the papers above have anything to do about?


Or the one above?

These are just a few samples of some tests that can be done to determine some of the genetic potential or quality of a dog and for the serious breeder, done on each dog born in a litter -- but they cannot be done until the dog is at least two years old.


Certain temperament, working tests, endocrinology, cardio, eye and other exams are done in different breeds, and the tests are often not considered official until the dog is tested as an adult. The more puppies in a litter that are tested, the more we know about the genes carried by the parents of the bloodline. Ethical breeders take pains to test in order to develop the healthiest of bloodlines through use of pedigree depth.

None of these tests above can be done on an immature dog. Their skeletal and organ systems have not completely developed so any preliminary tests are considered unofficial. Many ailments in dogs do not develop until the dog has started to mature or has gotten older.

Mixed breed dogs and deliberately bred 'designer' mutts are not immune from potential genetic problems although our poorly informed media are among the propagators of urban rumor which encourage the mistaken idea that these dogs are somehow automatically healthier than purebreds.

If you don't test for a problem, you don't know if you have it.

Mutts (including so-called "designer" mutts) carry both dominant and recessive genes that can predispose them to health issues. Furthermore, mutts are uniquely qualified to carry diseases or traits that the purebreds did not have. Some protector alleles that kept a disease from occuring may 'find each other' again and create problems for the new 'creation'. Yes, while different phenotypes become present for appearance recombine to create a 'trendy look', sometimes unpredictable behavior and various genetic diseases are unleashed along these 'new' faddish perks.

HOW DOES THIS TIE IN WITH AB1634?

Thanks to the new rewrite of the proposed bill, the entire concept of breeding HEALTHY PETS by testing for the best adults, has been completely removed as an option.

Instead of breeding only adult dogs with health clearances as the ones pictured above, the bill as amended June 27, 2007 -- now requires that most dogs be bred while still IMMATURE... during the first year that they have an intact permit.

122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female dog per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for this purpose have a duration in excess of one year.

Intact permits "in no event" shall be issued for a duration in excess of one year.

Wow, this means your six month old medium, large and giant breed puppy needs to be bred on its first heat while it is still immature. Before you can get adult clearances on hips, elbows and whatever else you need to test in your breed. Personally, I don't like the idea of breeding immature animals. The government may well mandate it and the bill supporters such as Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso may endorse it, but it should be quite clear to those with common sense, that the bill is NOT about Healthy Pets at all.

The bill is completely protective of the puppy mill industry by granting them the broadest of exemptions first. Then the bill goes on to be amended to preclude would be and experienced ethical breeders from being able to test adult dogs before breeding. Breeders test healthy dogs that have no clinical issues, just so they have a better idea of their dog's qualifications.

People can be stupid

While many do say, "genetics is fascinating and the information it provides can be useful" -- they do not have any degree of working comprehension of how AB1634 will thwart Ethical breeding. Supporters of the bill apparently do not see how removing democratic choice from all other people is deliberately circumventing Healthy Pets.

Labels: animal_control

Photo courtesy of ©Wendy Lutge of www.WhirlDesign.com
This is a photo of Bowie (left, owned by Wendy Lutge) a miniature dachshund rescue and Ch. Francis Schoolhouse Rocks (right, owned by Diane Jones) a standard dachshund on the steps of the Capital of California in Sacramento.

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

See Petpac.net for more information.

Labels: animal_control

Click here to enlarge

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

I've mentioned it before -- the so-called pet 'overpopulation' issue regarding euthanized animals in shelters is grossly exaggerated. AB1634 may have originally been well intentioned but at this point, it's quite clear to the majority scrutinizing the data, that the authors of the bill are using incomplete data and demonstrate little understanding or concept of the active dog community.

Over the past several decades, the numbers of impounds and euthanized animals have dropped at a steady rate, shown in the chart above. (more detail at DogGoneCalifornia)

Many people are essentially flaunting their ignorance in public forums by quoting various undifferentiated, incomplete and 'no context' numbers related to shelter statistics. Some use descriptive words such as "staggering", "out of control" for describing the isolated 'freeze frame' of time of which they hope to convince all, that there exists a critical "pet overpopulation".

I've seen different variations of the joke below around the 'net. This is the one I copied off of eBaum's World.

Flight Chatter

A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the stranger turned to her and said, "Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, "What would you like to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know", said the stranger. "How about nuclear power?"

"OK". she said. "That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass, the same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"

The stranger thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

"Do you feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know shit?

Staggering numbers, out of control?
In the case of California, euthanization numbers involve only about 2 percent of California's dog population and yet after decades of continuous progress, some will emotively and shrilly state that mandatory spay and neuter (MSN) is the solution.

As out of context with any timeline as they are, they may then go on to state that MSN has improved the statistics in different places.

And here is the problem...

• They neglect to mention the fact that shelter statistics already had significant drops in the years previous to (whichever) ordinance.
  
• They also neglect to state that the shelters in those areas with said ordinances are still killing animals that fit into the same profiles of impoundment that existed before the ordinance!

The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy website has a lot of research in more detail about pets in shelters, and its all available to public access. Here is info from one press release in 1998 of an early study on relinquishment of pets.

Every day in communities across the US a bond is broken. It’s the bond between people and their pets, resulting in millions of pets being surrendered to shelters each year. And little has been known about the reasons why until now.

In a recent study conducted by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP) and published in the July issue of the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (JAAWS), researchers went into 12 selected animal shelters in the United States for one year to find out why.

The results of the study show that the top seven reasons for relinquishment for both dogs and cats are the same. "These commonalties suggest that there may be similar ways to address relinquishment in dogs and cats," says Pam Burney, NCPPSP president. "For people who work in a shelter all day, there isn't always time to look at these issues. We have impressions of what's happening, but now we have objective data that will help us develop specific programs to address the issues that have been identified."

STUDY FINDS THE TOP 10 REASONS FOR PET RELINQUISHMENT

Top 10 Reasons for Relinquishment*

Dogs:
1. Moving (7%)
2. Landlord not allowing pet (6%)
3. Too many animals in household (4%)
4. Cost of pet maintenance (5%)
5. Owner having personal problems (4%)
6. Inadequate facilities (4%)
7. No homes available for litter mates (3%) --Breeding?
8. Having no time for pet (4%)
9. Pet illness(es) (4%)
10. Biting (3%)

Cats:
1. Moving (8%)
2. Landlord not allowing pet (6%)
3. Too many animals in household (11%)
4. Cost of pet maintenance (6%)
5. Owner having personal problems (4%)
6. Inadequate facilities (2%)
7. No homes available for litter mates (6%) --Breeding?
8. Allergies in family (8%)
9. House soiling (5%)
10. Incompatibility with other pets (2%)

Specially trained researchers completed confidential individual interviews with pet owners who were relinquishing their dogs or cats to animal shelters. Pet owners were allowed to give up to five reasons for relinquishment. Interviewers did not, however, prioritize the responses. They simply recorded them in the order stated.

Characteristics of Pets Being Relinquished

In addition to the reasons for relinquishment, the study collected data on the pets being relinquished. According to the study: The majority of the surrendered dogs (47.7%) and cats (40.3%) were between 5 months and 3 years of age.

The majority of dogs (37.1 %) and cats (30.2) had been owned from 7 months to 1 year. Approximately half of the pets (42.8% of dogs; 50.8% of cats) surrendered were not neutered. Many of the pets relinquished (33% of dogs; 46.9% of cats) had not been to a veterinarian.

Animals acquired from friends were relinquished in higher numbers (31.4% of dogs; 33.2% of cats) than from any other source.

Close to equal numbers of male and female dogs and cats were surrendered.

Most dogs (96%) had not received any obedience training.

Characteristics of Pet Owners Surrendering Pets

During the confidential interviews, researchers also gathered data on the people surrendering the pets. "Owners represented a broad range of age, ethnicity, education, and income level, indicating continued efforts will need to reach wide and far into communities across the country," say Dr. Mo Salman, the article's senior author.

- Pets are impounded which no one 'relinquished', those are not covered above

- It has been well documented that mandatory spay and neuter does not work -- it does not address the reasons that people relinquish pets. Punitive legislation doesn't help the animals and doesn't help this situation

And now, with above issues in mind, consider AB 1634 - a state mandate of pediatric hysterectomy and castration of ALL cats and dogs.

They are claiming exemptions... but hello people! Absolutely any reader of the bill will note that aside from commercial producers, there is absolutely NO one who is exempt. Everyone from police dog sources, farmers, disabled people covered by the ADA, the poor, and all the rest, every single one must jump through hoops to have what amounts to a pseudo "exemption" which only applies in their specific locale and as currently worded, all these exemptions expire in the year 2009.

Article 2.  General Provisions

  122336.1.  (a) A person shall not own or possess within the state
any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been spayed
or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336.
   (b) Subject to subdivision (c), any person who violates
subdivision (a) shall, for each animal for which a violation has
occurred, be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars
($500). This penalty shall be imposed in addition to any other civil
or criminal penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction.
   (c) If an owner of a cat or dog provides a letter from a
California licensed veterinarian indicating that due to age, poor
health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog and
that arrangements have been made to spay or neuter the cat or dog
within 75 days from the date the cat or dog reaches the age of four
months, and the owner has his or her cat or dog spayed within that
75-day period,  and  the owner shall not be in
violation of this act.
    (d) Any civil penalty imposed under subdivision (b) may be waived
by the local jurisdiction if the person in violation provides
verification that his or her cat or dog has been spayed or neutered.
(e) Any person who, on or after April 1, 2008, is in possession
of any document issued by the local jurisdiction or its authorized
animal control agency that permits the owner to possess an
unaltered cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with this act until
the document expires, or January 1, 2009,  which ever 
whichever  occurs first.

Can't say much for the enormous lack of care that has gone into above.
And they think people are upset?!


Disabled persons that the American with Disabilities Act has given rights of access via use of a service animal, includes the use of intact animals. Persons covered by ADA shall not be refused public access nor be challenged for documentation of their animals. Not every service dog user can qualify for a professionally trained service dog. Some organizations try to ensure highest rates of success by placing working dogs only with families without other pets (distractions) and there are other reasons why a Disabled American might choose to use an animal that they have raised and trained themselves or gotten from other sources. Disabled Americans that know how, are given rights by the ADA to train their own and they are not required to provide documentation of the animal's training, any more than they require a document to use a cane or a wheel chair. But now in California, if the bill passes, the intent of the bill will be that they too will now be forced to provide "documentation" in order to have an intact animal helping them. In violation of the Federal bill? NO problem.. that's what Levine, Boks, Mancuso and others demand. Furthermore, if Disabled Americans have intact dogs, like anyone else, they will be forced to perform in state mandated sport -- Why? -- because the bill's authors think that such "One Size Fits All" requirements are somehow going to reduce the number of animals euthanized in a shelter?

Exemption guidelines were clearly written without understanding of how various sectors of the dog community protects its animals, or how training and selection is performed. Nor do its authors seem to have the slightest an inkling of comprehension on how selection of future prospects for breeding done with an eye to preservation of ability, diversity and health.

State mandated experimentation on baby cats and dogs is endorsed by Humane Society of the United States, by Wayne Pacelle, by Lloyd Levine, Ed Boks, and Judie Mancuso. They don't want to call it that, but that is exactly what it is.

From a medical and science perspective, Professor James A. Serpell has written, " The legislation appears to be ill-considered and premature considering how little we know about the long-term impact of pediatric spay/neuter on the health and behavior of dogs and cats. At 4 months of age, dogs and cats are also too immature for us to be able to predict reliably their adult temperament and physical soundness. The legislation as written could therefore have a significantly adverse effect on our future ability to select the best animals for breeding purposes." Some of Dr. Serpell's work, charts and graphs can be seen here and here. The links also have information regarding studies performed by guide dog and service dog organizations, which determined that it was a bad idea to do early neutering.


This text IS fuzzy... so download the file the follows if you want clarity.



Above, a significant relationship between neutering and aggression was discovered, as far back as 1996.
Podberscek, A.L. & Serpell, J.A.
The English Cocker Spaniel: preliminary findings on aggressive behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47: 75-89, 1996.
Download the study right here. (PDF images 718 KB )

A new database on shelter stats is being put together at the NAIA Shelter Project website. This will be a useful tool to compare data across different areas in the country and also

Labels: animal_control

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception


BlueDogState doesn't mince words!

Labels: animal_control

What is happening now?

What will be the Future of Dogs?
No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

A wave of increasing awareness of Anti-animal legislation is coming to the fore.

Especially in the past, but to a lesser degree now, people have thought that some of these us versus them Animal Rights issues are alarmist, paranoid, or maybe a bit silly. Some still do.

A major wake-up call is underfoot.

The Future of Dogs is a well written booklet by Walt Hutchens. It is available for reading online. EDIT: From the site: "You are welcome to use it in any way it might help you in the fight to maintain our right to own animals. All we ask is that it be properly accredited to Walt Hutchens, Timbreblue Whippets, Virginia, and that you do not change any of the content."
I just contacted him and tweaked this section. Walt says, "[...] the printed booklet is for sale to anyone for any purpose -- not just educational use. It's conceivable that a club could sell them at shows as a fund raiser."

This is a great booklet to provide to new puppy owners, friends and relatives to help spread awareness of what is happening at the legislative front and why it is happening in the first place.

I quote a little from the materials here, but encourage everyone concerned to go read and/or go to this link to purchase hardcopies for distribution, to help spread awareness of what is happening.

Most people are not into Animal Rights at 100%, they are not extreme. The AR movement depends on the non extremists to do most of their work.

[AR breaks down their goals] into small chunks that sound good and sell them one chunk at a time to good-hearted, often busy, people. But the chunks are put together to make something that none of us would ever have approved.

• "People need homes. Please donate to buy a brick."

• Then they use the bricks to build a prison.

---> Many supporters believe that eating meat is wrong.

---> Others think that medical research using animals is unnecessary and cruel.

---> Yet others believe most pet owners are irresponsible.

It is those people -- the ones who are deeply committed to their own small parts of animal rights -- who are the foot soldiers, carrying the movement forward.

Fewer than a thousand run the AR corporations, make the plans, draft the laws, organize the conferences, deliver the speeches, and do the on-the-floor lobbying. Tens of thousands back laws in narrow areas: animal rescuers may support anti-tethering laws to stop irresponsible owners', misguided home breeders back anything labeled as fighting puppy mills,' and animal shelters support close regulation of pet breeders and rescuers.

The money to support the animal rights agenda comes from millions of Americans who love animals and who, without understanding how their money will actually be used, mail checks to HSUS, PeTA, and other lesser known AR organizations.

How Animal Rightists Pass Laws

1. They invent problems or magnify small ones. The real problems generally are much less than the good that comes from the same activity but we are only told about the problems.
2. The animal rightists batter public officials to solve the problems they've announced. Although they are a small minority, they never stop complaining.
3. When officials say "Okay, tell us what to do," the ARs are there with examples of laws passed in other places. They cite misleading or phoney statistics, even outright lies about the success of the law and if pressed on the issue, simply repeat their views.

• For example when they're proclaiming "horrible pet overpopulation" they promote laws requiring all pets to be spayed or neutered and requirements for hobby breeders to get expensive licenses and permits. "This law was a big success in San Mateo," they say.

• If you tell them "This law did not work in San Mateo County" -- they say "This law was a big success in San Mateo."

• If you answer "But the shelter euthanasia numbers went up, and licensing went down in San Mateo," -- they say "This law was a big success in San Mateo."

Surprisingly, when the subject is unfamiliar, the bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it. This 'big lie' tactic isn't often encountered by lawmakers and since doing independent research is time-consuming, they often end by accepting the lies.

4. Since the new laws never solve the 'problem,' the ARs seek greater punishments and still more laws to help enforce the old ones, such as a requirement for all pets to be microchipped with the numbers in a government database. They talk only of the good effects . "This will help more lost pets get home" -- although the real purpose is to catch people who are violating their other laws.

They can nearly always find important organizations that will support the proposal because (for example) "Veterinarians can't be against a law that just improves enforcement of something that's already the law."

5. As one law begins to spread, a new 'problem' is identified and the next step begins -- go back to #1, above.

To read the whole thing, go here to the FUTURE OF DOGS

Labels: animal_control

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

I've updated a php thread with captured images, including a better rendered version of above, from a few studies regarding dog health and behavior. Above image is about the importance of hormones in the growing dog, its future health and soundness.

Go here http://petoftheday.com/talk/ to see in better clarity and see the posting.

If you have any particular interest in animal health, in dogs, working dogs, service dogs, genetic and environmental implications of dogs as I do, above link may be interesting reading.

Canine Companions for Independence has addressed the question of pediatric spay and neuter in their programs. The results of theirs and of other studies, as well as potential implications thereof may prove to be very interesting to the general public.

It presents a strong argument for encouraging pet owners (specifically) to examine the evidence regarding health and public safety in issues of surgical sterilization, pediatric spay and neutering, and of MSN from the current situation in L.A.

I used some of the good work Laura Sanborn (saveourdogs.net) has shared for
public use. If you have not visited it yet, do go see http://saveourdogs.net/

Labels: animal_control, spay-neuter

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception
First Things First « San Diego Dog:

The governments in the United States are supposed to exist for the governed, the people. That is why we are supposed to have elected representatives, elected by the people to represent their best interest. These representatives, Assembly Members, State Senators, Governor, U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators, President are all supposed to be deciding things according to the will of the people. All that is necessary is to make that will known. Those who make their will seem to represent the majority will have their sway. They get their wish.

<<<<<--Great Stuff Snipped-->>>>>

Coincidentally, today is the historical birthday of Adolph Hitler (1889-1945), one of the greatest propaganders of all time. how about some Hitler quotes and some questions pertinent to this pet struggle today:

1. “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.” This fits the proponents of this bill perfectly. They generally are involved in rescues, and shelter operations. They see the very worst of the situation-and that is all they see. " (go see the whole post...)

Labels: animal_control

See more images that are part of the consideration
No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

1..
Daily Democrat Online - Legislature seeks to put burden on pet owners

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, says 'over 800,000 pets are abandoned in California' annually. So he has a solution - mandated birth control for 4-month-old dogs and cats.

Levine's bill, AB 1634, would require, not request, all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered. This, Levine believes, would reduce the number of abandoned and ethuanized dogs and cats. His heart is in the right spot, but his reasoning may be a different matter.

Like Levine, we encourage spaying and neutering of pets. Unlike Levine, we don't want to make it a state mandate. The stray animal problem is big, but to drop a blanket law over such a complex issue may invite a worse ...

2..
In Letters to the Editor at Marin Independent Journal

A dog of a law

In regards to your recent story, "Bill requires owners to spay or neuter their cats, dogs," (IJ, April 12), we are firm proponents of rigorous canine birth control.

However, spaying or castration, especially in juveniles, is not the benign procedure it is purported to be. Abnormal bone growth with concomitant orthopedic problems, muscle loss and obesity with all the ensuing problems as well as a raised incidence of bone cancer, incontinence and painful urination are just a few examples of frequent, serious long-term complications. These facts are undisputed and well documented in the mainstream peer reviewed veterinary literature, yet the unsuspecting puppy-owner is rarely informed about them. In human medicine, this would be considered malpractice. If you truly want to be informed, check the veterinary literature, ask a pediatric endocrinologist or check out this excellent web site: www.saveourdogs.net.

In much of Northern and Central Europe, medically unnecessary spaying or castration is illegal - yet these countries do not have a dog overpopulation problem. In Marin County, the Humane Society "imports" dogs from rural counties to adopt them out here. Marin County apparently already has mostly responsible dog owners.

In any case, this law will not reach the usual culprits - dog owners in the boonies - whose dogs are semi-feral and have litter after litter under trucks. Such a law would be extremely difficult to enforce and could be evaded by not licensing pets and avoiding vaccinations and veterinary care. It will further open the doors for poorly bred and unhealthy dogs from puppy mills in other states.

Elizabeth Evans, Ph.D., and Vera Reeves Atherton Acres Boarding and Training Kennels, Novato

3..
No On AB 1634 - No Mandatory Spay Neuter:

What's Wrong With AB 1634

AB 1634 Doesn't Solve a Real Problem

The proponents have their facts wrong. They claim that California has a growing problem with abandoned pets resulting in over 800,000 animals being surrendered to shelters and euthanized annually at a cost to California taxpayers of $250 million. In fact, that is simply not true...

4..
Anatolian Shepherd Dogs International, Inc. Opposes AB 1634
See opposition letter (jpg)

5..
Canine Companions for Independence Opposes AB 1634
See opposition letter (PDF)

6..
North American Police Work Dog Association Opposes AB 1634
See opposition letter (PDF)

7..
Go to Save Our Dogs to see MORE opposition letters (webpage)

Labels: animal_control

Issues of social engineering and general blather on conspiracy theories are concepts we all run into from time to time.

How organized are these things? How organized can they be? Are people trained in techniques to sway public opinion? How is it done?

Do you ever show up somewhere and listen to some dialog on a concept that initially seems surreal, then it gradually begins to 'grow on you'? Later when you are questioned on the material, you are frustrated because you unable to defend your position outside of emotive posturing? Remember the social importance of being 'Politically Correct' sometimes overrides the importance of independent critical thinking?

It is useful to know that there are educational materials which are available to the public so that the public can become more aware of when a propagandist is attempting to circumvent critical thinking and normal discourse. Below is some information that can help one to become aware of techniques used to influence public opinion and our democratic process, sometimes making otherwise astute people willing to give up their constitutional freedoms.

Useful reading plus a link below.

UPDATE: 16April - Note: Delphi Technique is actually a legit method of getting diverse groups of experts to work together on a project, blending their best ideas to find a solution. Elements of the Delphi Technique methodology have sometimes been abused to steer communities into believing that they are contributing to a worthwhile cause, but they are actually only being steered toward a predetermined conclusion. The article below and the link that follows are about this abuse, how to recognize it and how to fight it.

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order , author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.


How the Delphi Technique Works

Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings.

First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."

That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process.

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.


How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

1. Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
2. Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.
3. Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.
   

Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control.

At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on.

Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.

Lynn Stuter is an education researcher in Washington state. Her web site address is www.learn-usa.com/.

Want more?
I found more on this subject at Lynn Stuter's educational site, Learn-USA.com, where there is greater depth on the implications of Delphi Technique. Very interesting reading for those of us who are interested and appalled at how it can be possible that propaganda influences public policy on decisions about children, education, (even animal control) and more.

Hat tip to Florence Blecher.

Labels: animal_control

1...

Californians Against AB-1634
Gives reasons for opposition
Lists scientific abstracts including-
* Health Considerations
* Orthopedic Considerations
* Cancer Considerations
* Incontinence Considerations
* Behavioral Considerations
* Metabolic Considerations
* Infectious Disease Considerations
* Vaccine Considerations


2...


A little fuzzy? From my posting at another forum
(with purty pictures, until further notice)
Go to
http://petoftheday.com/
meow

Labels: animal_control

LA Animal Services:
March 2007 - A No-Kill Month!
"March 2007 is the lowest monthly euthanasia rate since LA Animal Services began collecting this data! Not only were no healthy dogs or cats killed in the month of March, but also only nine treatable animals were euthanized and only after three regimens of treatment failed to produce any improvement in the health of the animals."


Check out Ed Bok's blog above.

And look at his shelter statistics here. (choose LAAS and compare it to the others)

Great job, Ed!

Read more about real No-kill solutions here:
http://www.nokillsolutions.com/

<><><><><><><>

UPDATE April 13: As a follow up on Ed Boks, I've learned that despite the fact that has proven himself capable of working with the community in achieving "No-Kill" at animal shelters without interference into the personal lives of citizens or creating problems for the remaining 90-some percent of pets that never end up in a shelter -- this is not what he prefers!

Seen here in the center, with (on left) California Assemblyman and Animal Rights Propagandist Lloyd Levine.

Ed Boks, like Levine is in favor of a POLICE STATE over pet owners. Levine authored CA AB 1634 which seeks to control your right to make medical decisions for your pet with the professional guidance of your vet.

Ed Boks and Lloyd Levine are in favor of the MANDATE of STATE CONTROL of your decisions for your pet. They choose to use the State of California and it's local governments in what is essentially POLICE force over you and your vet. Neither one cares that this level of force will lead to more health problems in pets and that their wish for Mandatory Spay and Neuter has proven over and again, not to work and has resulted in more administrative issues, financial loss for local government -- as well as forced involvement into the lives of private citizens.

They both choose that State and local laws should mandate surgical alteration of all pets regardless of their genetic makeup and current science on early spay/neuter risks, and to do this as quickly as possible before the pet gets past 4 months of age. Levine is using social engineering and calling this bill the "Healthy Pets Act".

I don't know about Levine. ;) But Ed Boks has lost his vision of care and love for animals.

Like a sport... For him, the goal of "No-Kill" has become an end in itself. It is no more than a sport of seeking glory for himself and his selfish needs. Can you see it in his smile above?

Labels: animal_control

Above, a chart showing California shelter statistics trending since the 1970's.
It is small on purpose... to entice you to go to http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/ for more analysis and charts. :D


Above is some data from a ten year trend in the State.
To learn more about these stats, the reference link of The Animal Council http://www.theanimalcouncil.com is one place where many fact sheets are available. Take time to analyze the material and reports regarding the track record of implemented mandatory spay/neuter laws.

Analysis of data isn't popular, not even to those who have opportunity to act on public policy. But many would prefer to support policy that has "reasonable prospects of success".

Read a very good evidence based evaluation of MSN here at an Animal Rights site
http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html
Here's a little to get you started -

ARE MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER LAWS THAT TARGET EVERYONE REALLY THE ANSWER IN EFFORTS TO REDUCE SHELTER INTAKE AND EUTHANASIA RATES? May 21, 2006 by Laura Allen

"As a corollary to the report by Animal Law Coalition that Los Angeles County recently passed such a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, the following examines to what extent such laws are effective in reducing numbers of animals in shelters and euthanasia rates of dogs and cats." ...go read the rest at the link above.

The Animal Council has numerous files and data at their publications link. And if you're a fan of logic and CSI type shows, you probably have a pretty good idea how one can use data to scope out the size of the issue, determine where potential problems might be, and also begin to appreciate where the red herrings might be.

It's common to look at a chart, jump to conclusions. We all do that sometimes, especially if something includes data in an area with which we are not familiar.

There are many people supporting CA AB 1634 that claim to have read it. Apparently, they read and understood it with the same vague appreciation, familiarity and comprehension that people might have for E = mc². They know that it makes sense at some level, that the principles apply but they haven't really walked through the game plan from perspectives that need to be applied to see how the equation will apply in different circumstances.

What will AB 1634 do about police dogs and fighting crime? A MUST read! Check out the letters-
http://www.saveourdogs.net/letters.html
Read some of the other ones. If you have not "Walked the Walk" - yet you are in the position of determining policy for others, be aware that there will be "unforseen" repercussions if the strategy is not carefully evaluated. Many rare breeds and working breeds are not registered with organizations that promote the SPORT of conformation showing and other variations of sport.

Forcing the pet owner who normally controls their pet to become part of a competitive SPORT or a specific registry just because their is animal entire (not neutered), is prejudicial and is an illogical basis of determining or forcing responsible ownership.

Some things we do know about MSN is that it has reversed progress toward 'no kill' (defined as downward trends in euthanasia rates, making them go upward instead) and when accompanied with licensing of fees with a great differential between neutered and entire animals, there is a plummet in the number of licensing fees that are paid. Reasonable fees would otherwise have helped in Animal Control - higher fees guarantee that fewer animals will be licensed.

Additionally, limit laws are often instituted to reduce the number of pets people can have. As if there is a 'best' number that the government can determine for everyone. What happens is that people who would have helped to rescue or foster, now cannot do so. This also results in plummeting income from licensing fees since people would rather keep their animals than get a visit from an authority that one or more of their critters MUST GO.

An older couple who has four cats and five chihuahuas suddenly gets faced with the fact that under the new policy intended to control unwanted animals in shelters, they are only allowed five animals. Some of their pets may be in their teens. At $75 per pet, this may be beyond their means. So the rhetorical question is, which pets should they kill so they can be compliant? They can't do it, so they keep their pets, go underground and stop paying licensing fees. Gah, stupid law breakers, eh?

There are people who live on 25c boxes of macaroni and who have a kitten or puppy walk into their life somehow. They feed and care for it and keep it from becoming a road statistic. They do not have money for vet visit, vaccination, and neutering but in time they can save enough money to do so. I've known many people who lost everything in their lives and a pet kept them going until they were back on their feet. Do you realize that if someone in their hood wants to rat on them, once 'caught' if the pet owner can't pay $500 to the state for penalties ------ will that baby animal end up in the euth bin at Animal Control? Public policy needs to be fair and not just favor the rich, the able bodied or favor special interests who have lost sight of the silent majority.

Animals turning up in shelters are often those belonging to people who function 'under the radar' if they are not strays. Those are the ones owned by people who are not following the current laws anyway and the pet may not even be vaccinated at all. The new laws intend to track the rest of us. The animals under the radar will still be there!

Here's more in the way of a roundup, a summary I copied from California Federation of Dog Clubs at http://www.cfodconline.org/legislation.html. To see it at the link, scroll down under the map of the USA.

SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (ordinance passed in 1991)
• The ordinance requires spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in the unincorporated parts of the county unless the owner obtains an unaltered license or breeder’s permit. Chap. 8.02.090, Sec. 3332.4 (a) If an unaltered animal breeds accidentally, the owner must obtain a breeder’s permit. The license fee for unaltered animals is nearly twice that of spay/neutered cats and dogs. Any owner redeeming impounded unaltered animals must pay an additional fee. This fee is refunded if the animal is spayed or neutered within 30 days. Any unaltered animal impounded twice or more within a 3-year period will be altered at the guardian’s expense prior to redemption. Chap. 8.02, Sec. 3330.8 Penalties for violation include fines of up to $100 on the first offense, $200 on the second offense, and $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
• After the effective date of the ordinance, dog deaths in the areas governed by the ordinance, increased 126% and cats 86% while licenses declined by 35%. For the county as a whole dog deaths decreased 5% and cats 16% in 1993; in 1994 dog deaths declined 12% and cats 17%. From 1991-1994 there were no cat breeder permits and 50 permits for dog breeders, eight of which were renewals. In addition, licenses dropped dramatically. For 1998-99, the number dropped to 36,023, a dramatic decline from the 48,000-51,000 range of the previous two decades.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (ordinance passed in 2000)
• Requires the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats unless the owner has obtained a $100 annual unaltered animal or breeder’s permit. Sec. 53.15.2 For any dogs that breed, the owner must obtain a $100 annual breeder’s permit for each animal which allows 1 litter. A second litter during the annual permit period may be permissible “to protect the health of the animal[,] avert a substantial economic loss to the permittee” or "if the first litter was euthanized". A breeder must register all dogs bred for sale and disclose their name and permit number in any ad and on any sale documents. The city also tracks the identity of subsequent owners of the animals sold by breeders. There is a $91.50 license fee for unaltered dogs and a $6.50 charge for animals that have been spayed/neutered. Sec. 53.15.3 Violators are subject to fines of up to $500.00.
• Since the passage of this 2000 “spay or pay” Los Angeles ordinance, there has been a decline in dog licensing compliance. The animal control budget after passage of the law rose 269%., from $6.7 million to $18 million. The city hired additional animal control officers and bought new trucks and equipment just to enforce the new law.

CAPITOLA, CALIFORNIA ordinance joined SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA's 1991 ordinance
• Requires spay/neuter of dogs with limited exceptions for breeding. Secs. 6.10.030, .050 The city requires a $15 certificate and charges twice the amount for a license for unaltered dogs. Dogs without the certificate must be spayed/neutered. There is a warning for a first offense, and a mandatory spay/neuter order is issued for a second violation.
• Since the law’s 1991 inception, licensing compliance has dropped significantly.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND (mandatory spay/neuter law was repealed)
• When the law was enacted, it was estimated that 550 breeding permits would be issued per year. In reality only an average of 30 permits were issued per year. There was an estimated 50% decline in licensing compliance.
• Although the euthanasia rate declined 21.5% after the ordinance was passed, it had declined 34% prior to enactment of the law. The Office of Legislative Oversight recommended in its 1997 report that the county eliminate the new breeder permit system and return to their former license fee structure. Under the current ordinance, Montgomery County requires a 3 year $75 license for unaltered animals and an annual $25 license for those that have been spayed/neutered; there are discounts for low income applicants for the license for a spayed neutered animal. Secs. 05.00.01.01, 05.401.01.02

FORT WORTH, TEXAS (ended its manadatory spay/neuter program)
• Licensing compliance fell off after passage of the ordinance. As a result there was a reduction in rabies vaccinations which lead to an increase in rabies in the city.

CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (ordinance passed in 1996)
• Mandatory spay/neuter ordinance required a $500 permit fee to possess an intact dog or cat. In 2000 it was changed to $10, because of there were so few requests for it. But then again in 2001 the permit fee was again raised to $100, its current rate. As for the euthanasia rates since the effective date of the ordinance, the PAWS NJ website comments, “An analysis of these statistic