Real Name: JAMES BURGER Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: October 14, 2008 Profile Views: 3763 Blog Views: 10798 Fire chief: "Sorry, Mr. Hall" Prop. 8 Debate: notebook dump Home battle: Cluster compromise? Take a glimpse inside animal abuse case Where's the Bull? New animal control director has little experience, lots of enthusiasm Animal hoarding Name change for same-sex spouses Maggard brings "Ruth Ann" to county budget hearings Ann Barnett: civil marriages won't return. July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Healthy Pets edited to death.
All mandatory spay-neuter provisions of AB 1634 were edited out by Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod this week. The bill will go forward with minor increases to fines owners pay for retrieving their animals after an animal control impound. The bill (see attached) does require spay and neuter of repeat impounded animals — on the third impound for dogs and second for cats. But that will do little if nothing to reduce animal overpopulation that exists in Kern County. 18,669 of the 28,000 animals taken into county shelters in 2007 were not retrieved by owners — they were killed by animal care workers with lethal injections. Animal Control chief Denise Haynes said the county gets very few repeat impounds.
23 comments from 9 users
1
posted by
bakoblue
on Jun 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Sad, but hardly unexpected. By the time one read through all of the "exceptions" that were already in the bill, there was essentially a category for nearly every pet owner in the state to bypass the "mandatory" aspect of the proposal. With that door all but locked, it's time to work towards other means of reducing the pet overpopulation issues we face. I'm certainly open to some ideas. posted by
Jburger
on Jun 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM
True, Blue. I'm wondering what we'll see from Kern County Supervisors in a couple months. They aren't keen on MSN...but there were a bunch of other options in the package brought to them by the Animal Control Commission. James posted by
bringingupboys
on Jun 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
It's a sad day for Califiornia pet owners that the bill was gutted, but we hope that the sponsors of the bill will come back next year with more vigor and knowledge on how the greeders (greedy breeders) use the legislative system to project lies. The fact remains that 27% of the impounded dogs ARE PUREBRED. Sure, we are counting pit bulls, rottweilers, and other less desirable breeds, but this is a fact. The fact also remains that California animal shelters are not legally allowed to euthanize someone's pet on request, so no breeders, those numbers do not skew the results of the numbers. The new state reports are in and the numbers state-wide are increasing of impounds to our tax payer sponsored animal shelters, as well as euthanasia. Breeders would like you to think that the numbers are continuing to decrease, but no...they are INCREASING. I hope that some of the brighter legislators someday realize that investing money into free or very low cost spay/neuter is just that...an investment. The bottomline is that the REAL Zogby poll showed the truth that people in California are tired of paying their tax dollars to kill companion animals. Polls, such as online Parade Magazine or MSNBC, whose numbers have been skewed by the breeders by repeatedly voting against mandatory spay/neuter to tip the numbers in their favor are NOT accurate polls. Wake up, California. Get involved and get your heads out of the sand. The animals are dying in the animal shelters in California and only a handful of people even are aware of what goes on out there. posted by
bakoblue
on Jun 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
As I mentioned on another post, my fear is that they will love lots of the other options that were presented, but will then say there's no money in the budget to pay for it (the decision being postponed until after the fiscal budget is in place), so nothing can be done. Animal Control is already facing a 9 percent budget cut for next year as it is, according the Animal Control Comission meeting last night. posted by
KATELUMP
on Jun 19, 2008 at 10:00 PM
The enforcement of current mandatory licensing laws will allow us to go forward right away. Enforcement coupled with low cost spay neuter programs whether funded by the County through clinics/vouchers or in cooperation with the SPCA are a start. The laws are in place and the programs are in place. Let's get started and see what difference they might make. Far better than sitting around and complaining about the problem. posted by
LBD
on Jun 24, 2008 at 06:58 PM
A fitting end for a bill that was neither healthy for pets nor would decrease shelter impounds or euthanasias. Deepest thanks to all in the Senate Local Government Committee for recognizing that the proposed mandatory spay and neuter *Healthy Pets Act* AB 1634 was an inappropriate path. While supporters would like to paint a simpleton's picture that, statewide, basic pet birth rates are directly tied to shelter impound and euthanasia rates, all evidence suggests differently. The committe and their analysts were astute enough to recognize that. Congratulations again, Senate Local Government Committee, to a job very well done. posted by
KATELUMP
on Jun 25, 2008 at 05:23 PM
pup Calling me friend is a giant assumption on your part. You are rather mean and I do not know if we are friends. I do not even know who you are, but I have given you the courtesy of letting you know who I am. A.B. 1634 died because there were too many exceptions being attached to it. Regardless, there is no implication, A.B. 1634 is dead Laurie posted by
KATELUMP
on Jun 25, 2008 at 06:16 PM
You are not relevant as a person? - I disagree. I don't mind blogging under my own name - so I do not hide. But you are so fearful and defensive about your identity. HMMMM - very odd. Mean to you? - you must have tissue paper thin skin. I think blogging is unfortunate in that fashion. Sometimes people exercise poor judgment - like mocking other people's names - because one can hide here. Laurie Weir posted by
pmelko
on Jun 28, 2008 at 02:07 AM
LDB is right. It's probably tied more to the economy than anything else. The housing bomb, unemployment, foreclosures and gas prices influences the affordability of pets. It doesn't seem likely there is evidence regarding birthrates tied to impounds or euthanasia or even know if birthrates have climbed in the last few years. Peer reviewed, controlled studies are the only reliable and accurate source of that kind of information. Katelump and LBD - thanks for the sanity check. The majority of shelter animals die because the public largely believes those animals made their way to the shelter because they are problem animals that did something so bad their owner turn them into the pound. It's also the perception they're wormy, sickly, snappy,dirty, diseased, rabid and not worthy of being placed into a new home. It's a lack of confidence issue when it come to adoption. Most folks don't want to chance adopting a pet with potential health issues that becomes an endless money pit or bites someone creating a liability/lawsuit. In a way, it is true in some cases because a cat might have leukemia, FIP/FIV or mange/ringworm or a dog could have heartworm, ear infections or some other serious problem that shelters wouldn't test for while impounded. Sorry but mandatory spay/neuter and limit laws aren't the answer. Any law that puts more animals at risk of being abandoned and given up isn't a good law. posted by
KATELUMP
on Jun 29, 2008 at 07:52 AM
Pup here's your proof that the poor economy is driving up the number of euthanizations and is increasing numbers of abandoned animals. "Tough economy: Nonprofits absorb impact of fewer donations" TBC June 29, 2008 Worse yet, the number of pets needing help is increasing. “People are abandoning their animals when they walk away from foreclosures or when they move out,” president Barbara Hays said. “Some don’t want to pay the turn-in fee, or if the cats are sick, they don’t want to take care of them.” This is how the numbers are going up at the shelters. posted by
pmelko
on Jun 29, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Pup- although we want the same protection for animals, our approach is different. It may be based on the difference in our personal experiences and perceptions of how to effect change. Call me a schmuck for failing to see the merit of MSN if you want to! It still doesn't change that it won't have a direct impact on the problem. The law will have no effect on all the bad actors out there who will continue running their puppy mills and breeding fighting dogs and cocks. Implementing MSN takes years and from a return on investment standpoint, it's a real loser. Draconian criminal penalties have had zero impact on the number of people entering the prison system as is evidenced by the current expansion of prisons in California. What makes you so convinced harsh pet laws will have a different outcome??? Since I'm so misguided how about if you take over the rehabilitation of my 11 shelter dogs I took out of the Ridgecrest shelter few months ago. It's real easy for people to run the mouths, especially when they don't walk the walk.
Penny Melko
posted by
pmelko
on Jun 29, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Ms. Weir. At the May(?) AC Monthly Meeting, you asked if I would coordinate offsite adoptions. Can you kindly email me at pmelko@ximatek.com to get a dialog going? Penny Melko posted by
Jburger
on Jun 30, 2008 at 03:44 PM
I do appreciate folks like Laurie Weir and Penny Melko who do choose to be public with their identities on this blog. That's no knock on anyone who does choose to use a psudonym. I've certainly been tempted, at times, to create an "avatar" to write under. But I've never done that. I figure my job as a reporter is to share information to the public. That means my persona should stay public. Its nice to see that from other people too. James posted by
siouxcityranch
on Jul 3, 2008 at 06:04 PM
alternative to Pups that is saving lives and staying out of peoples rights..WOW you are really developing a fan club eh PUP? http://people.bakersfield.c...
posted by
vanityfair
on Jul 3, 2008 at 09:42 PM
Pup, please stop hiding under this guise of caring for the pets. You, and your husband, have a target. Well, two, actually. If you want to effect change in Bakersfield/Kern County then run for office, listen to your constituents, and act accordingly. I do not know Ken and Laurie Weir personally, but I commend Laurie (KateLump) for taking the time to respond to the same inane nonsense over and over and over. Your letter to the editor the other day was ..... more of the same. posted by
siouxcityranch
on Jul 3, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I don't know what she was reading but those websites ran to other websites with all kinds of facts through case studies they successfully completed. I don't think she even took the time to read a small portion of it..she probably only read what I posted on the blog and that was it. Shes so stuck in thinking shes gods gift to the dog pile she just rambles and rambles..and when she had a chance to show some support and prove shes really wanting to be involved and not just doin her PETA project through bloggonia she hauls butt outta town..where does she not read over and over that her MSN doesn't work it only creates other problems when its all over the net too....that's close minded PETA thinkin to me folks posted by
vanityfair
on Jul 3, 2008 at 11:36 PM
That's a fact. She took three days off to research nonsense. She is nonsense. This is nothing more than a political hit. posted by
vanityfair
on Jul 4, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Pup, what is a "personal attack"? That I say you're opinion is nonsense? That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that you are doing more harm than good for your cause. Interestingly enough, you breeze over my previous comment. Whatever. I won't bother to respond as I know what I post now will send you scrambling to edit your original post. posted by
Muttluvn
on Jul 6, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I was in Ventura yesterday to listen to a speaker Nathan Winograd. He is the author of the book "Redemption" and has helped many animal shelters in the US with No Kill. IT is awesome what he has done with the communities he has helped. Please everyone should google his name and see some of the statistics and what he has accomplished. The thing I don't understand is all he has done and he has proved it works.....that it is so easy to stop the killing.... why the whole United States does not use his methods. The people FOR mandatory S/N and the people AGAINST mandatory S/N....we all want the same thing. We want to stop the high numbers of animal deaths. And with Nathan Winograd's equation to fix this is WHAT WE ALL WANT. We are in the 21st century we need to start acting like it instead of using 19th century methods of animal control. Its time for a change and another law is not the answer.
posted by
vanityfair
on Jul 14, 2008 at 08:44 PM
posted by
vanityfair
on Jul 14, 2008 at 08:47 PM
Please take the time to read "Mandatory Spay/Neuter Madness." posted by
vanityfair
on Jul 15, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Hey pup, maybe the reason why no one is responding to your blog is because you constantly edit or delete posts. Just a thought. Have a nice evening!! posted by
vanityfair
on Jul 15, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Oh, and pup, studies are showing that MSN does NOT work.
1
|