Lois, this is so right on that it's hard to comment on it.

I was at the meeting Wednesday night and was embarrassed FOR Mike Yraceburn that he was that stupid.  Blaming James Burger and the Californian for printing the article.  DUH a newspaper prints news about the community it serves.  And the growing number of animals killed here is news.

It was clear that Mr. Yraceburn is not interested in any kind of a spay/neuter program.  You could hear that in the way he talked about being mandated to have a program ready for the Supervisors by 6-10-08.  And of course we all know that Janice Anderson is a breeder who would never be in favor of it. 

I don't believe that what the HOPE Foundation is asking for is anything new.  I visited them over a year ago with a group from Bakersfield and at that time they wanted a group to make the appointments, verify low income, verify appointments etc.  At that time we knew that we didn't have the man-power to do this.  Only through the generous donation of someone in the community was that work done for Bakersfield. 

 Bravo Lois. It's sorta like blaming the newspaper because it reported a murder. Don't you know that gives criminals ideas??? LOL

I've been reading here: http://www.nokilladvocacyce....org/ especially the info on Reforming Animal Control.  Some people have a problem with "No-Kill" shelters because they say those shelters have the luxury of not accepting animals if they have no room thus funneling animals to the kill shelters. Fine, call it whatever you want; how about Low Kill or Open Door? 

If we can shoot for the ideas behind No-Kill and get the kill rates down, it's a good place to start.

There are 10 points to this program: Trap, Neuter and Release (TNR); high volume/low cost spay/neuter (s/n); rescue groups; foster care; comprehensive adoption program; pet retention; medical and behavior rehabilitation; public relations/community involvement; volunteers; and a compassionate director.

• TNR: Apparently not happening. Someone asked about the shelter getting live traps that can be rented or loaned to the public to trap feral cats, have the shelter's vet s/n and then release them. The response was that they're still looking into this. Apparently it's been a few months.
  

 Birdmom:

Thanks for so succinctly putting all those great ideas into perspective for our area.

I wanted to include some of those (especially the issue of fostering) in the column, but it just got too long.

I'm a huge advocate of low-cost, widely available s/n in conjunction w/mandatory s/n. But you're right, without the first in place, the law will be words on paper.

But I also think there are so many other things we could be doing, as you enumerate above.

Who is out there that could rally a group, or groups, to get an army of volunteers ready and willing to tackle these tasks?

I'd be willing to volunteer for the fostering program (I'd need training, of course). So count me in for that if you're the rally master!

Lois, 

The only reason I would not support a mandatory s/n law is that it would be unenforceable. I believe that if you have a law, it should be enforced. If it can't or won't be enforced, then don't have it. It may also cause more problems than we have now.  

Please read this: http://www.nokilladvocacyce...

Mandatory s/n will not work without also offering a high volume/low-cost/free s/n program along with the ordinance. Until KCAC has that in place, MS/N will just be another law on the books like licensing, which is only running about 30%, according to the ACC. All the other parts of the No-Kill equation that I explained in my previous post would also help immensely.

Yeah, I know, I'm a heretic, but all my dogs and cats are spayed or neutered and not just because it might be a law but because it's better and more healthy for them!

The commission members were saying it would only be a tool for AC officers to use if, for instance, AC was called out because of loose dogs, AC could (theoretically) find the owners, then cite them if the dogs were intact.

At the meeting, Susan Madigan, the newest ACC member, put out a sign-up sheet for volunteers. I suggest contacting her.

I have also contacted some Internet friends who work with their local shelters/humane societies in Michigan and Alabama. The woman in Michigan fosters kittens through the humane society. They have a program that includes training and quarterly meetings. She has promised to send me any info on their foster program. The woman in Alabama is a volunteer for adoption fairs. They have fairs, and recently entered about 30 adoptable dogs in a Mardi Gras parade then had a booth at a fair at a park after the parade where they took applications and adopted out all the dogs they had at the parade. She has also promised to send me info on their volunteer program.

What I don't understand is why the shelter management isn't doing this legwork. Seems to me it'd be easy enough to send out emails/make phone calls to other shelters/humane societies/SPCA's and ask them what programs they have, how they work, how they set them up, etc., and ask for any written info or links to on-line info they have. I'm happy to gather information to help out but shouldn't this be part of someone's job?

 I'd love to get interested folks together so they can use whatever skills they have to offer (and everyone has some sort of skill to offer) to make a positive change on behalf of animals in Kern County. Paw Print City Times

 birdmom, perhaps you are unaware of the politics behind Nathan Winograd and his No Kill Advocacy group with the breeding industry? Nathan is being heavily promoted by breeder lobbying groups.

Breeder lobbying groups push for Nathan Winograd not because his program works, but because Nathan Winograd agreed to oppose breeder licensing laws and similar legislation.

And Nathan Winograd has a long history of what you might call "misrepresentation." His "statistics" have been consistently disproven. His words opposing mandatory spay neuter laws ring hollow. There is no substance to them. His words on these laws represent breeder interests, not animal or community interests.

Nathan Winograd's No KIll program has serious flaws. Please read http://www.indybay.org/news...

It has not only not worked, it has made things worse.

Low cost spay neuter programs are needed. But without laws and regulations to back them up, the shelters still keep filling with animals.

Even San Francisco SPCA, with their easily available low cost or even free spay neuter services, still found their shelter overfilled with dogs and they were still euthanizing. They passed a mandatory spay neuter law for pit bulls not long ago, and the numbers of pit bulls euthanized has dropped dramatically.

Without laws and rules, too many people still find it easier to just keep dumping litters on the taxpayer. When Animal Control has the tool of laws, suddenly there is incentive. And spay neuter rates go up.

As far as your remark about "unenforceable," the only group to say that and use it as a reason not to pass the laws are the breeders. Areas that have mandatory spay neuter laws don't find enforcement a problem.

There's a reason that PetPac, the breeder lobbying group, was pushing Nathan Winograd. And it wasn't about their concerns over euthanasia!

 Breeders do not want to be licensed because many of them are breeding and selling far more animals than they claim to, and are not reporting the income and paying taxes.

In addition, many are breaking laws like zoning laws or health codes or a variety of community rules, depending on the area.

Licensing exposes these businesses as what they are- BUSINESSES.

Very lucrative businesses that are not contributing their fair share to the community with licensing fees and taxes.

Breeding lobbies consistently fight to keep breeding unregulated and hidden from public view. There are very large financial interests at work here.

The AKC, for example, makes most of its money from registering puppy mill puppies. Thus they lobby on behalf of the mills, opposing licensing  and rules like mandatory spay neuter that could affect the puppy mill gravy train and increase costs to puppy mills by requiring them to "go honest" and pay their fees and taxes. The bottom line for AKC bank accounts is a huge stream of cheaply-bred puppies with little overhead (like taxes!)

The interest for breeders is financial. And breeder lobbies are putting intense pressure on the county government to oppose mandatory spay neuter on their financial behalf.

They could care less about euthanasia rates.

carol463p,

What you say about Nathan Winograd may very well be true. I read many of the comments at the link you provided.

However, I don't believe that negates the fact that our shelter doesn't have a TNR program, doesn't have a volunteer program, doesn't have a foster care program, doesn't have a comprehensive adoption program, doesn't offer pet retention information, doesn't have positive public/community relations and most importantly, doesn't have an accessible, low-cost s/n program. I'm not going to address the compassionate director component; that should be up to County management. The only thing that seems to be working well is working with rescue groups. All of these things would certainly go a long way to helping reduce the overpopulation at the shelter. Yes, some will cost money, some of which could come from increasing licensing in the County since the compliance rate seems to be around 30%.  I'd be happy to pay a couple bucks more for my dog's licenses if the money went directly to the shelter. I'd even be happy to tack $5 onto my property taxes if it was put into a dedicated fund for the shelter to help pay for these programs.

I absolutely agree with you about licensing breeders. I don't care if they're AKC or backyard breeders, they should all be licensed. There should be no "free 1 litter of puppies per year" either. Anyone who breeds dogs for sale should have a business license and pay taxes on their earnings. 

 Good day all -

I would like to join in this lively discussion and correct some errors. 

First, let me respond to LL9- I actually would love to see a viable, enforceable, community-supported spay/neuter program.  As some one who has spent 22 years in law enforcement, I believe that a mandatory spay and neuter program will in fact reduce our shelter population. I do not believe that it will completely eliminate overpopulation, but like the drunk driving laws etc., it will cause those who are on the fence to spay and neuter.  If we reduce our shelter population 10% that will be great.

-If LL9 had been to all our meetings and someone had read our propsed ordinances, we had a facet of mandatory spay/neuter for all strays that were picked up twice.  I was the one who proposed that language.

-Also, I wish to point out that I was not objecting to the article.  I was objecting to the video, which has now gone around the web.  I felt and still feel it was demeaning to the animals and the care workers.  I sent a copy of my remarks to the Californian, which I would suspect Ms. Henry did not read in total as I called for regulation not just on the Californian, but all advertising media.

Finally, this problem will take everyone in the community to support, many of the ideas above are well known and have been reviewed and discussed.  Frankly, within the rules of order we have given everyone the opportunity to express there views fully.

As to my comments directed at the Californian - I checked your advertising rate book.  I noted that a publisher it reserves the right to decline any advertisment.  Not being a trained journalist, skilled in the written word, I would ask this; what is the description of an organization that complains about a problem on one hand and enriches itself on the other? 

As said at the meeting, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution -

I hope to see you all at our next meeting, especially Ms. Henry

 Why is it that people persist in the "there oughta be a law" mentality for anything they dislike? Laws don't magically create responsible citizens, if they did we would never have a murder, or a speeder or child abuser. You cannot legislate morality or responsibility. If you "mandate" and take away people's rights to make a medical decision for their animal then you have reduced our freedom by another notch. A decision to spay or neuter an animal should be made by the owner of the animal with the consultation of a veterinarian and NOT by the government. There are animals who stay intact for an entire life time and never contribute to the "pet overpopulation" by they are owned by responsible owners. Making low cost spay/neuter AVAILABLE gives people a choice without forcing the will of the government - not to deal with the mess created by irresponsible owners - on the whole. Before this "law" is passed a very careful study of other such laws needs to be made. These laws have been found to be expensive to try to enforce, unenforcable and therefore selectively enforced (made your neighbor angry lately - then expect a visit from the doggie gonads police) and they have resulted in a rise of owner turn-ins at shelters and a rise in euthanisia rates at shelters. I don't think this is the hoped for results. Here is some wisdom from those far more conversant with the law than I:  

"One of the greatest delusions of the world is the HOPE that the EVILS of this world are to be CURED BY LEGISLATION." Thomas B. Reed 1886

You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered. — Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. — Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

Mr Yraceburn, I believe that one of the biggest concerns is not even the Commission's blanket rejection to mandatory spay and neuter, it's that the rejection and the language around the rejection, and the false "facts" about MSN, come from the for-profit BREEDER LOBBY. And represent the financial interests of BREEDERS, not the community or the animals.

In 2006, the AKC sent this out from their Lobbying Department to its constituents

"The Kern County Board of Supervisors has directed the Kern County Animal Control Commission to review a proposal from the Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment and the Animal Friends Rescue Project which includes mandatory spay/neuter. The AKC Canine Legislation Department is working with local fanciers and concerned dog owners to inform both the animal control commission and the board of supervisors about the ineffectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter. The Canine Legislation Department encourages the county to invest in educating residents about responsible animal ownership and will provide our public education materials to assist them in this endeavor."

Mandatory spay and neuter laws have been quite effective in many areas.

Of course, that is what lobbies do. They dissemble for their own devices.

But we have heard  the Commission repreating the same AKC and breeder propaganda. And that is being part of the problem.

The AKC represents FINANCIAL INTERESTS of an industry, whether it is the puppy mill businesses that supply the majority of AKC income through its registrations, or the AKC breeders that are running businesses and not reporting income and not paying taxes.

The AKC (or other breeder lobby) viewpoint is not reflective of the welfare of the community or its animals.

And allowing a Commission to be overtaken by the interests of a business lobby over community interests is just not acceptable.

What should be a concern to the Commission as they see those ads in the Californian is that there is a significant breeding industry in the county that is making a significant income, and not paying taxes on that income, and not paying business license fees as other honest businesses do. Yet the Commission has been representing the welfare of THAT constituency, not the welfare of the majority of people and animals of Kern County.

etbmfa, laws just don't magically appear, and magically responsible citizens don't just appear. If history has taught us anything it is that men need governance with rules of law. If pet owners and breeders were so responsible we would not  be in the  sad predicament we find ourselves. 

I am glad Animal Control Commission Chairman Yraceburn has joined this blog post topic to clarify his remarks from last week's meeting. I did feel he singled out the Bakersfield Californian a little unfairly for the story. The Californian, in this instance was simply the messenger. But, I thought his remarks directed at the classified pet section were spot on.

I am a big fan of Lois Henry's columns, which I always find well researched and provocative. However, I do not  believe placing restrictions on pet advertising would be a hardship for our local paper. I am fully aware of the  dire economic circumstances facing publishers across the country with lowered advertising revenues. The growing transistion from subscription-based print copy to a digital Internet model has been tough. Papers are loathe to lose any monetary source these days as our economic implosion wrecks havoc across many sectors. But we do all need to hold ourselves accountable for actions that continue to create such disastrous consequences. Cars are not sentient beings, Stephen King stories aside, and it would be a good thing to  look at evolving business practices that can help alleviate this critical  problem.

 One thing about Mr. Yraceburn (it seems to me) is that he is a doer. Right or wrong, agree or disagree with the man he has devoted countless hours to the SPCA as well an Animal Control in all its various forms.

Like Teddy Roosevelt said, he is one of those in the arena. I like that. I may not agree with him all the time (I'm sure I wouldn't from some of the things I have read) but he puts himself out there and suffers the sling and arrows. 

Seems to me at the end of the day, he is doing it for one reason only -- he cares about the animals.

Gotta respect that! 

 Hi, Lois!  Instead of telling us that no one wants to get involved in solving Kern's animal crisis, can you PLEASE tell those of us that want to work, want to put in the time to find a solution to the problem (other than passing more laws,)  WHO TO CONTACT??  There must be some groups or organizations that aren't involved with PETA or HSUS  where we can work together to get a free/low cost mobile spay/neuter clinic started, and find a way to get more of the Pound's adoptable animals into permanent homes.  Could you run some contact numbers or email addresses in your column, or on this blog??  There is so much emotion on this subject, surely some of us can get together to actually accomplish something???

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;                 & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;                 & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;  Anne

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;                 & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;        

 I'm also of the opinion that more low-cost spay/neuter options need to be available locally before any mandatory law should be discussed. Seems like passing such a law now would be less about actually curbing the overpopulation problem (due to enforcement issues others have already raised) and more about making empty motions to placate the angry populace. Birdmom spelled out all that really needs to be done to curb the overpopulation problem better than I could. I think the first two points, TNR programs and low-cost spay/neuter, would be particularly useful... moreso than an empty law with no "teeth".

 HOPE is not a good example to offer in support of your claim since it is not an ordinary low-cost clinic. Many people have expressed distrust in sending their animals all the way to Fresno just to get fixed, regardless of how cheap it is. To offer as a counter-point how effective low-cost solutions can be WITHOUT legislation, just look at the success of the SPCA feral cat free TNR voucher program last fall. Even though only a few vets were participating, you could only get three vouchers per address and you had to provide your own traps, there was still a strong interest in the program because one could get the cats fixed and vaccinated against rabies for free with the vouchers. To have the law without the low-cost options in place is like putting the cart before the horse.

 saradog, it is time for you and your breeder friends to accept the fact that lawlessness is not acceptable.

Breeders need to be licensed, just like other businesses get licensed. If you are truly a "responsible" breeder, then getting licensed does not impact you nor create a burden. If you TRULY only have a few dogs and breed a litter or so a year, licensing does not affect you in any negative way.

Rather, it distinguishes you from the puppy mills.

If however, you are running a puppy mill (as one poster on a Bakersfield blog admitted to while trying to excuse himself from any kind of documentation, including paying taxes) or if you are a "fake hobbyist" that CLAIMS to only breed a litter a year, but is actually producing much more and making a substantial income, then you need to get licensed just like ANY OTHER BUSINESS gets licensed.

The only breeder "emotions" that surface about this issue is hysterically trying to oppose any law and stay off the books.

And it is more than a little odd to be crying out about "working together" and demanding that others "do something." Breeders have turned a blind eye to euthanasia and other problems while focusing on running their businesses, making money, lobbying to stay off public records, and working only with elitist "purebreds."

It is time for breeders to get honest.

(and the reason all the breeders hate "Peta and HSUS" is that Peta and HSUS want- breeders to get licensed! Anyone who believes that breeders should be accountable is automatically an enemy in the breeder world)

 Many other communities HAVE put excellent , easily accessible low cost spay neuter programs, even FREE programs, in place. As well as "education."

The animals still kept pouring in, and euthanasia rates still stayed high.

That's why  communities (like San Francisco SPCA) have now enacted mandatory spay neuter laws.

And the NUMBERS GO DOWN.

Low cost spay neuter without basic community laws does not work.

Thew two work very well TOGETHER.

When mandatory spay neuter for pit bulls passed in San Francisco, all of a sudden there were people showing up at low cost spay neuter clinics that had been in place for a long time, with their adult unaltered dogs- telling reporters that interviewed them, "well, there's a law now, so I guess it is time to get it done."

 For carol463p and anyone else interested, none of my dogs, and there have been MANY, have ever had or sired a litter, EVER!  Of the hundreds of cats that I've taken in, NONE have ever had or sired a litter.  The ONLY exception is one purebred Himalayan cat that I showed and bred three times to a top quality male.  I have taken in an uncountable number of strays and rescues, vaccinated, spayed/neutered them at my expense, and found homes for all but the few that I kept.  I have worked for a vet hospital, a pet shop, trained and shown dogs and horses, adopted dogs from the pound, and purchased purebreds. I have hand raised and released hundreds of baby birds, and bottle fed a litter of newborn feral kittens.  I do now have a top quality bitch puppy, that once she finishes her championship, and health testing, IF she turns out like I think she will, I WILL breed...probably more than one time!  (right now she's out playing with our mutt that we adopted from the pound last year. ) So I understand the problems from all sides...and the first place we need to start to fix the problem(besides to quit arguing and finger pointing)  is free/low cost spay/neuter clinics, and then work on getting more adoptable animals out of the Pound. The last two rescue cats I took in cost over $100 each to neuter...none of the vet hospitals will spay or neuter an animal unless they give the vaccinations for another $50!  I have vaccinated all my animals myself for the last 30 years, and none have ever come down with anything I vaccinated against, but now that's not good enough.  Yes, I could have gotten a voucher, but I thought those should be left for people who absolutely could not afford to spay/neuter on their own.

 Well, sara, how did I know you were a breeder:)

Unfortunately, you are just repeating what breeders always say is "the anwer"- let the taxpayer and other people deal with the problems, and leave the breeders alone to run unlicensed businesses.

Simply providing low cost spay neuter has been tried by many. There need to be some basic laws to back it up.

And increasing adoptions does little if the numbers of pets streaming in keeps going up.

 IF YOU WANT TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION 

I am working on sponsorship for HOPE via a collaboratin of several local organizations.  It looks like a go, but will take a short bit of time to get going.  However it will also take volunteers to make it happen.  If you would like to be added to the list of committed volunteers, please send your name, phone, email, mailing address and any affiliation with a local group to me at accommission5@gmail.com.  Susan Madigan, Kern Co Animal Control Commission.

 There must be compassionate local veterinarians who will work with people locally to set up a clinic

For example, inormation here http://www.spayusa.org/main... on setting up a local clinic