This looks really promising Sioux! I think most of us agree that something needs to change in Kern County and Bakersfield. I think the best bet for us is to look around at other cities and see what actually works, not just looks good on paper. Since this system has worked in SF and NY, maybe it could work here.

 This would not work in B'fld because of the prolific back yard breeders.  There are 7 or 8 columns of LITTERS of puppies in the classifieds every weekend.  Do you think these people are going to use low cost spay/neuter?  No way are they going to give up their tax free income of exploiting animals for profit.

Look at that kitty in the picture; is that a face that would get into mischief?

You bet it is!

Lucy, they can find out who these backyard breeders are and sent the animal rights bunch over to picket their house and put flyers under windshield wipers and on telephone poles. The news can show up and stick a microphone in the guy's face. Get a bunch of angry, gray-haired old ladies over there to stir up trouble. We all know what they can do!

Backyard breeders are a strawman used by the MSN crowd whenever a viable alternative that does not involve MSN is presented. It's been a pretty consistent response around here. Truth is, we could do everything on the list for the overpopulation problem among the general populace AND implement a breeder's permit requirement that requires a permit number to advertise animals locally and has stiff penalties for those trying to operate without a permit to handle the backyard breeders. Don't have a permit and try to get around the local advertising requirements by selling online? Well, let's say the penalty is to seize all the dogs and levy a substantial fine that increases with each offense (the financial impact should be higher than the cost of getting a permit). As long as there is support for enforcement of such a provision, it would handle the backyard breeders quite nicely without requiring MSN. Eventually they'll either move on or get a permit.

The permits and licenses are integral aspects to helping control the overpopulation problem. That being said, we still have no place to put the 15,000 plus pets who  get checked into Bakersfield's Animal Control facility. I am for a mandatory spay/neuter program, but I'm not opposed to any other solutions that would bring down the slaughter of thrown away innocents. I agree with everything siouxcityranch has expressed in his post above, but the political will here is too weak to make the changes necessary to see the drastic kill reductions the few of us who comment on this topic would dearly love to see happen.  The straw man in this argument is not MSN, but the idea that responsibilty is a human trait. 

Prior to the big Board of Supervisors meeting in June there was talk of filling key positions in the Animal Control department and expanding some services to better cover the vast county area we live with currently. After all the speeches, and the decision to wait another two months before making a decision on what proposals from the Animal Control Commission's recommendations would be accepted, the budget crisis that grips the state will be the decider that allows nothing of consequence to happen in this county on this issue.

You can talk about education and outreach until you are blue in the face, but you need some real money commitments to make the programs posted above work. The majority of people in this county refuse to kick in anything in regards to a socially responsible tax to  help alleviate the current  crisis. The vast majority of people in this county refuse to even spend thirteen cents a day for curbside recycling. This is the county that could not get enough votes to receive nearly $700 million in federal government matching money for necessary local road improvements. 

One day maybe I'll be surprised and peple won't throw away their pets when they become slightly inconvenient or bothersome.

 One day maybe I'll be surprised and peple won't throw away their pets when they become slightly inconvenient or bothersome.

YES!  You know...despite the fact that our five year old has been begging for a dog for three years, now.  We don't have one.  Why? Because,...we're not in a position to do it right  Our yard is to small.  We have four chidlren, two five and under, and I worry about a dog biting one of them.  We know we wouldn't be able to give it proper foods or vet treatments because, well, our four kids take up most of our disposable income.  BUT, you would not believe the number of times we've been offered a dog by the guy on the corner who's running the puppy mill out of his backyard.  Every year, he has more and more little white puppies. Why would any responsible breeder try to pawn a puppy off and say things like, "But, he's cute and he'll help keep your kids entertained.  Dogs are easy!"  No.  They're not.   I see dogs that are left in hot garages all day because the owner doesn't want them peeing in the house or pooping near the pool when she's not home.  These dogs bark alllll day and most of the night (when she kicks them outside).  Why buy an animal if you're not going to treat it humanely?  Why breed puppies if you don't have homes lined up for them? 

I just cant fathom that type of thnking..my family back to when I was a kid.. have never taken a dog to the pound or given it away once we decided to make it a part of our family. You should always research the dog and its traits prior to any descion is ever made. The best rule is to pick one that  fits your lifestyle. Like in Pmommas case if she ever did get one I would think about a smaller dog..they have alot of love inside too. One of my good friends owns a Silky named Roxie and she is adorable .. My biggest fear is not out living one of my pets..

I grew up with farm dogs (German Shepherds, Border Collies, and one pitbull who was the sweetest dog ever).  The thought of having a small dog is very foreign to me.   And, I'm sure, as you said, that our situation (for now) would only accomodate a little dog, so I'll wait until the kids are bigger and we move to the Midwest.  :)

Thanks for the links, Sioux. I'll be sure to get into them over the weekend. I'm up for exploring any option that make changes for the better.

And once again, something Pup does not agree with is labeled as a breeder's agenda. The animal hording bit was new though. I still don't get why this MSN folks think a law is going to have any effect on a town that has only 10% compliance with the licensing law. What this town has shown good response to is cheap and publicized (this second part is important) S/N programs. SPCA has a waiting list for its clinics and they quickly ran through the first batch of feral cat TNR vouchers. Expansion of those programs can be implemented with far less controversy and far greater compliance than a law that will likely go unenforced and ignored.

There is no anger or fear (are these your buzzwords tonight? I notice you accuse others of the same thing on another blog). There is only the acceptance of this community as one that is ill-suited for any solution that involves legislation since it cannot adequately manage to enforce existing animal control laws.

Pup, why do you keep accusing everyone of being angry or afraid? Projection? 

Demographics. Derrrrrrrr. 

Might I suggest you're reading more into statements than are there Pup... perhaps allowing your own personal feelings to taint comments. I would also point out that you have never directly answered the enforcement question and instead resort to emotionally ladden responses such as this one. So, let me be direct. How do you propose such a law be enforced when even basic licensing enforcement and animal cruelty investigations cannot be adequately managed by animal control? A law is nothing without enforcement.

Pup, can you check in with your own post  at 12:12 am regarding "angry and afraid"? 

Goodnight ... have to pack for Bass Lake!! Happy 4th to you all.

You still did not answer my question Pup. How exactly is the MSN law to be enforced to be sure people are sterilizing their animals? Without compliance, there will be no gains. So don't talk about the gains. Tell me how the law will be enforced, in this community not in general, so there is compliance.

No, you have not answered my question. How would MSN be enforced? Don't enumerate the gains that would occur if there was compliance with the law. Tell me how you think the county would ensure there is compliance with the law since there is such low compliance with existing law. Don't try to make this a personal attack against me or list off emotional rhetoric either. Don't use "community enforcement" like you just did with the rabies example. Just answer the question: how would the county (e.g. animal control) enforce an MSN law and make sure its citizens are actually sterilizing their animals instead of ignoring the law?

Well, it is obvious you cannot answer the question. I suspected as much, but thank you for the confirmation. As I have stated since the start, my issue with MSN is the enforcement problem. No MSN supporter has been able to convince me that the county could enforce MSN with any greater efficiency than they enforce licensing or the limit on the number of dogs within the city. A law without teeth should not be passed just because a few agenda-ists want it passed. Furthermore, MSN without enforcement will not solve the problem since it will not get all the animals in the county sterilized.

There is no magic wand that would be waved that would magically fix all the animals in the county as soon as such a law is passed. Without enforcement to ensure compliance, such a law would do very little to help the overpopulation problem. If we have only 10% of the populace complying with the law (to use license compliance numbers as an example), then there would stll be thousands of unsterilized animals producing offspring and animal control would still be euthanizing thousands of animals. There would still be an overpopulation problem even with MSN unless there is strong county-level (e.g. official) enforcement of such a law to ensure high levels of compliance.

Perhaps this is too much of a realist approach for your idealistic mind to grasp Pup, but I feel one has to be a realist in these matters if one really wants to solve the overpopulation problem. MSN is not the magic wand you want it to be without a strong enforcement provision.

Well Shwaine shes going to fight tooth and nail for it now because she has talked so much smack if she did admit her way might not be the right one she would feel foolish. Its the only possible reason she wont consider any other solution.

The money needs to be spent no matter which store gets it to fix this mess ..so that save the tax payers money crock needs to end here..again you twist my meaning..I meant you wont give up because you are too embarrassed too now after all the hullabaloo you've raised over your MSN...even if a sure fire option reared its evil little head..you would say its CRAP...that's it ...no other hidden meaning. Do you understand it yet?? If not Ill be glad to repeat it until you understand the TRUE substance of my message..