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.

I would encourage all to research Winograd's 'no-kill solution' so that they can find out why both the Humane Society of the United States, (HSUS), and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, (ASPCA); have each refused to endorse his philosophy and/or model.  (Note:  Both of these organizations have endorsed msn as the only viable and proven means to effectively reduce pet overpopulation and its grim aftermath).

Most of Winograd's 'key programs' above are the same common sense pet overpopulation solutions adapted by many communities along with the implementation of a locally suitable msn ordinance.  And, of course, Winograd's 'key programs' sound great -- but without msn, he has yet to successfully implement a lasting model of his 'no-kill solution' and instead has left terrible animal hoarding situations and severely overcrowded shelters in his wake.  He was run out of SF years ago.  (And, by the way, SF implemented an msn ordinance and is enjoying great results). 

When Winograd first started out, he worked toward shelter reform with some success.  His work quickly deteriorated and the only place you will read any 'good' remarks about Winograd and his 'no-kill' solution are on his website, on breeders' websites and their organizations, such as Petpac.com, etc..

The "no-kill solution" is not only a myth; it is an inhumane approach that has resulted in the closures of countless shelters where animals were dying from disease and slow starvation, as they invariably ran out of funds.

If Winograd's 'no-kill solution' were successful, you would see studies and stats as evidence.  Plenty of cities and counties have implemented msn with great success and there are countless records that reflect these facts.

Warehousing animals is not a humane solution -- prevention is. ;o)-

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.

Shwaine...many breeders are in agreement with me regarding the implementation of an msn ordinance here.  And, the only thing I don't agree with is euth-ing such a large volume of animals in a relatively small community such as our own -- when this situation is entirely preventable.

I endorse programs that would further effective, proven, means of prevention such as the implementation of a local, suitable msn ordinance and the low-cost spay/neuter services available to all that msn would make possible for us here in Bak and Kern.  Everyone would benefit.

There is no reason for us to kill over 1,500 pets here every single month -- no reason, because this grim situation is preventable.  Many are willing to try msn because according to studies and stats this type of ordinance doesn't have to be enforced to work.  The very nature of this ordinance would enable wide-spread availability of low-cost spay/neuter programs in our community.

Why are you so angry and/or afraid of an msn ordinance?

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. 

Shwaine your comments sounded somewhat angry over the idea of implementing a new law here, and/or perhaps a bit fearful of an ordinance you don't seem to understand.  As I stated above, enforcement is not an issue with an msn type ordinance.  I am surprised, that even just on the chance it might be able to prevent hundreds of pets from having to endure the cruel process of impoundment and euthanasia, you would refuse to consider a simple msn ordinance for this community, for no better reasons than you have stated.

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.

Vanityfair...I haven't accused anyone of being angry or afraid.

I asked you and Sioux what was up with personal attacks on a different blog post; in response to your respective comments on same. 

I asked Shwaine why she was angry and/or afraid of a msn ordinance above and explained my question in a subsequent comment I made.

Why all of the generalizations?  ;o)-

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.

Shwaine...as you pointed out previously, our community has about a 10% compliance rate for the state mandate on licensing and vaccinating dogs for rabies. 

There have been no rabies outbreaks among the humans and/or pet animals in our community.  So even though there is evidence, (via stats and records of  licensing fees collected), pointing to a 10% compliance rate for licensing, this mandate is still accomplishing its end.

An msn ordinance would provide the economic demand required by low-cost s/n services to stay afloat in our community -- regardless of enforcement, in much the same manner.  Prior such services have pulled out of Bak for lack of public interest and/or participation.  I agree that the SPCA has a waiting list for the s/n clinics that are occasionally offered.  But these events are only 'day' events and do not have the capacity logistically to s/n more than around a hundred pets per event and are currently only scheduled every other month or so.  We need s/n services that are offered here during regular business hours, on an ongoing regular basis to accommodate all in our community.  That type of service has failed here in the past due to a lack of sustained and substantial interest.  It is kind of  like Costco...the low-cost s/n clinics can only continue keeping their prices down and yet keep their doors open by doing a high volume, sustained business.

Let me be direct.  My response was not emotionally laden, but rather, was based entirely on facts.  Our community continues to destroy over 1,500 pets every month, (the truth is that number is slowly continuing to rise).  According to multiple studies on pet overpopulation, msn is shown to be the most effective solution to reduce, and even works to prevent, pet overpopulation in many communities that are similar to ours.  Why not try msn here and see if we can get the euth numbers down? ;o)-

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.

Shwaine...I did answer your question.  Re-read my comment above.  A local pet s/n mandate would be implemented in the same way the dog rabies vacc mandate has been implemented.  A mandate is enforced as needed.  For instance, for years and years it has no longer been necessary to proactively enforce that mandate on a municipality level -- because of the mandate, everyone in the community works to enforce it.  Vets will not see patients that are not vacc. for rabies or whose owners will not allow rabies vacc.; because it would pose a risk to other patients and clients.   Dog clubs will not allow participation without rabies certificates.  Grooming and/or boarding facilities, doggie day care, etc., will not allow those without rabies cert. on their premises.  (Many of grooming/boarding services will not allow unaltered pets on their premises as well, but of course, that instance is not enough to reduce a gross pet overpopulation such as the one we are experiencing here locally).  Why not mandate s/n of pets here locally and get our pet euth numbers down?

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?

Shwaine...I think you may be using too much of a black or white approach...don't forget there are shades of gray in everything.  (Also...I have not made this a personal attack against you nor have I listed off emotional rhetoric either).  I have presented you with reasonable, logical answers to your questions.  Why not answer some of my questions now?

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.

Shwaine...I am a realist and that is why I would like to see our community implement msn.  This program has worked in other communities to significantly and efficiently reduce pet overpopulation.  The msn program has a very positive track record.   While you continue to demand a 'perfect' solution, our euth numbers will continue as they are.  I am a realist, and so, I contend that it is better to pick the best proven option and get on with the business of cutting our euth numbers down as soon as possible.  My only agenda is to save animals from needless suffering -- always has been, always will be.

Sioux...You are right, I am not willing to give up -- too many pets are dying here -- and that is why I won't consider another solution, our pets deserve the best and we should attempt to save as many as we can with the most effective program possible.  Not only is that the humane thing to do -- it is also the most feasible from an economic standpoint, (along with being the best way to to save local taxpayers as well). ;o)- 

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..