http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680 SACRAMENTO, CA &ndash; (June 28, 2009) &ndash; A Tuesday hearing has been scheduled before the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions on Senate Bill 250, which would result in the forced sterilization of millions of dogs and cats in California, and lead to the abandonment and euthanasia of possibly hundreds of thousands of family pets that now have good homes. &nbsp; SB 250, which shocked dog owners by passing the Senate by a 21-16 margin on June 2, comes at a time when California&rsquo;s economy has been described as &ldquo;economic Armageddon.&rdquo; Immediate action by dog owners is required to stop this economic disaster zone from causing the death of many beloved companion animals. &nbsp; There is a strong message in the California situation for residents of every other state that is considering animal rights legislation that would place further burdens on already beleaguered pet owners. What&rsquo;s happening in California mirrors what is happening all across the country to a somewhat lesser degree. &nbsp; In California, the official unemployment rate has soared to 11.5-percent, real unemployment is estimated at 20-percent, home foreclosures and business failures are the highest in the nation and approach Great Depression levels, state government is facing an immediate $24.3 billion budget deficit and is planning to pay its bills with IOU&rsquo;s, and essential services are being decimated. Some communities already have been forced to eliminate fire protection, cut their police forces, shutter services and close schools. In addition, more than $15 billion in tax increases are being proposed, massive layoffs of state and municipal employees are planned, an energy tax alone would result in the loss of an estimated 10,000 jobs, prisoners would be dumped in the streets and most would no longer have probationary supervision, and elderly, disabled and blind people would lose $1.4 billion is state benefits, programs to help them remain in their homes, and protections that now allow them to save their homes from tax sales. The state&rsquo;s future will be mortgaged by $10.3 billion in loans to keep government afloat and by the deterioration of infrastructure such as roads and bridges. &quot;Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed, and our credit is dried up,&quot; California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger said last week. Yet the California Legislature is recklessly speeding toward passing SB 250, which will add immeasureably to those economic problems and create disaster for people and animals on many levels, in spite of a clear warning by the state Department of Finance. Here is the conclusion of the Department of Finance: &ldquo;This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund&hellip;to reimburse local government shelters&rsquo; cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.&rdquo; &nbsp; That means millions more healthy and adoptable animals will be euthanized at animal shelters that are already swamped by dogs and cats that had to be abandoned by their owners due to home foreclosures and job losses. When people lose their homes, pets become homeless, too. When people lose their jobs, they cannot afford to sterilize animals or even take care of them in many cases. The inevitable result is a rapid increase in abandonment and euthanasia at animal shelters. &nbsp; Such is the murderous intent of the animal rights movement, which seeks to gradually eliminate animals from American life. Its immediate goal is to force people to sterilize or euthanize as many dogs and cats as possible, and SB 250 was written for this reason. Our research has clearly documented that spay/neuter mandates in Los Angeles, other California communities and elsewhere have bankrupted animal control programs and led to large-scale pet abandonment and rapid rises in shelter euthanasia rates. Our research shows a 30-percent increase in shelter euthanasia and a 20-percent increase in admission rates since the Los Angeles ordinance was passed a year ago. &nbsp; The statewide consequences are inevitable if SB 250 becomes law. &nbsp; The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action to stop SB 250, which will have tragic results for people and animals, and represents fiscal insanity by the Legislature in the current failing economy. Suggestions on how to take action will follow later in this report. We understand that California dog owners are facing exhaustion after spending two years in a grueling fight to defeat AB 1634 last year. Because of this exhaustion and frustration, participation by dog owners in the fight against the current 2009 legislation has fallen off sharply. People are growing tired of constantly having to fight to save their animals and preserve their rights. &nbsp; However, we must emphasize that withdrawing from this fight is not an option if we want to save the animals that we love. If we stop fighting, many of our dogs and can&rsquo;s will pay the price with their lives. We cannot allow that to happen. &nbsp; The Consequences Of SB 250 &nbsp; The Department of Finance report to the Legislature concluded that &ldquo;the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because it would increase costs for an existing state-mandated local program, potentially create a new state mandated local program, and result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2009-10 Budget Act. Mandatory spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level.&rdquo; &nbsp; Here our some of the consequences that would follow passage of SB 250, and our analysis of their impacts on people and dogs because of issues that are listed in the Finance Department report and the legislation itself (Some amendments have been promised, but they fall far short of meeting the concerns of both dog owners and taxpayers. We will note the amendments that have been promised.): &nbsp; In almost all cases, it will be illegal to own a dog or cat in California that is not spayed or neutered. In this economy, even many people who want to comply with this law could not afford to do so. In many places, sterilization can cost hundreds of dollars, and low-cost programs are not accessible to most low-income Californians. If people try to hide their pets from the law, they face the eventual probability of high fines and the possibility that their pets will be confiscated (they cannot be retrieved from an animal shelter without being in compliance, which is de facto confiscation). Many pets will be abandoned or taken to shelters, where they will die. &nbsp; Only dogs that have an &ldquo;intact permit&rdquo; would be exempted from sterilization, and counties would not be required to provide these permits. Thus, in some counties, all dogs and cats would have to be sterilized at the medically unsafe age of six months. Since communities that now require intact permits often charge more than $100 per dog, most poor and low-income people could not afford them, as well as many economically stressed people in higher income brackets who are suffering from the severe recession. In addition, the per-dog permit costs would add up to an insurmountable burden for anyone who raises dogs. &nbsp; Current law imposes fines for people whose intact animals are reclaimed from animal shelters. This fine revenue is used to pay for essential shelter expenses. SB 250 would take away much of this revenue from animal shelters, thus reducing needed services while increasing expenses, according to the Finance Department report. &nbsp; If you or your intact dog are in violation of any state or local animal law or ordinance, including sales tax laws, you will be forced to sterilize your pets or allow the shelter to confiscate them. In addition, it will be illegal to sell or even give away an intact dog without an intact permit and other documentation (including microchipping), and people who can&rsquo;t pay the costs of sterilization, fines or other costs will be forced to either abandon their pets or take them to shelters. &nbsp; Mandating a medical procedure like sterilization as a punishment for breaking a law violates the professional integrity and Code of Ethics of veterinarians. Medical decisions should be a joint decision between veterinarians and pet owners. SB 250 also would make many people afraid to take their dog to a veterinarian for treatment of illnesses, injuries and parasites, or to get needed rabies and other vaccinations, because they fear being discovered by animal control authorities for owning an intact dog without a permit. &nbsp; Establishes the legally dangerous definition of a &ldquo;custodian&rdquo; of a dog, instead of the status of &ldquo;owner.&rdquo; Here is the definition: &ldquo; &lsquo;Custodian&rsquo; means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days.&rdquo; This definition would entrap professional trainers, handlers and board kennel operators, people who help lost or abandoned dogs, and people who help feral cats. Good Samaritans who help abandoned or lost dogs, or who help feral cats, would become legally liable for them after 30 days, and thus forced to sterilize or abandon them. This would cause many people to be afraid to help these animals, further increase shelter admissions and euthanasia rates, and cause many lost animals to die from starvation or exposure to the elements. &nbsp; Nothing in the legislation would exclude or protect out-of-state residents who are visiting California for shows, field trials, hunting, events, vacations or business. Thus, it would be dangerous for a nonresident to bring an intact dog into California for any reason. This would destroy an important part of California&rsquo;s economy, as nonresidents with dogs spend billions of dollars a year in the state. &nbsp; A reduction in the number of privately owned pets will do further harm the economy, as billions of dollars are spent every year on pet food, supplies, medicines, veterinary care, pet care services, building materials, printing and advertising, and pet-related travel. The California economy cannot afford to lose this business and the jobs that depend on them, and government revenues will decline from the loss of taxes on these products and services. &nbsp; The current bill requires sterilization for any dog that is found to be &ldquo;roaming at large,&rdquo; which is not defined, or if the dog or its owner has violated any state law, municipal ordinance, or &ldquo;other local government provision&rdquo; regarding animal control or care. It excludes dogs while actually hunting, but does not exclude dogs that are being used for herding or performance or working events, dogs that are participating in field trials, farm and ranch dogs, dogs that get lost while hunting or at a field trial, or dogs that are being trained for hunting. There are promises of an amendment to require sterilization after the second offense for roaming at large, and also an exclusion for herding and working dogs, but sterilization still would be required after the first offense for all dogs for any other animal-related law or ordinance. This is far short of adequate protection for dogs or their owners. &nbsp; And dog owners will be denied basic state and California constitutional rights about fair and equal treatment under the law. Orders and hearings would be handled administratively, and not through the court. There would be no appeal. This violates constitutional protections of due process under the law, and severely impacts the legal concept of private property. &nbsp; Please read this legislation at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_250_bill_20090528_amended_sen_v95.html. &nbsp; SACRAMENTO, CA &ndash; (June 28, 2009) &ndash; A Tuesday hearing has been scheduled before the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions on Senate Bill 250, which would result in the forced sterilization of millions of dogs and cats in California, and lead to the abandonment and euthanasia of possibly hundreds of thousands of family pets that now have good homes. &nbsp; SB 250, which shocked dog owners by passing the Senate by a 21-16 margin on June 2, comes at a time when California&rsquo;s economy has been described as &ldquo;economic Armageddon.&rdquo; Immediate action by dog owners is required to stop this economic disaster zone from causing the death of many beloved companion animals. &nbsp; There is a strong message in the California situation for residents of every other state that is considering animal rights legislation that would place further burdens on already beleaguered pet owners. What&rsquo;s happening in California mirrors what is happening all across the country to a somewhat lesser degree. &nbsp; In California, the official unemployment rate has soared to 11.5-percent, real unemployment is estimated at 20-percent, home foreclosures and business failures are the highest in the nation and approach Great Depression levels, state government is facing an immediate $24.3 billion budget deficit and is planning to pay its bills with IOU&rsquo;s, and essential services are being decimated. Some communities already have been forced to eliminate fire protection, cut their police forces, shutter services and close schools. In addition, more than $15 billion in tax increases are being proposed, massive layoffs of state and municipal employees are planned, an energy tax alone would result in the loss of an estimated 10,000 jobs, prisoners would be dumped in the streets and most would no longer have probationary supervision, and elderly, disabled and blind people would lose $1.4 billion is state benefits, programs to help them remain in their homes, and protections that now allow them to save their homes from tax sales. The state&rsquo;s future will be mortgaged by $10.3 billion in loans to keep government afloat and by the deterioration of infrastructure such as roads and bridges. &quot;Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed, and our credit is dried up,&quot; California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger said last week. Yet the California Legislature is recklessly speeding toward passing SB 250, which will add immeasureably to those economic problems and create disaster for people and animals on many levels, in spite of a clear warning by the state Department of Finance. Here is the conclusion of the Department of Finance: &ldquo;This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund&hellip;to reimburse local government shelters&rsquo; cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.&rdquo; &nbsp; That means millions more healthy and adoptable animals will be euthanized at animal shelters that are already swamped by dogs and cats that had to be abandoned by their owners due to home foreclosures and job losses. When people lose their homes, pets become homeless, too. When people lose their jobs, they cannot afford to sterilize animals or even take care of them in many cases. The inevitable result is a rapid increase in abandonment and euthanasia at animal shelters. &nbsp; Such is the murderous intent of the animal rights movement, which seeks to gradually eliminate animals from American life. Its immediate goal is to force people to sterilize or euthanize as many dogs and cats as possible, and SB 250 was written for this reason. Our research has clearly documented that spay/neuter mandates in Los Angeles, other California communities and elsewhere have bankrupted animal control programs and led to large-scale pet abandonment and rapid rises in shelter euthanasia rates. Our research shows a 30-percent increase in shelter euthanasia and a 20-percent increase in admission rates since the Los Angeles ordinance was passed a year ago. &nbsp; The statewide consequences are inevitable if SB 250 becomes law. &nbsp; The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action to stop SB 250, which will have tragic results for people and animals, and represents fiscal insanity by the Legislature in the current failing economy. Suggestions on how to take action will follow later in this report. We understand that California dog owners are facing exhaustion after spending two years in a grueling fight to defeat AB 1634 last year. Because of this exhaustion and frustration, participation by dog owners in the fight against the current 2009 legislation has fallen off sharply. People are growing tired of constantly having to fight to save their animals and preserve their rights. &nbsp; However, we must emphasize that withdrawing from this fight is not an option if we want to save the animals that we love. If we stop fighting, many of our dogs and can&rsquo;s will pay the price with their lives. We cannot allow that to happen. &nbsp; The Consequences Of SB 250 &nbsp; The Department of Finance report to the Legislature concluded that &ldquo;the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because it would increase costs for an existing state-mandated local program, potentially create a new state mandated local program, and result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2009-10 Budget Act. Mandatory spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level.&rdquo; &nbsp; Here our some of the consequences that would follow passage of SB 250, and our analysis of their impacts on people and dogs because of issues that are listed in the Finance Department report and the legislation itself (Some amendments have been promised, but they fall far short of meeting the concerns of both dog owners and taxpayers. We will note the amendments that have been promised.): &nbsp; In almost all cases, it will be illegal to own a dog or cat in California that is not spayed or neutered. In this economy, even many people who want to comply with this law could not afford to do so. In many places, sterilization can cost hundreds of dollars, and low-cost programs are not accessible to most low-income Californians. If people try to hide their pets from the law, they face the eventual probability of high fines and the possibility that their pets will be confiscated (they cannot be retrieved from an animal shelter without being in compliance, which is de facto confiscation). Many pets will be abandoned or taken to shelters, where they will die. &nbsp; Only dogs that have an &ldquo;intact permit&rdquo; would be exempted from sterilization, and counties would not be required to provide these permits. Thus, in some counties, all dogs and cats would have to be sterilized at the medically unsafe age of six months. Since communities that now require intact permits often charge more than $100 per dog, most poor and low-income people could not afford them, as well as many economically stressed people in higher income brackets who are suffering from the severe recession. In addition, the per-dog permit costs would add up to an insurmountable burden for anyone who raises dogs. &nbsp; Current law imposes fines for people whose intact animals are reclaimed from animal shelters. This fine revenue is used to pay for essential shelter expenses. SB 250 would take away much of this revenue from animal shelters, thus reducing needed services while increasing expenses, according to the Finance Department report. &nbsp; If you or your intact dog are in violation of any state or local animal law or ordinance, including sales tax laws, you will be forced to sterilize your pets or allow the shelter to confiscate them. In addition, it will be illegal to sell or even give away an intact dog without an intact permit and other documentation (including microchipping), and people who can&rsquo;t pay the costs of sterilization, fines or other costs will be forced to either abandon their pets or take them to shelters. &nbsp; Mandating a medical procedure like sterilization as a punishment for breaking a law violates the professional integrity and Code of Ethics of veterinarians. Medical decisions should be a joint decision between veterinarians and pet owners. SB 250 also would make many people afraid to take their dog to a veterinarian for treatment of illnesses, injuries and parasites, or to get needed rabies and other vaccinations, because they fear being discovered by animal control authorities for owning an intact dog without a permit. &nbsp; Establishes the legally dangerous definition of a &ldquo;custodian&rdquo; of a dog, instead of the status of &ldquo;owner.&rdquo; Here is the definition: &ldquo; &lsquo;Custodian&rsquo; means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days.&rdquo; This definition would entrap professional trainers, handlers and board kennel operators, people who help lost or abandoned dogs, and people who help feral cats. Good Samaritans who help abandoned or lost dogs, or who help feral cats, would become legally liable for them after 30 days, and thus forced to sterilize or abandon them. This would cause many people to be afraid to help these animals, further increase shelter admissions and euthanasia rates, and cause many lost animals to die from starvation or exposure to the elements. &nbsp; Nothing in the legislation would exclude or protect out-of-state residents who are visiting California for shows, field trials, hunting, events, vacations or business. Thus, it would be dangerous for a nonresident to bring an intact dog into California for any reason. This would destroy an important part of California&rsquo;s economy, as nonresidents with dogs spend billions of dollars a year in the state. &nbsp; A reduction in the number of privately owned pets will do further harm the economy, as billions of dollars are spent every year on pet food, supplies, medicines, veterinary care, pet care services, building materials, printing and advertising, and pet-related travel. The California economy cannot afford to lose this business and the jobs that depend on them, and government revenues will decline from the loss of taxes on these products and services. &nbsp; The current bill requires sterilization for any dog that is found to be &ldquo;roaming at large,&rdquo; which is not defined, or if the dog or its owner has violated any state law, municipal ordinance, or &ldquo;other local government provision&rdquo; regarding animal control or care. It excludes dogs while actually hunting, but does not exclude dogs that are being used for herding or performance or working events, dogs that are participating in field trials, farm and ranch dogs, dogs that get lost while hunting or at a field trial, or dogs that are being trained for hunting. There are promises of an amendment to require sterilization after the second offense for roaming at large, and also an exclusion for herding and working dogs, but sterilization still would be required after the first offense for all dogs for any other animal-related law or ordinance. This is far short of adequate protection for dogs or their owners. &nbsp; And dog owners will be denied basic state and California constitutional rights about fair and equal treatment under the law. Orders and hearings would be handled administratively, and not through the court. There would be no appeal. This violates constitutional protections of due process under the law, and severely impacts the legal concept of private property. &nbsp; Please read this legislation at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_250_bill_20090528_amended_sen_v95.html. &nbsp; en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:59:58 PDT <p>Wow.. I never thought I'd see such a ridiculous argument against the bill.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>It doesn't cost that much to fix your pet.&nbsp; Even if you can't afford it, there are low-cost options available.&nbsp; This bill is <strong>common sense</strong>.&nbsp; Anyone whining against it is not showing responsible pet ownership.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417319 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417319 <p>Wow.. I never thought I'd see such a ridiculous argument against the bill.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>It doesn't cost that much to fix your pet.&nbsp; Even if you can't afford it, there are low-cost options available.&nbsp; This bill is <strong>common sense</strong>.&nbsp; Anyone whining against it is not showing responsible pet ownership.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><u>FSG Wow.. I never thought I'd see such a ridiculous argument against the bill.</u></p> <p>&nbsp;lemme guess all that was for my benifit because you dislike me..had nothing to do with the reality of the situation..not everyone lives in a smug little world like you do</p> <p>all that worldliness in a 20+ year old body..you must be an animal hater too..like to see the world minus&nbsp;pets eh FSG..so much hate and sadness</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417352 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417352 <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><u>FSG Wow.. I never thought I'd see such a ridiculous argument against the bill.</u></p> <p>&nbsp;lemme guess all that was for my benifit because you dislike me..had nothing to do with the reality of the situation..not everyone lives in a smug little world like you do</p> <p>all that worldliness in a 20+ year old body..you must be an animal hater too..like to see the world minus&nbsp;pets eh FSG..so much hate and sadness</p> <p>Oh how I love it when you make assumptions.&nbsp; Vanity is unbecoming of you - when&nbsp;I post something counter to your argument, it has nothing to do with you personally.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I happen to be the proud owner of an almost 1 year old puppy.&nbsp; I'm a responsible owner who is tired of seeing strays roaming the neighborhood because their owners do not care.&nbsp; Here's the reality, Sioux - I'd wager that the majority of people who refuse to have their pets fixed are the same ones who tend to keep their dogs chained in the back yard, or they ignore leash laws altogether and let 'em roam free.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <p>Pet ownership is a <strong>responsibility</strong>, and not a right.&nbsp; If you cannot afford to have your pet fixed (once again.. it doesn't cost that much money), or bring them to the vet when they get sick, or to give them proper shelter, then you do not <strong>deserve</strong> to own one.&nbsp; I realized this when&nbsp;I was in college and a roommate of mine brought home a dog from the shelter - we didn't have the financial stability to take care of the dog, nor did we have a big enough apartment.&nbsp; I made my roommate find a better home with a large back yard, where I&nbsp;knew the dog would be better cared for.&nbsp; <strong>THAT</strong> is what being responsible is about.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417360 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417360 <p>Oh how I love it when you make assumptions.&nbsp; Vanity is unbecoming of you - when&nbsp;I post something counter to your argument, it has nothing to do with you personally.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I happen to be the proud owner of an almost 1 year old puppy.&nbsp; I'm a responsible owner who is tired of seeing strays roaming the neighborhood because their owners do not care.&nbsp; Here's the reality, Sioux - I'd wager that the majority of people who refuse to have their pets fixed are the same ones who tend to keep their dogs chained in the back yard, or they ignore leash laws altogether and let 'em roam free.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <p>Pet ownership is a <strong>responsibility</strong>, and not a right.&nbsp; If you cannot afford to have your pet fixed (once again.. it doesn't cost that much money), or bring them to the vet when they get sick, or to give them proper shelter, then you do not <strong>deserve</strong> to own one.&nbsp; I realized this when&nbsp;I was in college and a roommate of mine brought home a dog from the shelter - we didn't have the financial stability to take care of the dog, nor did we have a big enough apartment.&nbsp; I made my roommate find a better home with a large back yard, where I&nbsp;knew the dog would be better cared for.&nbsp; <strong>THAT</strong> is what being responsible is about.</p> <p>I read the text of the law. I'm a dog owner (yes, she's spayed). I don't see the problem here. It mandates a basic level of responsibility and nothing more. If our local authorities had come up with some requirements for responsibility instead of allowing our county to have one of the highest rates of pet euthenasia in the state, it might have obviated the need for such legislation. Pet ownership is a responsibility, not an unfettered&nbsp;right. If you can't afford either the license or the modest cost to spay/neuter your pet, don't own one.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417365 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417365 <p>I read the text of the law. I'm a dog owner (yes, she's spayed). I don't see the problem here. It mandates a basic level of responsibility and nothing more. If our local authorities had come up with some requirements for responsibility instead of allowing our county to have one of the highest rates of pet euthenasia in the state, it might have obviated the need for such legislation. Pet ownership is a responsibility, not an unfettered&nbsp;right. If you can't afford either the license or the modest cost to spay/neuter your pet, don't own one.</p> <p>welp gotta&nbsp;admit we do share the same values here&nbsp;</p> <p>except parts of this bill are over the top..it still needs work..I can see it causing people too abandon their pets because they cant comply..its a death sentence to animals that had a home but lost it..non of its gonna be easy..and breeders will be effected because their breeding options will be cut back..it wont be right now but in the future it will eventually turn into near inbreeding and that isnt something I want to see happen to our pet world either..too many health risks</p> <p>sorry I just think about the whole ball of wax and not just what makes a few people comfy..</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417367 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417367 <p>welp gotta&nbsp;admit we do share the same values here&nbsp;</p> <p>except parts of this bill are over the top..it still needs work..I can see it causing people too abandon their pets because they cant comply..its a death sentence to animals that had a home but lost it..non of its gonna be easy..and breeders will be effected because their breeding options will be cut back..it wont be right now but in the future it will eventually turn into near inbreeding and that isnt something I want to see happen to our pet world either..too many health risks</p> <p>sorry I just think about the whole ball of wax and not just what makes a few people comfy..</p> <p>Analysis of SB 250 by the <a title="http://petpac.net/r/35195/40652/0" href="http://petpac.net/r/35195/40652/0">California Department of Finance</a> showed animal control costs are likely to immediately increase as more pets are surrendered to shelters, euthanasia rates rise, and licensing drops off. <br /> &nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417370 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417370 <p>Analysis of SB 250 by the <a title="http://petpac.net/r/35195/40652/0" href="http://petpac.net/r/35195/40652/0">California Department of Finance</a> showed animal control costs are likely to immediately increase as more pets are surrendered to shelters, euthanasia rates rise, and licensing drops off. <br /> &nbsp;</p> <p>Sioux - I find those arguments weak at best. &nbsp;If anything, the people who can't &quot;afford&quot; (I use the term losely, because they seem to always have enough to buy beer and cigs) to get their pets fixed will probably ignore the law, just like they ignore other laws such as keeping your pets on a leash if they're off property.&nbsp; </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Let's put it another way - if you can't afford to get the pet fixed, what's going to happen if they need to be taken to the vet?&nbsp; Ever watch animal cops on Animal Planet?&nbsp; 9 times out of 10, the dog or cat winds up being neglected and either dies from lack of medical care, or upon being picked up by animal control, must be euthanized.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I'll reiterate - if you can't afford to have your pet fixed, you cannot afford to have a pet in the first place.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417377 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417377 <p>Sioux - I find those arguments weak at best. &nbsp;If anything, the people who can't &quot;afford&quot; (I use the term losely, because they seem to always have enough to buy beer and cigs) to get their pets fixed will probably ignore the law, just like they ignore other laws such as keeping your pets on a leash if they're off property.&nbsp; </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Let's put it another way - if you can't afford to get the pet fixed, what's going to happen if they need to be taken to the vet?&nbsp; Ever watch animal cops on Animal Planet?&nbsp; 9 times out of 10, the dog or cat winds up being neglected and either dies from lack of medical care, or upon being picked up by animal control, must be euthanized.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I'll reiterate - if you can't afford to have your pet fixed, you cannot afford to have a pet in the first place.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>umm you need to stop saying you..we are on a first name basis with our small and large animal vets..and since your just a puppy owner you would probably&nbsp;euthanize or take your pet to the pound if you had some of our bills just&nbsp;&nbsp;in this past year..it costs us $85 just to have a vet drive onto our property..we have never had less than a $500 bill on our horses or even our dogs..we just lost a puppy a month ago to the tune of $600 down the tube trying to save him..the vet office called and said we needed to go down now because the dr wanted to talk to us before his day got busy..once we got down there we had to pay cash before he would even tell us what was going on..as soon as&nbsp;&nbsp;we did he said you puppy died..</p> <p>The majority of offices unless you are a long time client run on cash basis now days and can get pretty heartless if&nbsp;your a walk in..I&nbsp;dont know why she didnt take him to our regular vet I&nbsp;guess probably because this one was closer and he was one sick puppy..&nbsp;he was in for one night..</p> <p>vet costs are astromomical and to say just because someone cant afford a vet and try and use it as a valid excuse for them being undeserving of pet ownership&nbsp;or too actually&nbsp;feel they are lower than you because of financial reasons that their family&nbsp;is undeserving of a pets love..is in its self an outragious statement..</p> <p>FYI you cant judge the world by a stupid tv program hahahaaha ..sorry too many variables and beleive it or not they are out to make ummm *RATINGS* how do you feel about Jerry Springer?? do you also feel thatsa a good example of american family life?? geeeeezzzzzzzzzz</p> <p>granted there are jerks that do not deserve a pet but you cant g<span style="font-size: xx-small">eneralize</span> like your doing..there are good people out there that fall on hard times..and theres nothing like the love and companionship of a dog or cat to get you through something like that</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417391 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417391 <p>umm you need to stop saying you..we are on a first name basis with our small and large animal vets..and since your just a puppy owner you would probably&nbsp;euthanize or take your pet to the pound if you had some of our bills just&nbsp;&nbsp;in this past year..it costs us $85 just to have a vet drive onto our property..we have never had less than a $500 bill on our horses or even our dogs..we just lost a puppy a month ago to the tune of $600 down the tube trying to save him..the vet office called and said we needed to go down now because the dr wanted to talk to us before his day got busy..once we got down there we had to pay cash before he would even tell us what was going on..as soon as&nbsp;&nbsp;we did he said you puppy died..</p> <p>The majority of offices unless you are a long time client run on cash basis now days and can get pretty heartless if&nbsp;your a walk in..I&nbsp;dont know why she didnt take him to our regular vet I&nbsp;guess probably because this one was closer and he was one sick puppy..&nbsp;he was in for one night..</p> <p>vet costs are astromomical and to say just because someone cant afford a vet and try and use it as a valid excuse for them being undeserving of pet ownership&nbsp;or too actually&nbsp;feel they are lower than you because of financial reasons that their family&nbsp;is undeserving of a pets love..is in its self an outragious statement..</p> <p>FYI you cant judge the world by a stupid tv program hahahaaha ..sorry too many variables and beleive it or not they are out to make ummm *RATINGS* how do you feel about Jerry Springer?? do you also feel thatsa a good example of american family life?? geeeeezzzzzzzzzz</p> <p>granted there are jerks that do not deserve a pet but you cant g<span style="font-size: xx-small">eneralize</span> like your doing..there are good people out there that fall on hard times..and theres nothing like the love and companionship of a dog or cat to get you through something like that</p> <p><em>umm you need to stop saying you..we are on a first name basis with our small and large animal vets.</em></p> <p>You're right... I wasn't talking specifically about YOU.</p> <p><em>.and since your just a puppy owner you would probably kill or take your pet to hthe poundf if you had some of our bills in the past.</em>.</p> <p>I've told you before that I pay an astronomical amount of money in medical bills... try me.&nbsp; I would <strong>never</strong> kill my pet(s) (for you to insinuate that is sickening), nor would&nbsp;I&nbsp;take them to the pound. &nbsp;We're lucky to have a large family, and if we really had no choice but to get rid of the dog, we'd find a suitable home in no time.</p> <p>.<em>we just lost a puppy a month ago to the tune of $600 down the tube trying to save hm.</em>.</p> <p>I'm sorry for the loss of your puppy.</p> <p><em>vet costs are astromomical and to say just because someone cant afford a vet and try and use it as a valid excuse for them being undeserving of pet ownership&nbsp;or too actually&nbsp;feel they are lower than you because of financial reasons that their family&nbsp;is undeserving of a pets love..is in its self an outragious statement..</em></p> <p>It is not an outragious statement - I realize that oftentimes vet bills are astronomical - maybe I should have clarified that there are many who get&nbsp; a pet and then cannot afford even routine vaccinations. &nbsp;Those are the people I speak of.&nbsp; I think everyone should have a pet if they enjoy animals and can properly care for them.</p> <p><em>FYI you cant judge the world by a stupid tv program hahahaaha ..sorry too many variables and beleive it or not they are out to make ummm *RATINGS* how do you feel about Jerry Springer?? do you also feel thatsa a good example of american family life?? geeeeezzzzzzzzzz</em></p> <p>I was using it as an example, Sioux. &nbsp;Get a grip.</p> <p>I've seen plenty of real life issues, and once again, the majority of people who seem to have issues are the ones who oftentimes don't care. &nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417396 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417396 <p><em>umm you need to stop saying you..we are on a first name basis with our small and large animal vets.</em></p> <p>You're right... I wasn't talking specifically about YOU.</p> <p><em>.and since your just a puppy owner you would probably kill or take your pet to hthe poundf if you had some of our bills in the past.</em>.</p> <p>I've told you before that I pay an astronomical amount of money in medical bills... try me.&nbsp; I would <strong>never</strong> kill my pet(s) (for you to insinuate that is sickening), nor would&nbsp;I&nbsp;take them to the pound. &nbsp;We're lucky to have a large family, and if we really had no choice but to get rid of the dog, we'd find a suitable home in no time.</p> <p>.<em>we just lost a puppy a month ago to the tune of $600 down the tube trying to save hm.</em>.</p> <p>I'm sorry for the loss of your puppy.</p> <p><em>vet costs are astromomical and to say just because someone cant afford a vet and try and use it as a valid excuse for them being undeserving of pet ownership&nbsp;or too actually&nbsp;feel they are lower than you because of financial reasons that their family&nbsp;is undeserving of a pets love..is in its self an outragious statement..</em></p> <p>It is not an outragious statement - I realize that oftentimes vet bills are astronomical - maybe I should have clarified that there are many who get&nbsp; a pet and then cannot afford even routine vaccinations. &nbsp;Those are the people I speak of.&nbsp; I think everyone should have a pet if they enjoy animals and can properly care for them.</p> <p><em>FYI you cant judge the world by a stupid tv program hahahaaha ..sorry too many variables and beleive it or not they are out to make ummm *RATINGS* how do you feel about Jerry Springer?? do you also feel thatsa a good example of american family life?? geeeeezzzzzzzzzz</em></p> <p>I was using it as an example, Sioux. &nbsp;Get a grip.</p> <p>I've seen plenty of real life issues, and once again, the majority of people who seem to have issues are the ones who oftentimes don't care. &nbsp;</p> <p><u>&nbsp;FSG cannot afford even routine vaccinations</u></p> <p>any feed store you can buy shots other than rabies 7 bucks..given in nap of the neck sub..if they cant afford that they must live in a homeless shelter..or dont deserve a pet</p> <p><u>FSG I would <strong>never</strong> kill my pet(s) (for you to insinuate that is sickening), nor would&nbsp;I&nbsp;take them to the pound.</u></p> <p>I was using it as an example, FSG. &nbsp;Get a grip.</p> <p><u>FSG We're lucky to have a large family, and if we really had no choice but to get rid of the dog, we'd find a suitable home in no time.</u></p> <p>and im supposed to know this?? from your earlier post you sounded a bit harsh on poor folks right to owning a pet..we were&nbsp;poor when we&nbsp;were first&nbsp;married and I have had dogs my whole life....I know first hand of the love and healing power a faitfhul non judgmental pet posesses...</p> <p>if i misread that I&nbsp;apologize..</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417405 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417405 <p><u>&nbsp;FSG cannot afford even routine vaccinations</u></p> <p>any feed store you can buy shots other than rabies 7 bucks..given in nap of the neck sub..if they cant afford that they must live in a homeless shelter..or dont deserve a pet</p> <p><u>FSG I would <strong>never</strong> kill my pet(s) (for you to insinuate that is sickening), nor would&nbsp;I&nbsp;take them to the pound.</u></p> <p>I was using it as an example, FSG. &nbsp;Get a grip.</p> <p><u>FSG We're lucky to have a large family, and if we really had no choice but to get rid of the dog, we'd find a suitable home in no time.</u></p> <p>and im supposed to know this?? from your earlier post you sounded a bit harsh on poor folks right to owning a pet..we were&nbsp;poor when we&nbsp;were first&nbsp;married and I have had dogs my whole life....I know first hand of the love and healing power a faitfhul non judgmental pet posesses...</p> <p>if i misread that I&nbsp;apologize..</p> <p>I'm not trying to say that poor people cannot have pets.. but I've seen plenty of people in general who spend money on booze instead of on their pets, which leads me to believe that they do not care.&nbsp; Unfortunately, in many cases, this does happen in poorer neighborhoods.&nbsp; I guess my point comes down to prioritizing.&nbsp; You and I agree more than we disagree on this issue - we both agree that if someone cannot afford basic care for their pets, they don't deserve them.&nbsp; I believe that to spay or neuter dogs and cats is one of the best things we can do to control the population of animals that wind up stray and/or in shelters, and unfortunately in many cases, killed for no real reason.&nbsp; This is why I&nbsp;advocate responsible pet ownership.&nbsp; I believe this bill is a step forward in ensuring that we are not bringing in unwanted pets into the world.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417414 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417414 <p>I'm not trying to say that poor people cannot have pets.. but I've seen plenty of people in general who spend money on booze instead of on their pets, which leads me to believe that they do not care.&nbsp; Unfortunately, in many cases, this does happen in poorer neighborhoods.&nbsp; I guess my point comes down to prioritizing.&nbsp; You and I agree more than we disagree on this issue - we both agree that if someone cannot afford basic care for their pets, they don't deserve them.&nbsp; I believe that to spay or neuter dogs and cats is one of the best things we can do to control the population of animals that wind up stray and/or in shelters, and unfortunately in many cases, killed for no real reason.&nbsp; This is why I&nbsp;advocate responsible pet ownership.&nbsp; I believe this bill is a step forward in ensuring that we are not bringing in unwanted pets into the world.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>If you really love animals, stop eating them.</p> <br /> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417425 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417425 <p>If you really love animals, stop eating them.</p> <br /> <p>Passing a law isn't suddenly going to make irresponsible people responsible. I've often thought that if we really wanted to get people who aren't acting responsibly to act responsibly, we'd dangle some sort of monetary carrot, like an income tax deduction for veterinary bills.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417482 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_417482 <p>Passing a law isn't suddenly going to make irresponsible people responsible. I've often thought that if we really wanted to get people who aren't acting responsibly to act responsibly, we'd dangle some sort of monetary carrot, like an income tax deduction for veterinary bills.</p> <p></p> <p><u>njalssaga If you really love animals, stop eating them.</u></p> <p>Im starting to lean more towards canabalisum...whats your fat content&nbsp; ..minus the head of course..</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_418138 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_418138 <p></p> <p><u>njalssaga If you really love animals, stop eating them.</u></p> <p>Im starting to lean more towards canabalisum...whats your fat content&nbsp; ..minus the head of course..</p> <p><span style="font-size: small">This bill does not only affect dogs, it affects&nbsp;feral cats and their feeders as well. Especially the caregivers of feral colonies who are faithfully working with rescue organizations&nbsp;to TNR (trap neuter release). If this law passes not only are the feral cats in jeopardy, but according to SB 250 the caregivers and feeders will be breaking the law as well&nbsp;by trapping and releasing&nbsp;after they are&nbsp;neutered&nbsp;and tested.&nbsp; Do we suddenly stop taking care of feral cats......most of&nbsp;them were someones pet that was abandoned once already. I am a volunteer for the Cat People, we see the was happens to adandoned animals all the time.&nbsp;A Mom with her babykittens left by the side of the road in the hot sun, the mothercat getting hit by a car trying to take the babies to safety. Kittens taped up in a shoe box left to die.... what kind of people do things like that?????</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_420616 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_420616 <p><span style="font-size: small">This bill does not only affect dogs, it affects&nbsp;feral cats and their feeders as well. Especially the caregivers of feral colonies who are faithfully working with rescue organizations&nbsp;to TNR (trap neuter release). If this law passes not only are the feral cats in jeopardy, but according to SB 250 the caregivers and feeders will be breaking the law as well&nbsp;by trapping and releasing&nbsp;after they are&nbsp;neutered&nbsp;and tested.&nbsp; Do we suddenly stop taking care of feral cats......most of&nbsp;them were someones pet that was abandoned once already. I am a volunteer for the Cat People, we see the was happens to adandoned animals all the time.&nbsp;A Mom with her babykittens left by the side of the road in the hot sun, the mothercat getting hit by a car trying to take the babies to safety. Kittens taped up in a shoe box left to die.... what kind of people do things like that?????</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>CATGIRL</strong></em>:&nbsp; Well I guess BPD better come and lock up our whole neighborhood!!!&nbsp; Almost every house on our block is feeding a kitty &quot;family&quot;. In April two adult cats and 3 kittens showed up on our front patio. We can't not feed them! There are two households across the street who are feeding kitties. Since SPCA has run out of vouchers we won't be catching them as we could not afford to spay/neuter all those that are around.&nbsp; They don't bother anybody so what's the big deal. I KNOW they need to be 'fixed' but without the vouchers what is one to do? If and when SPCA has more vouchers, we will try to trap and get them fixed up so they can just 'hang out'.&nbsp;</p> <p>Also in April, I believe I mentioned in another blog, we rescued a small dog who showed up in our front yard and was injured. We took him to our vet ($200) and we have now adopted him. Our neighbor rescued his travel companion and gave her a home. There a a lot of empty homes in our area so I'm presuming people have lost their homes/rental and turned the pets loose hoping somebody would take them in.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_420619 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_420619 <p><em><strong>CATGIRL</strong></em>:&nbsp; Well I guess BPD better come and lock up our whole neighborhood!!!&nbsp; Almost every house on our block is feeding a kitty &quot;family&quot;. In April two adult cats and 3 kittens showed up on our front patio. We can't not feed them! There are two households across the street who are feeding kitties. Since SPCA has run out of vouchers we won't be catching them as we could not afford to spay/neuter all those that are around.&nbsp; They don't bother anybody so what's the big deal. I KNOW they need to be 'fixed' but without the vouchers what is one to do? If and when SPCA has more vouchers, we will try to trap and get them fixed up so they can just 'hang out'.&nbsp;</p> <p>Also in April, I believe I mentioned in another blog, we rescued a small dog who showed up in our front yard and was injured. We took him to our vet ($200) and we have now adopted him. Our neighbor rescued his travel companion and gave her a home. There a a lot of empty homes in our area so I'm presuming people have lost their homes/rental and turned the pets loose hoping somebody would take them in.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>FSG:&nbsp; I'll reiterate - if you can't afford to have your pet fixed, you cannot afford to have a pet in the first place.</strong></em></p> <p>But, FSG, those are the<em> very people </em>who will ignore this law just as they ignore all the other laws!!&nbsp; WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER LAW - WE NEED TO USE THE ONES WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS!!!!!</p> <p>I've never gotten out of the vet's office (for spay/neuter) for under $200. Spaying is more expensive.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_420624 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_420624 <p><em><strong>FSG:&nbsp; I'll reiterate - if you can't afford to have your pet fixed, you cannot afford to have a pet in the first place.</strong></em></p> <p>But, FSG, those are the<em> very people </em>who will ignore this law just as they ignore all the other laws!!&nbsp; WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER LAW - WE NEED TO USE THE ONES WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS!!!!!</p> <p>I've never gotten out of the vet's office (for spay/neuter) for under $200. Spaying is more expensive.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>There are agencies other than the SPCA that can help, With our climate and weather conditions kittens start breeding at 4-5 month of age, haveing anywhere from 3-4 litter per year with an average of 4-5 kittens.&nbsp;You can easily wind up with 50 cats by the end of the year. I will get a list of agencies and organizations that can help you so your situation does not get totally out of hand.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_421347 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/siouxcityranch/46680/#c_421347 <p>There are agencies other than the SPCA that can help, With our climate and weather conditions kittens start breeding at 4-5 month of age, haveing anywhere from 3-4 litter per year with an average of 4-5 kittens.&nbsp;You can easily wind up with 50 cats by the end of the year. I will get a list of agencies and organizations that can help you so your situation does not get totally out of hand.</p>