Patt Morrison to state senators: Get over yourselves

To the honorable senators from 27 state districts:

Get over yourselves.

The state Senate voted by 27 to 5 to kill a bill that would require that unlicensed strays be spayed and neutered, to stop more unwanted strays from being born.

State Sen. Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga said he doesn’t want to fix his dog; "he hasn’t caused any problems." Well, senator, that’s like saying you won’t vote to make murder a crime because no one you know would ever commit it.

What else is being killed besides this worthy bill? How about half a million abandoned, dumped, deserted and unwanted cats and dogs, put to death every year in California because they no one will adopt them?

Spare me any thick-brained lectures about pet overpopulation being a hoax. Have you been to public shelters lately? I have. They’re full of unwanted and abandoned animals who are healthy and good-natured. While I was standing at the counter of a city shelter just for a few minutes last week, inquiring about the health of two sweet Rottweilers I’d found running loose -– and still not claimed by anyone -- four kittens and two dogs were brought in by nice people who had found them dumped in the streets.

And don’t lecture me on the quality of pets’ sex lives. If they’re making baby dogs or baby cats while they’re making whoopee, are you going to find homes for all of them? And for their offspring? And why on earth would you want to breed more animals when there are so many thousands in wire cages in shelters who need and deserve homes, and who may end their life with a needle full of death because no one would give them a home?

And why do you think it’s a good idea for California taxpayers to have to fork over $300 million a year just to put these surplus creatures to death?

Then there’s the bogus argument about big-city folk not understanding country ways. Stanislaus County has mandatory spay and neuter laws, and Turlock ain’t exactly downtown L.A. Are they saying that dogs and cats in the country never get abandoned or neglected? If it’s litters of puppies and kittens that farmers and ranchers need for their barns and fields, I’ll be the first to donate so Pet-Mobiles can bring animals dumped in the big city out to the countryside for adoption.

Some of the rants against spaying and neutering were astonishingly dumb. One man went on TV to attack an earlier version of this law, saying it was all part of a campaign to "eliminate all dogs and cats in California."

So at least one more year will go by before another spay and neuter bill appears –- a bill probably watered down even more to appeal for the votes of people who won’t vote for it no matter what. Another year for another 500,000 California pets to be put to death because there are too many of them and not enough homes.  Nice work, state Senate.

If you won’t vote for mandatory spay and neuter, you’d better vote to put enough money into the budget to pay for the euthanasia needles to kill these creatures and the cost of hauling off half a million little corpses.

-- Patt Morrison

Photo: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times
   

Comments

[Loves Dogs & Cats!]

Amen (again) Patt !!!

[Sacramento Mom]

Sorry, but those 27 California Senators - and the 8 who abstained and didn't vote - are our HEROES! In the past year and a half, almost NONE of the many people I've talked with about AB 1634 thought spaying/neutering every last dog and cat in the state was a good idea. THANK YOU, Senators, for using the common sense you were voted into office to use!

Here's a few clues as to why there is NO pet overpopulation - just bad animal shelter management:

1. On average, 70% of all killed shelter animals are cats - feral cats that will never be housepets. Trap, neuter and release them back to their homes in about a day and... that takes care of most of the animals killed in shelters. Cuts the shelter animal care bills too.

2. If pet limit numbers were eliminated today, and existing laws for animal care and leashing were actually enforced, enough people would go to a shelter to add just one more animal to their family that the shelters would probably be emptied of all their healthy, treatable, adoptable pets.

Read the book "Redemption" by Nathan J. Winograd if you want to become educated on the myth of pet overpopulation. Richard Avanzino ("Maddie's Fund") in San Francisco piloted a program with Winograd that results in - across the nation - virtually 100% of all healthy, treatable animals being rehomed, and only animals which are too sick, too old and too aggressive being killed. No Kill sheltering WORKS.

By the way, Los Angeles' new mandatory spay/neuter law takes effect in October, and guess what? Already people are dumping animals in shelter in massive numbers, the kill rates are higher than they've ever been before, and licensing rates are plummeting since the law was passed - and LAAS Director Ed Boks was taken to the woodshed by the L.A. City Controller *last week* because L.A. said it doesn't have the $$$$ to enforce its' new law!

L.A.'s got animal rights vigilantes checking newspaper ads and neighborhoods, they've got a gun-toting SPCA, they've got volunteers going door-to-door to check dog and cat tags. Fun place to live, huh. Wonder if L.A. police will be doing anything about gangs or drunk drivers soon?

Oh, by the way - you did hear how Los Angeles County said it was going to find scofflaws for its' new MSN law, right? Animal Control is going to use its' database of people who paid $150. for intact dog and cat licenses, and notify them that they now have to sterilize their pets after all. "It's the only database we have," said LA County Director Mayeda.

[Basset Booster]

"Spare me..." "Don't lecture me..." That sounds a lot like, "don't bother me with the facts, my mind's already made up." It sounds like a commentator. A reporter wants to find the facts.

EVERY place mandatory sterilization has been the law, the kill rate goes up, as in that LA city shelter you visited. We can do better than that. Sterilizing all the California dogs while we are importing (legally and otherwise) from China and Mexico and Pennsylvania will not save the life of a single dog or cat in any California animal shelter.

[Rikki7]

AB 1634 would have done nothing positive to address the problems in California's animal shelters. That's why the State Humane Association of California withdrew their support for AB 1634. The State Humane Association of California represent nearly 140 of California's humane societies, SPCAs, public animal shelters, and private animal shelters. That's also why Alley Cat Allies -- the nation's main advocate for feral cats -- opposes AB 1634. That's why No Kill shelter movement advocate Nathan Winograd opposes AB 1634.

California's humane movement doesn't want AB 1634.

Like every other mandatory spay/neuter law that's been passed, AB 1634 would have ended up killing more dogs and cats, not saving them. In the 6 months since Los Angeles passed their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, shelter euthanasias have increased by 28%

While testifying on behalf of AB 1634 at the recent Senate committee hearing, LAAS general manager Ed Boks said "No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats."

AB 1634 has nothing to do with saving dogs and cats. It was a naked attempt to find some excuse to package forced sterilization for dogs and cats, even though every argument made by its proponents has been thoroughly discredited. At the end, AB 1634 became nothing more than an attempt to hand dis-elected Assembly member Lloyd Levine a gold watch retirement gift. Thank goodness the state senate saw the truth.

[Haze]

The California Senate is indeed a hero this week. You are a hero to all the illegal dog fighters, illegal breeders, and the irresponsible dog owners. You turned a blind eye to tax evasion, even when the board of equalization did a press release stating that the government is missing out on collecting millions of dollars from the breeding community.
I ask you, why should my family work so hard and be law abiding tax payers when you blatantly defend those who are not? When I go to the shelter and hold a dog before it is about to die, I will think of you at the capitol wearing your suits fighting about our state budget. As the dog puts his tail between his legs in fear, as he is dragged on a rope to the kill room, I will remember that our state senators are OK with this practice and wasteful spending.
Have you even been to your county shelters?
My pure breed rescue tries to save as many Boxers as we can from your shelters. We can no longer save lives, as there are too many being born and not enough homes. You may find this amusing but I challenge you to go only for an hour to your county shelters and watch them kill all day long, visit the freezers, and watch these loving animals be disposed like trash. My precious tax dollars pay for this! In a state with a budget crisis, it is shameful for you all to allow such tax evasion by breeders. No wonder why we are a bankrupt state as the capitol is bankrupt with logic and compassion.
You need to leave the insulated walls of the capitol and go meet the animals and the shelter workers who you decimated last week. If the saying is true, so goes California, so goes the nation, then God help us!

[Susan Harris]

Here is a thought. A mandatory spay neuter law would be like haveing a mandatory dui law. Well we have the mandatory DUI law how's that working? Well the responsible people are being - RESPONSIBLE. The same would and already is in place for people who Spay and Neuter their dogs and cats. The responsible people are being responsible they follow the existing leash and registration laws. Making something mandatory does not mean that magically everyone will follow the rules. By the way since the cell phone law went into effect how many people have you seen on their cell phones? That law affected only the responsible. Every one else is still talking. Yes some will get a ticket maybe 20%. Making a mandatory law will never work as well as education and low cost spay neuter options. If counties could afford to enforce the existing laws - $100 intact fee in my county, not enforced due to budget and manpower issues that currently exist - what makes you think another law is the solution to this problem. Most people when faced with a $100 license fee for intact or $12 for altered per year would get their pet spayed. Our county will spay or neuter a dog, license and microchip it for $50 for the first year and $12 every year after that. That is the type of program that will change the pet overpopulation problem. A Program A Solution NOT another Law.

[Ed Buck]

As I read some of the comments here I am reminded of the politician who said, "Lets not confuse this issue with the facts.". Spay/neuter is, as we have seen a highly emotional issue, and those opposed to it are not going to allow the facts to get in the way of their emotional response. As Ms. Morrison states the facts, some folks will attempt to deny the reality. Some among us still believe the earth is flat. But for those of you who still think that there is not a pet overpopulation problem and that your tax dollars don't fund the killing of "surplus" dogs and cats, visit any shelter, talk to the employees, and ask to see the "kill room". Perhaps you can be numb to the statistics and numbers, but when you see the limp body of a healthy animal thrown on to the pile, maybe you will get it. And maybe you'll realize the earth is round, or am I hoping for too much?

[Bill Hemby, PetPAC]

Dear Ms Morrison;

Now that you have vented your spleen at the tens of thousands of animal lovers who opposed your draconian AB 1634, the pet extinction act, I hope you feel a bit better. It is easy to try to paint the opposition to mandatory surgical sterilization as uncaring, tax evaders. Mr. Levine desperately attempted the same ploy, but it did not work. Pet owners love and cherish their pets. PetPAC along with over 800 dog and cat clubs and 45,000 pet owners opposed mandatory spay and neuter because it has never worked. It hasn't even started in L.A. and already it is a failure.
Your hysteria and guilt tripping serves no purpose. It isn't the fault of pet owners that dogs and cats are killed in shelters. As you have said, the needle that is shoved into the animal is done in the shelter, by the shelter. It is our firm belief shelter management doesn't have to kill animals.
People are looking for a solution, but mandatory sterilization is not the answer. The members of the state senate realize that, they get it, You don't!
I urge you to stop your ranting and raving. All of your finger pointing hasn't saved one animal from being killed. Our defeat of the mandatory sterilization bill has.
If you and many of the good meaning animal rights people really want a solution, then please join with PetPAC in putting in place the Nathan Winograd "No Kill" shelter method. Together we can save over 90% of the shelter animals. PetPAC is determined to seek No Kill as the solution.

[Shepherd Lover]

Pat Morrison, you have thoroughly mangled the facts.

Stanislaus County does NOT have a mandatory spay/neuter law. They have differential licensing, which is not at all the same thing, just like every other local jurisdiction in California. EXISTING state law requires that counties and cities must have differential licensing for intact vs. altered dogs. But it's nice to see you admit by your choice of this example that EXISTING law already achieves your goals.

Mandatory spay/neuter laws offer false hope of reducing shelter euthanasias. Yet it has never happened, not any where these laws have been implemented. These laws have consistently caused more killing, more shelter impounds, reduced licensing compliance, and soaring costs.

Santa Cruz County has a mandatory spay/neuter law, the so-called "model for the state" for AB 1634, and their per capita shelter statistics are WORSE than surrounding counties that have no forced sterilization mandate. Santa Cruz County has seen their animal control costs more than double since their sterilization ordinance went into effect.

After San Mateo County passed a mandatory sterilization ordinance, dog euthanasia rates increased by 126% and cat euthanasias increased by 86%. No wonder the original proponent of mandatory spay/neuter, the Peninsula Humane Society, calls the concept "disappointing" and doesn't support AB 1634.

And then there's Los Angeles, whose euthanasia rates have already climbed 28% since a draconian sterilization ordinance passed there at the beginning of this year. After their 2000 spay ordinance passed, animal control costs soared 269%.

Fort Worth ended their sterilization ordinance after an outbreak of rabies in their city, following a drop off in rabies vaccination compliance.

Montgomery County MD repealed their sterilization ordinance after a 50% drop in licensing income and a euthanasia rates that stopped improving as fast as they had prior to the ordinance going into effect.

When the facts about the disastrous effects of mandatory spay/neuter laws became better known, the supporters of AB 1634 saw the light. The State Humane Association of California, an umbrella organization over nearly all of California's SPCAs and humane societies, withdrew their support for AB 1634. Pioneers in the No Kill shelter movement such as Nathan Winograd opposed AB 1634 from the beginning, as did feral cat advocate Alley Cat Allies and dozens of rescue groups.

And that $300 million in annual animal control costs would increase to at least $600 million if AB 1634 passed. The California Department of Finance opposed AB 1634 because it would cost the taxpayers more money.

[dog love]

BRAVO PAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU FOR SAYING WHAT HAD TO BE SAID SO WELL. SADLY, THIS COUNTRY IS FILLED WITH IGNORANCE AND THAT IS WHY MORE AND MORE DOGS AND CATS ARE LANGUISHING IN THE SHELTERS, DYING A LITTLE BIT EVERY DAY. THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO SPAY AN D NEUTER IF YOU TRULY LOVE ANIMALS. WE DON'T NEED MORE. WE NEED TO SAVE THE ONES LEFT THERE BY THE SELFISH OWNERS.

SACRAMENTO MOM - YOU ARE AN IDIOT

[David]

How many of you breeders who posted are operating legally?? Let's see your sellers permit or give your full name so we can check?
It is smoke and mirrors people..all about money with the breeders!
Animals die and the breeders lie!!
You are criminals.

[DAN]

SACRAMENTO MOM, YOU SOUND LIKE A NUT JOB! STAY IN SAC AND DON'T COME TO OUR CITY! GOOGLE BILL HEMBY, HE IS SHADY TOO! I AM NOT A RESCUER BUT NOW I WANT TO BE AFTER I READ THESE HEARTLESS POSTS OF BREEDERS WHO PORFIT WHILE TAX PAYERS LIKE MYSELF PAY FOR THE DEATH OF ANIMALS!! PAT, YOU HAVE OPENED MY EYES!

[Beth Caffrey]

Put your passion into action. All the people that sit and spew their point of view, should actually do something to help the animals. Why do you think all animal controls, SPCA's, Humane Societies are behind legislation that will just give them another tool when dealing with humans that actually care very little for an animals well being. Just come in and volunteer at the shelters that you can so easily slam with words. Actually experience the truth in person, not just by typed words over the internet!!! If only all the people who will through their opinion in so easily would just step up and care for just 4 of the animals walking through shelter doors. Again action, not reaction. Other wise you have no room to speak for the voiceless.

[JAL]

All capitols always make me wonder how much caffeine a person has had. Most regions of California and elsewhere do not require permits to breed a small number of animals. They merely require that dogs be licensed. Sellers permits are issued by the state for occaisional use when a hobbyist needs to sell a few puppies or kittens so that the state make garner sales tax. As most California dog or cat breeders have puppies or kittens for sale only one or twice a year, they only need request a sellers permit on those instances. I certainly do not doubt that the people on this board who are so angry would love to be able to track down those with opposing views, which is good enough reason for those who oppose legislation such as this to stay anonymous. As for me? I am a breed rescue volunteer. My husband and myself also do TNR work and maintain a feral colony and help others begin their own TNR programs. As many of the wonderful folks in our breed rescue are also active in dog clubs and shows, I have had the opportunity to research many of the proponents of MSNs claims and have found them to be false and based on particular agendas rather than facts.

Instead of spewing venom, why not do what actually works? TNR, education, support for people having difficulty financially or with land lords or behavioral problems with pets.

All these laws do is punish punish punish when what is actually needed in most cases is help. Help with training, help with finding low cost care, help with transportation to veterinary clinics, help finding more low/no cost spay neuter. Stop blaming everyone or villifying anyone who does not march to your tune. Honey works a heck of a lot better than vinegar when it comes to everything from encouraging and helping people get needed vet care to getting pets adopted and out the shelter door.

Try a carrot not a stick people, it works better, always.

[Geraldine Clarke]

If Mancuso, Levine et al. and you, Ms. Morrison, were really interested in saving animals in shelters, you would have done your homework and discovered that forced sterilization laws like AB1634, ALWAYS end up with MORE animals killed in shelters.

But you knew that. We gave you and all the other people supporting AB1634 all the facts and figures long ago. When Mancuso and Levine kept insisting in front of the Assembly that Santa Cruz's law was a success, we got an esteemed mathematician and scientist to sort through and analyze all the incredibly badly kept Santa Cruz data and prove that the Santa Cruz law, like all the other forced sterilization laws, was an absolute failure.

The people who dump animals dump them even faster when faced with laws and fines. We do not have an pet over-population problem; we have a big pet relinquishment problem. There are ways to deal with that successfully and Mancuso and Levine and you ignored them all.

The majority of animals killed in shelters are feral cats and kittens and NOTHING in any of the many versions of AB1634 addressed that problem. TNR (trap,neuter,release) programs have ALWAYS been successful in reducing the number of cats coming into (and being killed) in shelters. Mancuso and Levine NEVER even mentioned TNR as part of the solution to this problem.

Unless Mancuso and Levine were both brain-dead, AB1634 was NEVER about saving animals in shelters; it was all about giving control of our animals to the people who manage our totally failed shelter system - like Ed Boks who is failing yet again in Los Angeles and failing even more spectacularly than he did in Maricopa County and New York.

All of you who have demonized honest breeders here, LOOK AT THE FACTS, not the lies you are being fed. Read Nathan Winograd's "Redemption" if you want to know how we can really stop the killing in shelters.

In a perverse way, I guess we should thank Levine and Mancuso. The horrible law they promoted got an incredible number of animal lovers educated and mobilized. We will be proposing our own legislation based on Winograd's No Kill principles which can REALLY end the killing in shelters and we will continue to resist the efforts of Mancuso and her "animal rights" fanatic friends to take control over animals in this state.

[Patty Shenker]

Thank you, Patt Morrrison, for standing up for AB 1634 and being a
compassionate voice for these poor pets. AB 1634 began as an effective, sensible way to curb pet overpopulation and save taxpayers much needed funds in California. However, the legislators proved to be themselves "neutered", not having the compassion or strength to pass it. Actually, what they did was to first neuter the bill and then euthanize it, just like we do to over 500,000 dogs and cats each year here in California. Again, special interests ( NRA, Farm Bureau, and AnimalKilling Club), and selfish interests ( breeders, property right advocates, and Republicans) defeated it by their usual tactics- lies, threats and gross exagerrations. Not one of them could care less about these unfortunate pets; what they care about are their own pets, or breeds and the money they make off their backs. Nor do they care about the fiscal burden of costing the state over 2 million dollars yearly on a state with terrible fiscal problems. Senator Drier, a perfect example of the opponents of AB 1634, looked ridiculous when anthropomorphizing by exclaiming that his dog was happy intact and showed very limited thinking when he declared that pet overpopulation wasn't a problem in his area. Excuse me, Senator Drier, but you are suppose to be concerned with all of California- not just your district. To keep his dog intact, according to AB 1634, it would have cost him $150.00!! Just think of it as a donation for the less fortunate pets in our state!! Is that really too much to ask?! But what really infuriates me is that most of the opponents of AB 1634, who cried foul that we would legislate what they can do to their pets' bodies, are the SAME people who try to legislate what we, women and men, now due to the right to die movement, can do with our bodies!! Such hypocricy must be pointed out! We're not done yet. Those of us who rescue, who care about these pets will
continue to work towards a resolution to end this tragedy. Patty Shenker

[Archie]

Patty,

While your heart is in the right place, legislating s/n does not work. It is a proven failure. There are millions in California who WANT to s/n their pets, but simply can not afford it. If all of the effort and money used to pass AB1634 would have been used to provide s/n for Californians...you would see change. You can not legislate something people can not afford to do. THAT is not humane.

Murder is against the law, robbery is against the law, talking on a handheld cell phone is against the law, but it does not stop people from doing any of those things. Legislating something that is 100% unenforcable is ridiculous and does not help the animals. It hurts them.

[Cady]

PetPac is a lobbying group for the puppy mills, and the puppy mill business interests of AKC.

AKC breeders, PetPac, and the puppy mill breeders support Nathan Winograd, Mr No Kill Hypocrite, because he sold out to them. They push his book and consulting gigs, he tries to get people hired in animal control who oppose any legislation (like licensing) that breeders don't like.

That's why these breeder nutjobs are here pushing Winograd.

He got in bed with the worst animal abusers.

The breeders only care about no regulation for breeders so they can go on running puppy mills and dog fighting businesses.

Nathan Winograd works with these breeder groups to come up with lies about mandatory spay neuter and anything else breeders don't like.

"proven failure?" It's just breeder lies. All these tax cheats tell is lies every day.

Breeders only care about the $$$.

So does Winograd.

Here is one of Winograd's friends that promotes him, and lobbies with these other breeder nutjobs posting here http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patti_Strand

They all tell the same lies.

[Cady]

You know where Winograd got his "pet overpopulation is a myth" lie?

His breeder friends. They have been saying that for years to defend their overbreeding and selling unfixed animals.

They say overpopulation was just made up by shelters to "make money."

Lunatic, but Winograd will say anything they like if they promote him

[Cady]

Here is Winograd selling out to the AKC breeders who support the puppy mills that pay for their dog shows

http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/petpac-no-kill-winograd-speaks-at-ventura-show/

Winograd right in there with people who support every kind of animal abuse imaginable.

These breeders want to hear that shelters are to blame, and there should be no laws for breeders so they can do what they want.

. And Nathan will give them everything they want.

He is involved now with this lobbying group too http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

That lobbying group also lobbies for breeders.

They were promoting Nathan's book for him and encouraging their animal-abusing clients to supporet Nathan Winograd.

He has hit absolute rock bottom.

[Cady]

Bill Hemby, a dog breeder who runs PetPac

Here is what he is up to http://www.petpacnonsense.com/

These breeders posting here with him are all in the dog breeding racket with him