My Photo

Petition to Repeal the Ontario Breed Ban

« INSIGHT AND A SIGHT FOR SORE EYES | Main | ONCE AGAIN, LONDON SHOWS IT HAS THE WRONG STUFF »

Feb 25, 2009

Comments

Hey, just read the sucker and guess what? Worse than advertised!
Well Judie and Loyd LIED to california about AB1634 for almost two years, why shouldnt Judie and Dean do the same?
http://www.cdoca.org/share/files/SB%20250%20.pdf

SB 250 is not free, nor will it save money for the state, municipalities or anyone else.
Everywhere that mandatory spay and neuter laws have been enacted there has been a DECREASE in pet registration, and lower registration revenues. Thus the laws have either; a.) increased enforcement costs, or, b.) they have not been enforced. San Mateo failed, Santa Cruz failed, LA is failing. There is zero evidence that ANY municipality, county or state has had a positive result that can be directly attributed to MSN laws.
While shelters in many areas of California are IMPORTING DOGS to meet the demand for adoption, and while euthansia rates across the state have declined by nearly 70% in the past 15 years, Senator Dean Florez home district has absolutely the WORST shelter kill rate in the entire state. They kill a lot of adoptable dogs in Kern County.
The pet health scare tactic employed to convince people that a young animal (4 months old, in this case) is healthier due to castration or spaying is disputed by very qualified veterinarians, and can be borne out by a search of professional publications. Much has been published on this subject by Dr. Charles Hjerpe, DVM, and Professor Emeritus at the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis - the foremost school of veterinary medicine in the US. That some vets support it is a comment on their ignorance of the facts and greed for additional (paying) business.
Pets, as much as we love them, are PROPERTY. It is a good thing that they are, because it has long protected them from such misguided ideas as this one. If they were granted animal rights do you imagine that they would vote for mandatory castration or spaying? Unlikely.
This "Pet Responsibility Act" is simply the latest re-incarnation of AB1634, and will meet the ignominious fate as its predecessor.

The comments to this entry are closed.