- NEWS
- SPORTS
- Reading between the hash marks: Rick Neuheisel 17 minutes ago
- Ducks go to shootout to douse Flames
- UCLA's 10 most notable wins over USC 3 hours & 46 minutes ago
- Flames' Iginla serves as inspiration
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Anonymous mailer depicts city council members as circus clowns
March 18th, 2009, 3:00 am · 37 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
Over the past few days, the good citizens of Laguna Woods have discovered this bit of inspired artwork stuffed into their mailboxes: City council members’ heads grafted onto circus clown bodies; and the city manager portrayed as a cute kitty (or ferocious feline?) in a cage down below.
“I’m not sure why I am the cat in the circus train cage - but I’m sure it’s not supposed to be good,” quipped City Manager Leslie Keane.
When you look a bit more closely, you see an ax and a pair of scissors in the councilmembers’ hands. “Stop the Laguna Woods 3 Ring Circus,” says the anonymous flyer. “Oppose forced spay and neuter of pets.”
Ah, the “mutilation of family pets” lobby, working its magic again! Urging law-abiding citizens to descend upon the Laguna Woods city council meeting at 2 p.m. today to protest this “violation of their constitutional rights and freedoms.”
Except, um, the council won’t be discussing mandatory spay/neuter today.
We told you last month how Laguna Woods - where the average resident’s age is about 78 - was considering 
a mandatory spay/neuter law for dogs and cats. A bold and controversial move here in “Live Free or Die” OC, where the Orange County Board of Supervisors recently rejected such an ordinance, despite the urgings of a grand jury; and the city of Huntington Beach backed down from a mandatory spay/neuter law after vitriol erupted over the proposal in 2007.
(Not the first time Laguna Woods has bucked the trend: It’s the first Orange County city to allow medical marijuana dispensaries within its boundaries - when other local cities are outlawing them.)
Anyway, some of the same folks who helped kill Huntington Beach’s spay/neuter plan - from a group calling itself Pet Owners Want Equal Rights (POWER) - were voicing opinions at the Laguna Woods council meeting Feb. 18. They emerged a bit miffed when Laguna Woods types implied that Huntington Beach types shouldn’t be sticking their noses into Laguna Woods’ business.
“As a highly educated and sophisticated woman of substance, holding both an MBA Degree and CA Real Estate Broker License, I also have an undergraduate BA in Social Psychology,” wrote Teddi Alves of POWER Huntington Beach in a long letter to Laguna Woods council members, blasting ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMISTS, unions, the city manager, etc. (which you can read in its exhaustive entirety below).
“Does the collective council not recognize IMAGE as a FACTOR OF REAL ESTATE VALUES? REALTORS would be bound to WARN PROSPECTIVE PURCHASES OF PROPERTIES IN THAT VENUE of the MANDATED CASTRATION/HYSTERECTOMIES OF THEIR PETS!” Alves wrote.
Mandatory spay/neuter has been shown to reduce the number of unwanted animals, and thus the number of animals killed at animal shelters, but some resent the long arm of the law reaching toward their pets’ reproductive tracts.
We tried to reach Alves to ask if POWER had anything to do with the anonymous mailing, but several emails and phone calls were not returned by deadline.
The mailing apparently went to most every resident, City Manager Keane said. It included an envelope pre-printed with city hall’s address, so defenders of freedom could easily pop the pre-written protest letter (included therein) into the mail.
“They must have bought a mailing list,” Keane said. “Some serious money was spent on it.”
Note to the anonymous mailers (and everyone else): The City Council will discuss spay/neuter again on April 15, not today. Then, the council will consider the mandatory spay/neuter law (with a revised penalty section); and an alternate proposal, which would spay or neuter animals impounded for any reason, but would not require the sterilization of other pets.
“What we’re saying by this alternate proposal is, if your animal is running around loose, is not on a leash, has no license, you are not really a responsible pet owner,” Keane said. If picked up by animal control, those animals would be spayed or neutered with or without the owners’ consent, because they could be impregnating other animals, or getting pregnant themselves.
The alternate proposal is more like what they’re doing in Riverside, Keane said.
There’s still some strong support for the stiffer version of the law, and folks on the animal services committee that originally recommended it have been collecting signatures in support.
Today, for the record, the city council is slated to adopt a new rule topping out the number of animals each household can keep at three - no more than two of which can be dogs. Calm down, calm down! There are lots of exceptions.
See the entire anonymous flyer by clicking here: animalrigghtsflyer1. Read the Alves letter to the city council below.
February 19, 2009
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council of Laguna Woods Village:
Your meeting of Wednesday, February 18, to consider such a contentious issue as the pursuit of mutilation of pets of families residing within your venue drew the immediate response of our organization, PET OWNERS WANT EQUAL RIGHTS [P.O.W.E.R.], an incorporated non-profit organization, as many others, organized to represent the PUBLIC AT LARGE in these related issues, by VIRTUE OF NUMBERS and LEARNED ENLIGHTENMENT, gathering experience and knowledge over this period since that meeting of THE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, September 4, 2007, when The City first embarked on passage of an ordinance that would MANDATE HYSTERECTOMY/CASTRATION OF ALL PETS at 4 MONTHS OF AGE. IT WAS DEFEATED SOUNDLY; of 7 Member of our City Council, 1 Abstention, 6 NO!
In April of 2007, groundwork was laid for a similar statewide effort in legislation subsequently, AB #1634, introduced in the CA State Assembly by Lloyd Levine [D-Van Nuys], co-sponsor Jose Solario [D-Santa Ana], language of which was written according to her own claim, by Judie Mancuso, known associated with ANIMAL RIGHTS FACTIONS, some of those organizations designated as those of Terrorists by the FBI, and having been a paid lobbyist for this agenda, a role apparently continuing. Levine was “termed out” and rejected by VOTERS in his bid to “ascend to a seat in the State Senate. Solario is a known union toady.
Due to all the organized opposition statewide to AB #1634, it was pulled as a result in the summer of 2007, PetPAC, one of the leading organizations statewide and others were widely credited, and this “pet owner” had filed those clippings. It was these resources that responded to the surprise and astonishment of the HB City Council when this writer and others contacted those entities for INFORMED ASSISTANCE upon reading a “tiny” notice of the upcoming Meeting of the City Council of Huntington Beach on Tuesday, September 4, the Tuesday following Labor Day, with regard to intent to consider passage of a Mandated Spay/Neuter/Microchip ordinance. It was while While researching ONLINE another topic [no mention by The Los(t) Angeles Times], this writer on that Sunday, Sept 2, came across a tiny item in the OC Register. And that is how POWER began, when individual “pet owners” met at the council meeting, and organized opposition, later incorporating, spreading influence state-wide, and joining other organizations so devoted to PUBLIC SERVICE and INFORMED OPPOSITION.
Accordingly we have much experience with the agenda of these ANIMAL RIGHTS factions, especially their “modus operandi,” that is apparently built upon a coalition forged with the agenda of ORGANIZED LABOR, to increase UNION job slots WITHIN ANIMAL CONTROL, and GENERATE THE REVENUES TO SUPPORT THIS EMPIRE. AB #1634 was defeated in the State Senate, not one Republican vote cast in support, and to his credit, Senator Lou Correa [D-Santa Ana] was an opposing vote. Now this AR agenda would be SUPERIMPOSED at the unsophisticated venues of local and county governments through those campaign contributions and satisfaction of mutual agendas of union staff.
Upon arrival in the community of Laguna Woods Village in the last few days, many of us were obtaining signatures in opposition to your effort and learned there was no awareness whatever of the upcoming agenda of a city council convening at 2 PM on a work day? Capacity of City Hall and the Council Chambers 102. 12,000 units within the village according to statistics city staff. Zero problem with dogs; ditto cats. And “a plan” to enact an ordinance that would carry fines of $100 - $300 compounding daily for pet owners refusing to subject their family pets to such mutilation, topped with a jail sentence?
As a highly educated and sophisticated woman of substance, holding both an MBA Degree and CA Real Estate Broker License, I also have an undergraduate BA in Social Psychology. When I reviewed background of those elected to the City Council, it was an expectation there was collective sophistication as to these issues as to PERCEPTION of that community.
From my impressions of related demographics of your city, the population is mostly seniors, 66 to 80% women, likely of the genre of the lower wage scales and Social Security benefits payable, and FACTS then in EVIDENCE, totally disregarded with the exception of the logic contributed by Council Member Bill Hack. Having spoken with Mayor Ring at early arrival, he left no doubt of his support of this endeavor. Does the collective council not recognize IMAGE as a FACTOR OF REAL ESTATE VALUES? REALTORS would be bound to WARN PROSPECTIVE PURCHASES OF PROPERTIES IN THAT VENUE of the MANDATED CASTRATION/HYSTERECTOMIES OF THEIR PETS!
That said, POWER has been directly involved in Huntington Beach, Los Angeles [where litigation is pending against their MSN ordinance], Santa Barbara, and the County of Riverside [hardly a sophisticated venue that pushed it through as did LA.]
The tactics in LA are now replicated by this strategy to submerge PUBLIC INFORMATION from “radar detection.” That ordinance of the City of Los Angeles was implemented within four days by that City Council, slight of hand, progressing from a ruse submitted to that Public Safety Commission on a Monday that packs of “roving pit bulls” were such a “threat,” emergency action was required, and it occurred within four days, by virtue of declaration of that City Council on Thursday that an “emergency” ordinance would be considered at their 9 AM meeting on the next day, Friday [note another workday!]. DONE DEAL. Only one council member refused support. The “veterinary expert” testified he had performed numbers of these major surgical procedures on kittens and puppies just “weeks” of age; longitudinal and scientific studies? MONEY. UNIONS. They were hedging on passage of AB #1634 to then claim reimbursement of an “UNFUNDED MANDATE.” Former Democratic President Pro-tem of the CA State Senate, David Roberti, is litigating that action in LA.
In Riverside County, that meeting mid-week at 9 AM, the same scam was repeated with the “testimony’ of their “expert veterinarian” rumored “run of his private practice,” and statistics conflicting in materials submitted by its own “Director of Animal Services,” whose “employees” testified to such “necessity,” some physically 5 x 5 frames, obesity to suggested limited ability, tearfully describing assisting euthanasia. There was testimony as to an adjunct shelter not in use!
In Orange County, the recently relocating Head of Animal Control had no education/experience to bring to that at a six figure salary. Which brings me to your City Manager, and her “shock and awe” that organizations such as POWER and others would INTRUDE? That for example, her citation of Facsimiles forwarded from the same source as would ANY MATERIALS FROM ANY ORGANIZATION likely flow from their FAX MACHINES? Also, she seemed to have ZERO sophistication as to the “terms and conditions” and “sanctions” she was proposing with the exception of REVENUES she would EXTRACT. Is her salary in six figures? Why did she seem so determined and apparently assuming higher “authority” than the city council?
What is the level of education and certification by credential of the “City Manager?” One of the speakers, which should be PUBLIC RECORD, made a point to testify to the refusal of the “city manager” to schedule an appointment with members of the council? She is not aware of THE BROWN ACT which compels PUBIC ACCESS. There was clear inference that comments of “interested parties” were irrelevant and determined rejection of the issue of such GENERAL APPLICATION as a PRECEDENT obviously structured on the motivation of GENERATE REVENUES FOR OPERATING CAPITAL. Next new born children?
“City animal regulations: The Laguna Woods City Council will consider two ordinances modifying the City’s animal services regulations at its regularly scheduled Feb. 18 meeting. The meeting will be held at 2 p.m. at the Laguna Woods City Council Chambers, 24264 El Toro Road, Laguna Woods. ..Mandatory Spay Neutering of Dobs and Cats ….Interested parties are encouraged to attend the public hearing and voice their opinion about these proposals. Written comment may be submitted via mail (24264 El Toro Road, Laguna Woods, Ca 92637) or email lkeane@lagunawoodscity.org. The proposed ordinances are posted on the City’s website www.lagunawoodscity.org. Copies may also be obtained by email to lkeane@lagunawoodscity.org or at City Hall.” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-meeting-community-2298848-laguna-woods
Also it was disturbing to me that the spokesman for the Animal Advisories Committee implied that “many of “us,” supposedly inclusive of members of the City Council and his own committee and those of the public safety committee patronize the veterinary services of Dr Wheaton, who seems very closely connected with Mancuso and the AR agenda, marketing his “low cost”/bargains for such mutilations of our pets? I would NEVER take my pet to such a “practitioner.” In that vein, these MANDATED MAJOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES compel consideration of issues of “QUALITY CONTROL,” and general veterinary competence and integrity given the BONANZA created for veterinarians; contrasting and comparing with the opposition of both California and American Veterinary Associations. Given that I personally submitted graphic photos of the severity of those catastrophic surgeries, I wondered if those “male” would consider such a procedure but a “two buck hair cut?”
Secondly, the spokesman for Public Safety vehemently attacked a very petite woman who is an officer of a recognized association and very knowledgeable as to opposition to MSN, and nearly had to be restrained before he left? A bit over the top? A union kind of guy? Neither was the spokesman for the Animal Advisories Committee even a pretense of knowledge or open and flexible to entertain “opposing views.”
In conclusion, this is why organizations such as POWER have been forced to respond to PROTECT THE PUBLIC from this kind of infringement upon our Constitutional guarantees under The Bill of Rights. And at costs of our funding of required effort, time and energy.
As to the pedantic recognition by Councilman Rhodes that “this is not intended as punitive for ‘responsible pet owners,’ but unfortunately to deal with those who are not,” or to that effect; EXCUSE ME! How dare your council suggest the authority of your “government” to demand mutilation of family pets REGARDLESS, given that issue you would claim is (1) NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY, and (2) as testimony indicated, is a NON-ISSUE? ZERO! NADA! And WORSE: DOCUMENTED AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SHOWING THAT PETS AS COMPANIONS EXTEND LIFE AND QUALITY OF FOR SENIORS THAT ARE THE MAJORITY OF YOUR POPULATION?
What you need to do is review for replacement on merit the clear incompetence that stood out loud and clear at that hearing of an issue of such magnitude and criminal implications with the MEAGER NUMERS in attendance of those of your venue mid-day of a workweek. The idea that you would MANDATE risk of those major surgical procedures and threat of lives and future health of family pets is insane; a callous expectation that owners would calmly retrieve bodies of their pets, absorb costs of any required medical address/treatment/medication? And, of course, quit whining?
he experience was especially disturbing and perhaps you will benefit by these “minutes” forwarded when your are re-considering the baseless issues supposedly supporting this draconian pursuit.
Teddi Alves
More Watchdog:
- Addiction center CEO sues former therapist for defamation‘
- So you nearly destroyed the global economy? Here’s your bonus!’
- Director gets the heave-ho in Laguna Woods
- No new taxes? GOP dollars support campaign Republicans abhore
- Miracle manna: How OC finally wrangled more cash from stingy state
- As economy tanks, armed services attract recruits
- Regulators approve electric rate hike; many bills will rise
- Beer keg, Lakers tickets, wine lodge trip among gifts to OC lawmakers
- Musical meeting times for director’s heave-ho at Laguna Woods Village
- Gay engineer taunted with pornography at TBN seeks millions, suit says
- Feds have poor control over local police wielding immigration powers
- Problems haunt prominent drug treatment center for women, suit says
- A flying water bottle? A bruise? A heave-ho in Laguna Woods?
- Deborah Carona is MIA from Fair Board
- Adoption fees are fair at county shelter, frequent critic says
- Employee bonuses are an issue in electric rate hike proposal
- An (AIG) rose by any other name…still smells
- Best of OC Watchdog, 2008: Readers’ Choices
- High fees feed high kill rate at county shelter, critics say
- Who made the big bucks at Chapman University?
- Who needs undie run? Cash helps lift Chapman U’s profile
- Raise that (desalinated) glass of water and drink up!
- Jurors say the food’s not great, but the people are nice
- County workers don’t get Social Security. Blessing or curse?!
- Pool owners: Proceed cautiously on new pool rules!
37 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Follow this blog:
-
More from OC Watchdog reports-
ADVERTISEMENT
You can follow this blog: on 
Ask anyone in Huntington Beach about Teddi Alves…a few tacos short of a combo plate. Her letters are a hilarious example of arrogant incomprehensibility. Interesting that these “pet lovers” don’t care about the millions of pets that have to be slaughtered in shelters because of the thoughtlessness of these “pet lovers”. .
BREAKING NEWS: Some people think policiticans are clowns!
Riverside’s ordinance is a bad one, almost a bad joke, because it imposes a MSN penalty ona ction that have nothing to do with breeding!
Perhaps Ms. Sfora should actually research the ties between the Riverside ACO Director , Ms. Mancusco, and the PETArds. She’ll find that the Riverside ACO Director got $33M pulled from the Sheriff’s jail budget to build a new animal shelter, then turned around and promoted the AR agenda with MSN to the Riverside Board of Dupes.
That’s right: an ACO who follows the tenets of groups linked to domestic terrorism (per the DHS and FBI) got money taken away from law enforcement to implement a domestic terrorist agenda, money taken away from a human jail to build a pet jail.
Nice priorities, huh?
Earth to Peter: PETA’s shelter euthanasia rate is 93%, and they are teh ones who claim to be “pet lovers”.
The rest of us claim to be “pet owners and lovers.” Big difference. You might want to actually check it out sometime.
I want to know how passing a MANDATORY LAW SUCH AS Spay, Neuter &
Chip
will stop animals from peeing on the residents lawns. Geez the wild bunnies have ruined many lawns in Orange County. The ferril cats as I understand keep the rodent population down. All I can see is the law will cause MORE taxes on residents to employ people to implement these unnecessary laws. I drove Laguna Woods I did NOT see one
animal running loose. SO WHATS THE PROBLEM ?
Wow, has the OC Register now lost all credibility! How could you allow this Teddy who sounds out of his or mind to report lies!! How could you print such untruths without researching first? Bad form OC Register!
Dr Wheaton and Judie Mancuso helped low income families spay and neuter their pets for FREE! They are amazing and good hearted people! Not only does it sound like Teddy and friends do not care about animals being killed in our shelters, they now do not care about low income people and they struggles they face..SHAME ON YOU TEDDY. You spread untruths and if I were Dr Wheaton and Judie Mancuso, I would demand a public apology!
THANK YOU DR WHEATON AND JUDIE FOR CARING! WISH MORE VETS WERE LIKE YOU!
Any legitimate breeder would not be scared of the Spay and Neuter laws. The backyard breeders are afraid because they will be caught and taxed. Do any of these so called breeders ever go into a shelter and save any of the millions of their breeds that are dying there?
You state that “Mandatory spay/neuter has been shown to reduce the number of unwanted animals”. Sorry, this is just NOT true and you are perpetuating the Big Lie pushed by the fanatical fringe of the “animal rights” movement which is determined to take control of animals away from the people who own and love them.
Two of the many examples of where these laws have not worked:
- San Mateo passed a forced sterilization law and it was such a disaster that it was rescinded.
- During the AB1634 fight, Mancuso and Levine kept pointing to Santa Cruz’s law as an example of the “effectiveness” of forced sterilization laws but a close examination of the statistics proved that the Santa Cruz law was a failure. Yes, the number of shelter intakes decreased AS THEY DID EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE but the decrease was much greater in nearby areas with similar demographics which didn’t have forced sterilization laws.
Over the last two decades, the number of animals abandoned to shelters has decreased dramatically everywhere. This has happened because of education plus outreach programs that offer free or reduced cost neutering to pet owners.
Forced sterilization laws do not work and are frequently counter-productive because the people who do indiscriminate breeding do not obey these laws and it would cost an absolute fortune to police them into complying. These are the people who dump animals in shelters and they dump them even faster when faced with big fees and fines.
Rather than enforcing basically unenforceable draconian laws, a much more effective and much more inexpensive way to spend tax-payer money is in education and free/low-cost neuter clinics which DO work. And TNR (trap, neuter and release) programs for feral cats do the most good. 65 to 70% of animals killed in shelters are feral cats and their kittens. All these forced sterilization laws that are being introduced all over the nation would do absolutely nothing about feral cats.
If you REALLY want to do things that will work to reduce the numbers of animals killed in shelters, read Nathan Winograd’s “Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America”. No Kill principles have been proven to work.
Teddi, you are one scary lady! i just do not understand how the OC Register would print something so far from the truth. Dr Wheaton truly gives back to rescues and shelter animals. If only more vets were like Dr Wheaton. I drive an hour just to go to him! If anyone is looking for a vet who CARES…he is your guy!
Judie and Dr Wheaton made it possible for low income people to be able to have their animal seen by a vet..FOR FREE! Teddi, you are one hard uncaring woman who seems to not care about the welfare of people or animals. I hope the city council will just realize how off the wall this is and how they truly DO NOT CARE! Thank you Teddi for showing who you really are, and why the city does need a law!
ALL I CAN SAY IS…OC REGISTER HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND!
THIS LADY SOUNDS KOO KOO! DR WHEATON AND MS MANCUSO ARE SAVING LIVES!!!
YOU OWE DR WHEATON AND MS MANCUSO AND BIG RETRACTION!
The flyer is an insult to clowns everywhere.. LOL.. seriously. why is Laguna Woods looking at this ordinance? their numbers of animals are sinlge digit.. unheard of.. down to ZERO in some cases.. this is a “Law” looking for a resting place. Check out LA.. AC funds ZERO.. asking for MORE money.. CUTTING OUT all free and low cost spay/neuter vouchers…Mandastory laws ”in place.. shelter killings UP UP UP..
i will tell you this.. if my natural animal was found loose and picked up and castrated without my knowlege.. each one of the commisioners that passed that bill would be looking at a lawsuit, indivualy and as a group.
Animals DIE during these proceedures… castration of a female dog is MAJOR surgery. ( yes.. castration is the proper term for the removal of reproducitve organs form males AND females)
Animlas also escape occasionly from their confines.. an open door.. a visitor.. a strong wind.. AN ACCIDENT.
For those of you who know little to nothing about dogs in “heat’.. females dogs are only breedable about 14 days of the YEAR. cats are another story BIT statistics show that over 90% of pet cats are ALREADY altered.. so why the need of such a law.. why indeed..
to Peter.. did you read the numbers fo Laguna Woods? talk about being short a bulb or two.. there is no need for this ordinance in Laguna Wodds.. NONE.. and there is no need to find fault with someone who demaneds answers to why this law is being PUSHED in a small retierment community with NO problems with animals.. Good on Ya Teddi…
This “law” is all about Judie Mancuso and her personal agenda and her contacts with PETA..a radical “no pets or domestic animals groups” who are on the FBI watch list…it has NOTHING to do with “saving animals” just ask Ed Boks ( head honcho at LA Animal control and major supporter fo the defeated AB 1634 travesty)who admitted just that thing in Sacramento when asked .. he said “No Senator Cox, this has nothing to do with saving dogs and cats”.. and so it is in Laguna Woods and everywhere else ..
Create a “” problem.. then pass a law.. create a criminal.. that is what this ordinance does.. anyone think we need MORE criminals?
Viva the combo plate….
You have finally stooped to a new low OC Register. Get the facts before you print such lies. And Tedi, get out to a shelter, I dare you, I really do! Dr. Wheaton and Judie Mancuso: PLEASE keep up the GREAT work. Do not let this deter your mission in any way. We believe in you and so do the animals who have no voice. And the “PROBLEM” you idiots is that too many innocent animals die every day because of irresponsible pet owners. What is it going to take to get you to see this? I know! Go to the shelters, you uneducated WHIMPS!
To the folks upset over Alves’ letter: Everyone has his opinion, and we put it out there so you can conclude for yourselves what to make of the opposition to LW’s proposed law.
To the folks who say spay/neuter does nothing to impact intake and kill rates at shelters, I direct you to the Orange County Grand Jury’s recent report:
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/dogstudy/dog-study.pdf
Aren’t we tired as a society of using animal shelter euthanasia as a form of birth control? This is needed in our state and in many other states. Even Kern County voted yesterday to support this legislation by resolution. No opposition occurred from greeders (greedy breeders).
Spay neuter has worked in Santa Cruz County for the past 14 plus years and has reduced euthanasia over 70%. The Shelter that just opened here is one kennel smaller than the shelter it replaced.
Spay and neuter works. Spending millions of dollars to house and kill animals is no a laughing matter.
Lisa Carter
Executive Director
Santa Cruz SPCA
Not one person has offered any verified evidence that forced sterilization laws work because they can’t (as much as Judie Mancuso will try to con you into thinking that they can.) The irony is that both sides of this issue are committed to saving animals but the proponents of forced sterilization bills keep putting forward legislation that has been proven to NOT work and is usually totally counterproductive. They can’t be that stupid - what are their true motives?
We could do so much to stop the suffering and killing of animals if we would work together with programs that have been proven to be effective. Read Winograd!
Mandatory spay/neuter is part of the agenda of the hard core animal rights movement to eliminate all domestic animals. What we need is more low cost neuter and spay and good public education. The truth be known I work at a pet store, we rarely get a call from a breeder trying to sell us kittens but from the general public we get 5 to 10 calls a week wanting somewhere to drop off their unwanted litters. Their your problem folks. If people would quit sending money to PETA and HSUS that are purely political organizations and put it where the money really needs to be, at their local animal shelter maybe this world would truly be a better place. SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHELTERS!!!!!!!
DR WHEATON ROCKS!!!!!!
HE GIVES BACK TO SHELTER ANIMALS!!!
JUDIE MANCUSO HAS PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT SPAY AND NEUTER LAWS WORK! WHEN PEOPLE SAY IT FAILS, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? ASK SANTA CRUZ..CALL THERE! CALL PLACES THAT HAVE IT…IT WORKS! I HAVE CALLED FOR MYSELF AS I WAS WONDERING WHY YOU ALL FREAK OUT WHEN IT IS MENTIONED. HOW COME NONE OF THE BREEDERS POST AND GIVE OUT THEIR SELLER PERMIT NUMBERS? RESCUES ALWAYS LIST THEIR TAX EXEMPT ID…BREEDERS DO NOT! I AM LEARNING SO MUCH!
Ms. Carter,
During the AB1634 fight, an in depth analysis of the “statistics” that supposedly proved that the Santa Cruz forced sterilization legislation was effective was done by experts in the field of statistical analysis. It proved that the legislation was counterproductive for the reasons I stated above. It’s very complicated but all the information is here at :
http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/California_graphs.htm
And for the Budget,:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/Santa%20Cruz%20Budget%20Info%20with%201990_2006.pdf
And for shelter statistics: http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/BigLieGraphs.pdf
After the AB1634 fight, I’d hoped that we would find ourselves in a new era where we would together to implement programs that really work to save animals.
Yes, encouraging sterilization has resulted in the plummeting numbers of euthanasias EVERYWHERE over the last few decades but the key word is “encouraging”. Passing draconian laws does not work; they only severely and adversely affect the responsible breeders who want to stay legal. Education and outreach programs is what really works and will continue to work and at MUCH less expense than enforcing unenforceable laws.
To get to a personal note here, I am absolutely furious that, after devoting almost 2 years of my life to defeating AB1634, that I now have to do it all over again with SB250 and all the many locally proposed laws (which will NOT reduce euthanasias) in the absolute onslaught of anti-breeder legislation that is sweeping the country, most of it financed or promoted by the amazingly well-financed HSUS (The Humane Society of the United States) which, relying on name confusion, cons the public into thinking that their donations will go to help the sad-faced dogs and cats in their ads but HSUS does NOT support your local Humane Society which does good work but, instead, works small step by small step, to promote their fanatical vegan agenda.
I an so angry because I have devoted my life to animals. I have rescued and fostered many, many, many, many more animals than I have ever bred. I am furious because I will now have to curtail my rescue work to fight, yet again, the draconian laws that threaten the rare and ancient breed that I have raised for 40 years and which anti-breeder laws will doom.
There are ways we CAN stop the euthanasias without threatening good breeders. Read Winograd!
Geraldine Clarke
Balabar Salukis,
CAPLA,
Legislative Liaison for SPDBS
Mandatory spay/neuter is a not fringe -animal rights position. It is fiscally and morally responsible. Yes, there are risks when animals undergo anesthesia. Children die every year form immunizations, as well, but we do not stop immunizing children because the benefits far and away outweigh the risks, as it is with s/n. As for the “mutiliation” argument–well, that says alot more about the person making it than any insults I could level at them. When you are more emotionally connected to your animal’s genitals than they are, you need to take a serious look at yourself.
Judie Mancuso has been at the forefront of a movement that has been joined by many — she and the rest of us who believe as she does–are regular normal citizens who work, have families and friends, and love animals. No financial gain, no business transactions that involve animals, nor breeding and selling animals. These are not fringey people and to even use the word terrorist isunconscionable and libelous.
I can hardly believe that the paper would print that lunatic manifesto by the “well educated” Ms Alves…and all of you home buyers out there–would you want your deal to be brokered by a wacko like Ms Alves? I think not. Oh yeah, I have an MBA too, honey…and so do a million other people. So what?
Keep up the good work Judie! Everyone–spay and nueter your pet!
Did you know cats can catch and spread bird flu? It’s a scientific fact-hundreds of cats have died of bird flu-and it only takes a single migratory bird to set it off. Sick birds make easy prey. Rabies is on the rise (about 300 known cases a year in USA just for cats). Cats also spread FECAL and parasitic worms - they use children sand boxes for their litter box, which children play in. I guess nobody really cares about kids getting fecal diseases, rabies, and so forth, do they.
Breeders make thousands of dollars per dog-that’s what this is all about. It is the back yard breeders and puppy mills that oppose this.
As homeless animals rise (the ASPCA estimates over a million will be ejected on the streets this year due to the economy) it costs each state, yearly, anywhere from 40 million to SEVERAL HUNDRED million dollars a year to kill cats, dogs, puppies and kittens.
I find it strange we live in a society that prizes preserving the testicles of cats and dogs as a priority over the safety of community health, and the safety of children.
According to the CDC a dog is five times more likely to bite if it is not spayed or neutered.
Judging from the mentality of these breeder zealots-all the more reason to pass mandatory spay/neuter laws.
IF IT IS RIGHTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, based on this criteria, I should have the right to purchase online any animal I please-even exotic cockroaches and stick insects from India. We have laws to protect the community and society-I don’t order such exotic insects because it’s illegal. HOMELESS ANIMALS ARE JUST AS HARMFUL IF NOT MORE.
By the way-mandatory spay/neuter laws DO NOT reduce rabies vaccinations. People are keeping less pets-so less vet visits. They just throw them out on the streets and generally are not spay/neutered. And homeless animals NEVER get rabies vaccinations.
Homeless dogs form packs and can attack and kill children and other pets. But the breeder zealots don’t care about that. Seriously.
Gads … so many barking dogs. Perhaps the spay and neuter program should be extended to include some of these folks!
I happen to believe the proposed ordinance should be dropped in Laguna Woods. Community statistics just don’t support the claim that we have a problem.
Dr. Wheaton rocks. What Dr. Wheaton does is support the community by offering a low cost / full care spay and neuter clinic. He, his wife and team are awesome, caring individuals that go way above and beyond to help rescue groups and indiviuals prevent more animals from ending up in shelters. He does in many ways and often at his own cost. Not only does he offer his spays and neuters at low cost, he provides the appropriate before and after care including pain management-something most low cost services of this type do not provide. He refuses to offer lower quality with his lower cost.
Considering all of Teddi’s noted education, her letter leads me to believe it was obtained through correspondece school. Surely she can find better ways to illustrate her points than through the use of all capital letters. This is just the tip of the iceberg of indication of how off she is.
If the opponents are trully animal lovers than why don’t they put more effort and money in helping the Orange County supervisors find a way to build a new shelter to replace the 65 year old Orange county shelter for all the animals that are produced because of irresponsible breeding. I believe the only thing the opponents are concerned about is that they will be held accountable. If you are a responsible breeder, you should have no problem with a mandatory spay and neuter ordnance.
In terms of Veterinary Care, there is no shortage throughout CA of questionable veterinary practices; some keeping “banking hours,” and not 24 x 7 care even when animals may be recovering from surgical procedures and/or seriously ill. Responsible pet owners take care to scrutinize providers of care for pets that cannot talk, or complain!
Veterinary practices have burdens of insurance premiums, operating costs and those for rent/mortgage of space, as just a few. When going rates for larger dogs are in the range of $600 for hysterectomy and castration procedures, there is an economic comparison of the ordinary costs of surgery in terms of pre-op lab work-ups [usually over days to get those results], types and admistration of anesthesia, the management of surgery, recovery, and follow-up care. The numbers of veterinarians on staff, the numbers of Vet Techs, and administrative staff are other variables.
For those that think these procedures are casual, think again:
http://www.ab1634.com/
From the “to be expected rhants of the “AR” folk filling this space,” not one has mentioned quality of care and concerns thereof, and especially when these folk haven’t undertaken the research clearly invalidating claims being made. Government entities are embarking on revenue generation in terms of enforcement [job slots], fines and fees, and in Laguna Woods, jail sentences were under consideration [factor in lawyers].
Senate Bill #250 will require costs of “permits” to be allowed to protect pets from these surgical procedures; they can be revoked by the same “authorities,” and “appeals” will carry those costs. Judie Mancuso is behind this she was the failed AB #1634. State legistators have sophisticated staff; local venues do not; thus this tactical progression state and nationwide.
Most concerned pet owners attach the same responsibility for their care as they would for any other members of their families. This is not to say that there are not Very Socially Conscious medical providers that do participate in various and sundry organizations/programs and outright charitable treatment.
When “government” imposes a mandated surgical procedures and extends a “free/low cost voucher,” what is the remedy for deaths that occur in an environment that may sacrifice “quality of care?” Someone posted above that “people die” all the time. Most of us are not that casual about ourselves or families. Makes one wonder about the feigned “social conscience” of the AR extremists that is all about control and a misguided agenda..
Sterilizing all dogs and cats because *some* pet owners are irresponsible makes about as much sense as sterilizing all human beings because *some* parents are abusive/irresponsible. (PETA would probably go for that, too). Teri Sforza needs to go back to whichever tabloid the OC Register got her from, and the Register needs to hire a real journalist, who can present a story in at least a somewhat un-biased way. This isn’t news, it is tabloid sensationalism.
It is clear that everyone capable of reading a newspaper knows that Dr. Wheaten is well respected in the community and is a responsible veterinarian, and we should all thank him for his help. The fact remains that spay and neuter on a voluntary basis works, the numbers have declined since the passage of the Hayden Bill and as our communities have become enlightened. AGAIN, the fact is that the numbers of dogs and cats in the shelters is down (we undoubtably will see a temporary upsurge with the financial crisis we are in but this is not due to irresponsible pet ownership). With the passage of these laws we would lose funding for volunteer spay and neutering from groups such as Maddie’s Fund and Alley Cat Alliance which helps fund these projects. Also if the true numbers were up shelters would not be going to other counties and cities to get pets to fill their shelters with and we would not have the huge influx of RESCUES bringing in foreign dogs for adoption. There is a larger picture that needs to be looked at. Both sides of this argument love animals, so why this yelling and screaming? Or, is there another agenda? Please respect the rights of others! If your close neighbor is responsible (no dogs roaming) why do they need to spay and neuter on your timetable or at all? If your neighbor is not responsible we already have laws that dogs cannot roam or be off leash. We have good laws in place, help see that those are enforced and kindly help teach those that do not understand our ways and quit the nastiness. And if you still have time on your hands get off the computer and volunteer at your local shelter.
OC Voter contributed balance that has been lacking with regard to responsible management of family pets in accord with EXISTING LAWS and Regulations.
LA County and City rushed to implement MANDATORY CASTRATION/HYSTERECTOMY for ALL PETS as an EMERGENCY response to “strays,” seemingly mostly feral cats. Yet LA’s City Council makes haste to reinstate vouchers for low cost/free MANDATED CASTRATION/HYSTERECTOMY of pets that were just withdrawn due to “financial realities” of competing demands for scarce funds; these pitiful “distributions” had been in amounts of $30 and $70; OUCH! Anesthesia, pain medication, risk and complications? Follow up? One veterinary hospital had seen “a lot of feral cats,” and performs up to eight spay/neuters a day, the majority paid with coupons; will it be closing?. http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_11911041
Categorically unable to say NO to UNIONS, water bills have been increased for those of LA City and County [timing everything?], “just in case.”
STRIPPING BARE THIS HYPOCRISY IN THE LIGHT OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF PRIORITIES: there are only 10,000 billets in Skid Row , the other 100,000 or so homeless roam the streets seeking shelter in alleys, doorways, etc; thousands are without health care, including children; unemployment approaches 10%, not to harpe on the obscene compensation packages of LA City & County workers and those payrolls delivering 2% union dues/dollar funded by TAXPAYERS secruing those protected by unions and spared from lay-offs.
EMERGENCIES? It was news to me that bitches were fertile only fourteen days a year; AND “professional breeders” know it is not always “a take,” not to mention caring for the pregnancy, and birthing. 90% of families already confine their pets for their own safety in the first place and existing laws should be enforced.
STRIPPED BARE in the logical analysis of social and environmental “priorities,” this hysteria about “pet populations” is an attempt to MASK MOTIVATION when related funding would be more appropriate to address competing social catastrophe, such as families with children going hungry and in want of a decent quality of life, or even health care..
With human carnage of this economic Tsunami scattered throughout our society and defacing the “environment,” “social values” of “leadership” of LA County and City are clear in the full light of day. This when the lessons of Katrina were of families that stayed behind to see to care for their pets and many of them lost their own lives after struggling in conditions unimaginable. Lost dogs travel miles to find their families, suffering injuries, hunger, weather and stress in the process. As to “pain,” many dogs are rehabilitated after amputations of limbs; a horse was recently fitted with a prothesis for a leg, in which case, the veterinarian noted the inate ability of that animal to “care for itself,” know to balance correctly weight on the limbs. No doubt painful. To presume this cruelty to “animals” of these major surgeries has no impact is to be incredibly cruel and insensitive. In humans “phantom pain” is felt in a lost limb after an amputation. No so simple.
Curiously neither the Los Angeles Times nor OC Register provided more than a “item” in this regard, the latter reportedly having reducing its staff by 1,000 jobs to barely over 100 “performing.” This while the entire “industry” of “media” hasn’t seen the relationship of its failure to perform reflected in declining circulations because “the public” see no “value,” and advertisers see “no targets” to attract.
OCVoter said, “And if you still have time on your hands get off the computer and volunteer at your local shelter.”
I do exactly that. And after a few months of service, I have seen too many confused, scared animals spend a few weeks waiting to be adopted, only to be euthanized. I invite everyone to do exactly what OCVoter says. It’s an eye-opening experience and one that I suspect would sway a lot of opinions on this issue.
Ok I have a single BIG question for all these people who are against spay/neuter laws, and that BIG question is why are you against spaying and neutering pets if the pet owner has no intention of ever breeding the pet?
It is proven that spaying/neutering pets at a proper age actually increases the lifespan and overall health of the pet since it drastically reduces the chances of cancers, tumors and illnesses of the reproductive system.
For legitimate, tax-paying, responsible breeders there should be the option of paying a “breeding” licensing fee for these pets so that they are not forced to spay/neuter the pet until they have reached an age or point at which breeding is no longer possible.
If you adopt a pet from a shelter just about anywhere in the US you will be getting a pet that has been “fixed” but if you don’t intend to “show” or “breed” your pet there should be no reason to risk them accidentally breeding and bringing unwanted puppies or kittens into the world.
Being a responsible pet owner involves doing everything possible to protect your pet, provide the best possible healthcare for your pet and provide the safest, most loving and caring environment for your pet. In my eyes I only see that spaying/neutering is the responsible choice.
Perhaps if we leave the “option” of “recommended but not mandatory” spay/neutering on the books, do you now suggest that we heavily fine anyone who is so irresponsible as to allow their pet to breed unplanned? If that is the case then who will enforce THAT law and just how much of a stiff fine is appropriate?
If your pet gets pregnant you should take responsibility for those unwanted puppies/kittens just as much as you would if your underage child gets pregnant. Be responsible people and these laws won’t need to be put into place.
Chrisnoc might have endured the inconvenience of research into the topic of castration and hysterectomy of pets, much less that mandated by what we know is a bumbling and mumbling bureaucracy. Data updates. For one thing, castration is far more serious than people thinking of “vasectomy” realize when testicles producing tetesterone are removed. Similarly for females, also incontinence. Like hormonal issues. They exist for humans as well as pets. It is a very complex topic and those of us “into” caring for our pets are inherently prone to research and related statistics. Here is a link to Scientific/health issues that is valid and comprehensible research information as to those effects on pets, male/female/age/gender:/breed , and gives an idea why such determinations are the perogatives of owner in consultation with QUALITY VETERINARIAN CAREGIVERS: http://www.ab1634.com/#
Moreover, it is wise to invest in insurance to cover veterinary expense for care of pets, but as for “people,” investigate the companies.
Ooops! Something else to ponder. “The Birds and The Bees.”
Think “Silent Spring,” “Bees and Honey.” Yup! There is a crises in that “bees” have not been as “active” in production of honey and they are not polinating the gardens and trees as once they did. So “nuking” all pets would be that confrontation with biology and reproduction and end forever .. FAMILY PETS. This why there are “habitats,” and “protected species;.” so that birds and animals do not become extinct. Need we add “family pets?”
Of course my Homemaker doesn’t actually “talk,” but from his communications to date, he would not at all prefer to be “set free” from his comfortable life style, pampering, and gourmet sustenance. And he is just crazy about his veterinarian.
I would not live in a town with a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. I am certain that the value of homes in any community with such an ordinance are significantly lower than in cities where dog lovers do not have to fear their government.
Look at Los Angeles, the laughing stock of the country. Passed a MSN ordinance based on having funding available for low income residents to comply and then the city pulls the funding. Judie Mancuso is a nut job with 17 cats (all spayed and neutered I’m sure, but I’ll bet her house smells as bad as she does.) The euthanasia rates and impound rates have skyrocketed since L.A. passed the ordinance and the people who really need help to s/n their pets go underground and are afraid to take advantage of free and low cost clinics because they are afraid of repercussion. DO NOT PASS AN MSN IN YOUR AREA. Just check out the nationwide articles about this debaucle in L.A. send the links to your council.
i must say i am thoroughly disgusted that ANYone in the animal field: rescue groups, and especially veternarians would in any way oppose such an ordinance. These people must not be aware of the overwhelming pet overpopulation problem. Responsible rescue groups are overwhelmed and inundated trying to save countless lives from being euthanized at city and county shelters, these animals are the 100’s of unwanted and abandoned animals. If there was mandatory spaying and neutering we would see 1000’s less euthanized across California alone. The opponents of this ordinance must not spend 24 hrs of their day dealing with the onslaught of calls from people calling/emailing to dump or get rid of their unwanted pets they no longer want to keep, calling/emailing to find a place to take in an animal they “found” running loose in the streets that has been abandoned or is a stray after calling all the local shelters only to be told they are full and the animal will be put to sleep due to over crowding. I guess those opposed to this ordinance have never been to a city shelter on euthanisia day to see the 100’s of unwanted and unable to be rescued animals euthanized and thrown in barrels.
We need more people like Dr. Wheaton to speak out and show their support for this ordinance.
Please pass the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to support the health
and
welfare of hundreds of dogs and cats in Laguna Woods.
Many of the cats turned loose outside by residents or dumped have turned feral from being left
to fend for themselves for so long. Trapping these cats is difficult and time
consuming, and even when the Laguna Woods Cat Club has been asked to
assist,they cannot due to lack of manpower and resources (traps, food,
transportation,
etc.).
Irresponsible residents of Laguna Woods dump their cats outside or let
them roam outside without being spayed/neutered (some of the cats are even
declawed and
left defenseless).
Consequently, more and more litters are born outside
in the wild and no one takes responsibility for them.
The pet overpopulation problem is way way out of control and we ALL must do our part to stop the seneless number of animals that are put to sleep each day at local shelters because there are just not enough homes for them all.
This is not only cruel, neglectful and inhumane, it is completely
preventable.
Too many cats and dogs are sufferingand dying in shelters and on the
streets so please support a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance so that Laguna Woods
can be part of the solution and not the problem.
To suggest as some have here that there are no street animals in Laguna Woods shows a lack of vision. In January, I spent several nights on the Laguna Woods border. I was saddened by the number of cats and even a dog roaming late at night. The cats appeared to have once been pets, yet now were regressing to feral behaviors as they foraged for food. I looked to see were the nearest homes were located, and realized that the commercial/hospital area that I was adjacent too was not the original source of these homeless pets. The (former) pets most likely migrated directly across the street from Laguna Woods. I tried to coax each to help them, yet had no success. Clearly the City Councils of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills are not funding enough good programs like TAVA, TNRM, and spay subsidies.
Responsible breeders in the City of Laguna Woods are not the ones affected by this suggested ordinance. It clearly effects the pets of irresponsible people (breeders and other) that allow their intact pets to roam and increase the load on the shelter, taxpayers and the City.
As a former OC Register gold bag Honor Carrier (paper boy in my teenage years), I can only hope that Alves random ranting and erroneous letter did not add to the burden of weight that carriers had to deliver. It was not worth the electrons it took to upload it to this site.
It amazes me how the Puppy Mill$ and Breeder Extremist Lobbyists have trained what could otherwise be responsible breeders into attacking many of those who post on topics to help reduce California’s 425,000 shelter deaths to automatically label them as AR extremists and try to align them with PETA. The interest of most posters supporting this change is on helping reducing the deaths of local pets inside Orange County.
I recognize as we get older, that health problems like strokes, cause problems with keystrokes. However, even I realize some errors are Freudian slips. Take the Alves provided above example: ” THE BROWN ACT which compels PUBIC ACCESS”. This is cut and pasted from the letter above. Even the capital letters are not my emphasis.
Alves seems appalled that Laguna Woods has no interest in her ranting. She fails to recognize that Huntington Beach’s lack of responsible pet ownership keeps it amongst the top tier contributors to the large number of animals that arrive at OC Shelter. Laguna Woods should wisely look instead to the examples of a number of other South OC Cities that kill 10% to 25% of the animals per capita as Huntington Beach.
Alves letter does make one compelling argument for altering intact animals found roaming in Laguna Woods. Her description of the demographics, clearly shows a lack of families that could absorb infant pets and make a commitment to keep them for the life of the pet. Combining the average age of 78, provided by the reporter, and an average indoor feline life span of 14 to 16 years of age, there just are not that many homes in the community to absorb any significant number of infant felines and canines. As a senior, I appreciate the companionship and wisdom of adopting adult pets.
Riverside’s responsibility to meet 10 year old changes to California law, along with updated services requires a new facilities. It is not a diversion of $33 million from the Riverside Sheriff’s department. The spending requirement was overdue. The animal intake for Riverside County AC nearly doubled from 2006 to 2008, from approx. 24,518 to more than 46,714 (partial YTD figure), The number of euthanized pets grew by more than 52% in those two years. Growth from 13,996 to 21,348 (partial YTD figure). The only improvement came from increased cooperation with those outside of county government who help animals. Many are like the ones posting here in support of this ordinance.