- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Backyard breeders (trying to evade taxes) oppose spay/neuter laws, OC activist says
March 23rd, 2009, 2:56 pm · 27 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
Orange County’s Judie Mancuso, a force behind California’s Senate Bill 250, The Pet Responsibility Act, did not take kindly to being characterized as affiliating with fringe animal rights terrorists in a recent letter written by Teddi Alves, an anti-spay-neuter activist from Huntington Beach.
Mancuso, who favors spay/neuter laws such as the kind under consideration by Laguna Woods, provided these thoughts on the matter, which we found illuminating:
The debate over the Laguna Woods spay and neuter legislation should be a sensible discussion of facts and solutions. It is regrettable, therefore, that Teddi Alves, a Huntington Beach organizer who calls herself “a highly educated and sophisticated woman of substance,” resorts to insulting the citizens and government of Laguna Woods. Her letter maligns the Laguna Woods City Council as an “unsophisticated venue[]” and accuses City Manager Leslie Keane of having “ZERO sophistication,” even questioning Keane’s “level of education and certification.” And Laguna Woods citizens themselves, according to Ms. Alves, are “mostly seniors, 66 to 80% women, likely of the genre of the lower wage scales and Social Security benefits payable.”
These same disrespectful attitudes are reflected in the mean-spirited cartoons and flyers that have recently bombarded the area. The anonymous forces behind these flyers clearly assume that Laguna Woods residents are susceptible to unsubstantiated exaggeration, and unable to reach their own informed decisions. Not so. Laguna Woods residents are perfectly capable of understanding the facts behind the pending spay and neuter ordinance, which include these:
• Every year, more than half a million healthy dogs and cats are put to death in California shelters, simply for lack of space and resources to keep them. Even keeping these pets until they are killed costs Californians a whopping $250,000,000 per year. These numbers aren’t mere speculation; they come from the California Department of Public Health and estimates based on the experience of animal control around the state, as detailed on our website, www.YesOnSB250.com.
• A Zogby poll taken in January 2008 found that, even before learning the number of dogs and cats killed yearly, more than 65% of Californians supported the approach of curtailing the number of unwanted pets before they reached the shelters. Once the poll respondents were informed of the facts facing California pets, over 80% of poll respondents supported spay and neuter laws with sensible exceptions.
• Experience from other communities that have enacted spay and neuter laws over the past decade shows that such legislation is, indeed, effective. It works like this: As any pet owner/guardian will tell you, it is impossible to control the behavior of a dog or cat all the time, and dogs and cats are driven to mate. Once an animal is spayed or neutered, however, there is no chance that the animal will reproduce-which means fewer unwanted puppies and kittens, fewer pets entering the shelters at taxpayer expense, and a reduction in the need to kill healthy pets just because we don’t have space for them.
• It is already the law in Laguna Woods, as everywhere in California (part of the Vincent Law, passed in 1998), that dogs and cats adopted from shelters must be spayed or neutered. Like other local ordinances passed in California communities, the Laguna Woods spay and neuter proposed ordinance is a sensible extension of the Vincent Law to further improve the situation.
Those who oppose legislation to reduce the killing of healthy pets in California do not want to help animals, or even to respect the wishes of local citizens. Instead, they work on behalf of (1) backyard breeders who seek to evade taxes on their profits, and (2) a small percentage of the population that doesn’t want to fulfill the responsibilities of pet ownership. That’s just not fair to the rest of us who play by the rules.
I am happy to admit that I am more than just the President of Social Compassion in Legislation; I am a responsible pet owner myself. My husband and I, long-time residents of Orange County, share our home with cats and rabbits, all abandoned animals rescued from the streets. We comply with local permit requirements, and of course every one of our pets is spayed or neutered. Like our family, plenty of Laguna Woods residents cherish the companionship of one or more pets and want to see the fate of all dogs and cats improved. That is precisely the function of spay and neuter ordinances.
As referenced above, Social Compassion in Legislation, which is a registered non-profit organization, maintains a website with facts about reducing pet overpopulation through legislation. I invite any interested citizen to visit www.YesOnSB250.com and learn the facts.
Judie Mancuso, President
Social Compassion In Legislation (SCIL)
A 501(c)(4) non-profit organization focused on
reducing pet overpopulation through legislation.
www.SocialCompassion.org
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
27 Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow this blog: on 
I was one of the readers upset that the rambling and nonsensical letter from Teddi Alves was ever printed in the first place. I felt there might be something wrong with the author and that the newspaper was taking advantage of her by printing it for sensational reasons.
But I must applaud this response from Judie Mancuso, it is a rational response to those underground breeders fighting so hard to keep their “business” a secret. Bravo Judie!
I disagee with this statement from Judie Mancuso: “As any pet owner/guardian will tell you, it is impossible to control the behavior of a dog or cat all the time . . .” My dog and 2 cats live inside. I take my dog for walks on his leash, and when I’m not home he is crated. He is microchipped, has been trained in agility, and is trained and registered as a therapy dog. I have chosen NOT to get him neutered because, as I also work in the animal health care field, I know that unneutered males are IN GENERAL healthier than neutered males. No need to answer me with all the PR statistics - I’ve been doing this for 33 years. My 2 cats have lived indoors their whole lives and are actually afraid to go outside - they’ve been fixed to prevent spraying inside. This proposed legislation is mainly for irresponsible pet owners who don’t take such diligent care of their animals as I do.
Perhaps the proposed legislation should be: Dog owners shall be required to have their dogs earn an obedience certificate (some forum that shows interaction with their pet) or else get their dog spayed/neutered. If someone REALLY loves their dog and does not want them fixed, then they can work with them to earn an obedience title, therapy dog, etc. This will show that they are responsible pet owners; these responsible pet owners do not let their dogs run loose in the streets.
My dog has never used for breeding and never will. I’ve also never bred ANY litter of puppies or kittens.
Everyone acknowledges that there is a pet overpopulation problem. Most everyone from “activists” to the American Kennel Club (AKC) also acknowledges that spay and neuter is a vital part of the solution.
On another note:
It’s interesting that the user agreement that I must follow to leave this comment, #2 says: “No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.” Who will enforce this user agreement when it comes the personal attacks of Teddi Alves calling Ms. Mancuso a “fringe animal rights terrorist”? Did Teddi Alves not read the agreement?
Why does one even give this Teri any credence and listen to her or read her stuff? It’s obviously a special interest Agenda item.
Well said Ms. Mancuso, clearly the educated and articulate one.
The anti-spay/neuter forces claim that this bill “wants to end pet ownership in California.” It’s hard to believe that anyone who can read would believe this ridiculous claim but they do because they are uneducated about the facts.
Why would people who love animals, have several of their own and in a lot of cases have lived with animals their whole lives, work to pass legislation that would ban them from having pets?
It makes absolutely no sense for opponents of the bill to make that claim yet they did it with AB1634 and they’re trotting out the same nonsense again. Why? Because scare tactics work with people who don’t make the effort to look beyond the hyperbole. Tragically for the animals, that applies to most people.
Very well said, Judie, and thank you for your article. Like Melanie M, I too was surprised and dismayed that Ms Alvez’ letter was printed, considering its inflammatory tone, libelous claims, and . Reasonable people agree that control of pet populations is most effectively and most humanely achieved with preventative measures.
Thanks to Judie and all the other people who volunteer their time and give their money to improve the lot of animals.
Dumb argument. If someone is already evading taxes, why would they care about spay/neuter laws. Stupid, stupid pet eugenists…
Thank you so much for taking a stand on this important issue and
discussing the facts unlike the opposition which seems inclined to only attack with nasty names and here-say. I have had shelter and rescue animals all my life and worked and volunteered in shelters over the years as well. Every time I see the poor faces of these animals that are on “death row” for simply being born it tears my heart out. Now after hearing of the abominable conditions that many so-called “breeders” force their animals to live in I am enraged that these people consider themselves to be civilized.
I know there are reputable breeders that do fulfill a need because I have friends with show dogs and those animals live better than many people do so they are not the culprits. However usually the people that yell the loudest have the least justification for doing so and are in fact the evil-doers.
Animals mate instinctively, not because it is pleasurable. Animals don’t mate to have little ones around to play ball with and further their
name-sake or to look after them in their old age. Animals mate due to genetic programming telling them to do so. The most unethical of breeders will breed a poor animal literally to death /or until offspring are incredibly unhealthly with horrible defects from overbreeding.
A close friend took in 3 cats that had been dumped at a local shelter.
There were 2 adult females and a very young female kitten. They were dumped in the middle of the night in a cardboard uhaul box that was taped shut with no air-holes for them to get fresh air.
The kitten was the last offspring of one of the other females and was
missing one eye, was malnourished and according to the vet had significant defects so it wouldn’t survive more than a few days at best. The female mother cat was bleeding heavily after just giving birth and barely survived. The vet immediately gave the mother a hysterectomy and said she had been forced to be constantly pregnant based on how badly her ovaries were destroyed (looked like swiss cheese) and burn marks on the cats hind quarters. The burn marks indicated the breeder used a cattle prod to zap and paralyze the female so the male could do his stud work immediately.
These were beautiful persian cats that obviously could be sold for a handsome price yet they were treated with absolutely no love or concern at all. With a great deal of love and care all 3 cats are still living which is a complete miracle. Because the adult cats were kept so deprived of human contact they are still very nervous but slowly acclimating to my friend’s love and care.
If you purchase an animal from a breeder or from any pet store please take the time to demand full information on the treatment of the animal as well as the treatment of the parents your pet. Never blindly purchase a puppy or animal without this information and preferably you should visit the breeder’s facility and meet personally with the parents to see their behavior as it will be directly reflected in the behavior of the pet you are about to take home for life (hopefully).
shut them down
Notice that Judie doesn’t deny the allegations and instead attacks the messenger.
What she also doesn’t say is that she was a driving force behind the Huntington Beach MSN bill that was soundly trashed last year, as well as the infamous AB1634 that was amended 12 times in desperate attempts to pass it, which led to its crushing defeat as well as the end of Lloyd Levine’s political career.
She also doesn’t say that she got her man Drusys to scam the Riverside Board of Supervisors into taking $33M from the jail construction fund to build an animal shelter, and then bussed in out-of-county people to push MSN in Riverside County. You got it, she chooses carpetbagging and obsessing over mutilating animals over locking up criminals.
Judie Mancuso is best ignored, because her agenda is radical crazy in the extreme, un-American, and in general unacceptable to law-abiding citizens and per-owners everywhere.
Judie, Judie, Judie… We ALL believe in VOLUNTARY spay/neuter of pets. In fact in a study done by Alley Cat Allied (a shelter group who OPPOSES MANDATORY spay/neuter, imagine that) it was found that over 90% of OWNED cats are just like yours… spayed and neutered… showing that owners of cats are indeed in the main… Responsible. And do “play by the rules”… whatever that means…Most cats that are picked up are FERAL cats with no owners… hard to be a tax cheat there.. I have yet to see a cat file a tax return.
As for owned dogs… well it is very funny to see people like you and others say that pets are “driven to mate’ and that it is “impossible to control your pet ALL OF THE TIME”… what? Do you imagine dogs slyly tricking their owners (not guardians) to look aways so they can sneak out to mate… maybe a teenager… but not a dog… a leash works very nicely to control dog populations? And enforcement of these laws is crucial.
Your assessment of the majority of dog and cat owners is that they are not very smart and need “taking care of” by passing laws that turn ordinary citizens into criminals, charging them with misdemeanors and fining them. I give them more credit. The shelter numbers in Ca have been DROPPING for the last 20 years… Are we perfect… no not yet…but education is working… maybe not fast enough for you and yours but it is working. In my town the local shelter is booked up 6 WEEKS in advance for low cost spay/neuter. People are calling and booking appointments without mandatory laws.
And NO, mandatory spay/castrate laws have NEVER worked anywhere… I suppose you will use the old saw Santa Cruz… where indeed number did go own when mandatory spay/castrate went on the books… however as you often fail to point out… in the neighboring county shelters numbers dropped even MORE that Santa Cruz without criminal laws against owners of pets.
Jails are full to capacity. Crime is the biggest money maker in CA…Do we really need more criminals…?
the mandatory spay/neuter bill ( Ab 1634) was dropped like a hot rock last year by our legislators and Lloyd Levine the handmaiden who carried the bill was soon no longer a member of the esteemed group.
Laguna Woods ahs NO animal control problem…NONE… but they seem like a nice group who want to do the right thing… that would be to continue to EDUCATE their citizens about the benefits of spay/neuter.. But not FORCE them by law to make a medical decision about their pets. Pets do die during surgery… or were you not aware of that? Decisions regarding an animal’s care should be left up to the veterinarians and the owners, not up to Judie Mancuso and Animal Rights zealots.
No on SB 250
Judie, Judie, I read where you got your idea to pass these laws from your trip to help in Hurricane Katrina. IF true, why didn’t someone explain to you that the demographics of Orange County is different than New Orleans as is most of California. We are law abiding citizens here and we do not believe in any government mandating what we are already doing. If you read this blog or your friends do, then what do you think of the thousands of dogs that are rescued from 3rd world countries and brought here to further increase our pet population and expose us to diseases? (Yes, rabies is being brought in via these animals, see the reports from CDC) Obviously you are blind to the fact that your neighbors are responsible pet owners. Here in Laguna Beach we have a wonderful public shelter, probably the best in Orange County. The manager here in Laguna Beach should be on the advisory board of other shelters she is doing such a great job.
I am outraged by the numerous false statements Ms. Mancuso made in this article in reference to Ms. Alves. If Ms. Mancuso is so desperately concerned about the welfare and well being of animals, why doesn’t she devote her energy to that, instead of personal attacks on Teddi Alves? This article is offensive and full of inaccuracies. Why such a protest and so much upset about someone having a difference of opinion with Ms. Mancuso, tens of thousands of people disagree with Ms. Mancuso on this heated issue, why is Teddi Alves being signaled out?
What a shame, all that good press and yet the PR is not used to help or assist animals that are in need in anyway. Legislation will not protect or serve any animal in ones private home; to think otherwise is beyond ignorant. There are issues that the government can’t mandate without taking individual freedoms from their constituents and does not have the manpower or budget to enforce. What is the true agenda here, because it is clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that it has nothing to do with the health and well being of animals living within these communities? How about keeping informed on the acts of all “supposed well meaning animal rights groups” http://www.petakillsanimals.com appears to me that several of those agencies are doing more harm than good. The focus of this article is completely off topic and the message is misdirected yet again.
NO on SB 250
FULL DISCLOSURE: THE OC REGISTER paring staff … AGAIN .. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, “journalism.” Perhaps the publisher, and managing editors of this myopic operation fail to see “relationships” to their “bottom line?” In this masterful presentation it is curious how it was “crafted:”
A. Orange County’s Judie Mancuso, a force behind California’s Senate Bill 250, The Pet Responsibility Act, [which MANDATES CASTRATION AND HYSTERECTOMY OF PETS] did not take kindly to being characterized as affiliating with fringe animal rights terrorists in a recent letter written by “an anti-spay-neuter activist ” [without distinction of MANDATORY vs VOLUNTARY]..
B. Mancuso, who favors spay/neuter laws “such as the kind under consideration by Laguna Woods,” [which is MANDATORY vs VOLUNTARY] provided these thoughts on the matter, which we found illuminating [this kind of "illumination" is behind the great cascade of what could have been a performing and enlightening instrument of "public information and education]. Such packaging of such destructive and harmful public policy would be acceptable as a “paid advertisement/promotion” labeled accordingly. But for “subscription price” for such garbage?
So what’s the problem, a mandatory spay/neuter law unless you have a breeders license? So what?
To get into a lather about who’s rights are affected is just silly. C’mon, spay your pets. If you want to breed, then get a license and sell your show dogs with valid papers.
“So what’s the problem…? So what? ” …”If you want to breed, then get a license and sell your show dogs with valid papers.”
Well let’s see, first there is no such thing as a breeder’s license here in OC. I am a little guy. I have three champion show dogs that live in my house with me. They are all intact, but do not make their own breeding decisions. When I decide to have puppies, I will keep one for showing and sell the rest to friends (to show as well) to help offset the costs (It is very expensive to do it right).
Judy Mancuso is the Animal Rights point person on mandatory pet sterilization in California. SB250 has no provisions for breeders or show dogs or cats; it targets all dogs & cats NO EXCEPTIONS. If MSN is successful the “problem” will go away, and so will all the animals. This is the REAL AR agenda. Empty the shelters, empty the back yards and empty the houses of any and all animals. The AR coalition has learned they can’t change the world to their vision all at once. So they chip away piece by piece like water dripping on a stone. People who wish to have animals as part of their lives must resist every intrusion.
So I have one pet and I don’t want to castrate him, he doesn’t reproduce, never has, never will. I am a responsible taxpaying voter and they are trying to stick this to me. I”ll soon be a senior citizen and still won’t get a licensing break……….. sounds like discrimination to me. Sounds like someone doesn’t think a senior capable of controling their dog…….. so no licensing break but if he was neutered, I get a break. Thankfully they are NOT sticking it to me for the cat, which is neutered BECAUSE he would behave differently than my dog does. WHY Not make those CAT owners in Laguna Woods license their cats? Did I read that if neutered those cats can roam but their dogs can’t even if neutered? Sounds like a double standard to me. I don’t make money off my dog or my cat they are pets. So where does that put me? I’ll tell you, someone who is going to be further harrassed by the likes of people like the now infamous 4.
I am vehemently opposed to any proposed program that would make it mandatory to spay, neuter and microchip animals. If such a law is passed, as a responsible pet owner, I will be the one that is targeted and penalized. I already pay double the licensing fees for my intact animals and I have already neutered the animals that I do not intend to breed. Am I to be penalized because I comply with existing laws in order to subsidize those that don’t comply?
While the intent of the Laguna Hills ordinance and SB 250 is apparently to reduce the number of dogs and cats in California animal shelters (which is an admirable goal), this bill will not accomplish that goal. It will, however, severely impact responsible breeders of purebred animals in the state of California. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are an ineffective solution to animal control problems because they fail to address the heart of the issue – irresponsible ownership. Such laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can easily be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing or even vaccinating their pets.
The idea is to produce less unwanted animals and, therefore, less euthanizing and, therefore, more cost savings to society. Santa Cruz historically has been pointed out as a successful example. The fact of the matter is that such laws do not accomplish less euthanizing or more cost savings. Santa Cruz had and still has a significantly higher rate of dog impounds per 100,000 people than its surrounding counties. In 1995, when the Santa Cruz mandatory spay/neuter law went into effect, the number of dog impounds per 100,000 people was roughly 1200. This number immediately increased after the passage of the law to approximately 1800 dog impounds per 100,000 people in 1997. Currently, Santa Cruz is still significantly higher than Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, with an impound rate of about 1000 dogs per 100,000 people, while the other counties are less than 500.
Around the country where mandatory spay/neuter laws have been implemented, these laws are being abandoned or repealed because they are abysmal failures. The fact that the dog intake rate in Santa Cruz virtually doubled after the passage of its mandatory spay/neuter law speaks directly to this. In Kings County, Washington, after passage of its mandatory spay/neuter and restrictive breeding laws, animal control expenses increased 56.8%. License compliance decreased. Montgomery County, MD rescinded its breeding licensing ordinances after the Office of Legislative Oversight pronounced it a failure in the stated objective of increasing spay/neuter procedures and blamed them as a direct cause of a 50% drop in licensing compliance. Fort Worth, TX ended its spay/neuter differential program for similar reasons and because there was a reduction in rabies vaccinations which led to an increase in rabies in the city.
Laws like the Laguna Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance and SB 250 actually kill animals. In the year since Los Angeles passed a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, euthanasia in their city animal shelters have skyrocketed by 30%. This reversed many years of steady progress to reduce the killing of healthy adoptable pets in Los Angeles. Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws would similarly reverse a 25-year steady decrease in animal shelter euthanasia that has occurred statewide in California. In every jurisdiction where they have been implemented, mandatory spay/neuter laws have failed. There is not a single example of success for these measures.
Mandatory neuter/spay laws are based on the misconception that intended breeding is the cause of shelter euthanasia, but the reverse is true. Pets from the best breeders are the least likely to be found among shelter intakes because contracts requiring the return of no longer wanted animals are the norm in this group. Additionally, potential puppy buyers are carefully interviewed and screened, and the breeders follow up with the buyer after the puppy has been taken to its new home to make sure that questions are answered, training is encouraged and that the dog is being properly cared for.
If the breeder is so strongly discouraged from breeding, animals will come into the state from other sources. We already see the puppies in pet stores that are from the puppy mills of the Mid-West where the animals are in conditions that are violations of the animal cruelty laws. Animals are being smuggled in from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Asia, where there is no regard for the health conditions of the animals. There are step van than looks like a catering truck with menus of puppies for sale driving around Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
Those that are involved in animal rescue at shelters who support a mandatory spay/neuter law provide heart-wrenching emotional appeals. They describe the death throes of a euthanized animal as something akin to the slow torture of a horror film. They state that no animal should be euthanized. Instead, their solution to the perceived problem is to create the opposite scenario that no animal should be born.
We only need to examine recent history to see where such laws have been passed and their effect . Just prior to World War II, the Nazi Germans passed similar laws to rid the country of its pets in its initial efforts to strip the citizenry of all rights. Are we to follow that same path?
Proponents of mandatory spay/neuter legislation presume that pets end up in animal shelters because of pet overpopulation and that mandated sterilization will end the problem. Facts show that many animals in shelters today are already neutered and are taken to shelters because of behavior issues, poor breed choices, job or housing problems, illness or old age. These issues will not be resolved by mandatory spay/neuter legislation. A better solution is to work with responsible breeders to improve public education and thereby reduce the number of unwanted pets.
As a responsible breeder and owner/handler of champion Irish Terriers, I find proposed MSN legislation to be ill-conceived and a direct violation of my right to determine what I deem best for my beloved animals. It punishes citizens like me with government-mandated surgery for our pets based upon a wide range of infractions that have nothing to do with the intact status of our animals and which infractions will not be mitigated by government-mandated surgery.
Many of the people who would be affected by Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws are the very people who, at no taxpayer expense, currently rescue and re-home shelter dogs and cats, educate the public about responsible pet ownership, give low-cost dog training classes, fund microchip and spay/neuter clinics, etc. The cost of these free services would amount to additional millions of dollars if they had to be replaced by governmental agencies.
Finally, I must speak to my rights as a property owner. I own my dogs. Under the laws of California, they are my property. So long as I am in compliance with the current laws, no city, county, state or federal government has the right to dictate what I do with my personal property. This is my decision and my Constitutional right. The proposed mandatory spay/neuter laws do nothing but discourage the law abiding citizen and ignores those who do not follow existing laws. I believe that my tax dollars can better be spent enforcing the laws already in existence and educating the public rather than targeting the responsible pet owner.
I support voluntary NO-FEE spay and neuter programs (I have and will donate to them). Our government would waste so much money tracking down and fining offenders of a mandatory spay and neuter program that it would be more beneficial to set aside funds to pay for local no-cost to owner spay and neuter programs funded by the local or state government. The reason is in the long run, they are the least costly and most effective overall. If you crunch the $$ numbers, it truly is CHEAPER. I have two large dogs and they are both fixed, paid out of my pocket (found one of them on the street after a car hit her, and she now has 3 legs, but that’s another story about a great dog named Kiki!). And I have donated at least enough for two others to be fixed that aren’t mine.
Setting some facts straight ===>
The myth ===> “Mandatory neuter/spay laws are based on the misconception that intended breeding is the cause of shelter euthanasia, but the reverse is true.”
The proposed Laguna Wood’s ordinance is specifically based on “unintended” breeding. Animals would need to be picked up “off property - off leash” to be affected.
The proposed ordinance does not ignore the pets of irresponsible owners.
We constantly hear those outside of OC state that rescue dogs are being imported from those born outside the country. I challenge those making the claims above to name one non profit rescue group in Orange County, California that is knowingly taking that action. Due to much lower acquisition fees, some non profits stretch their donations and draw from other local California counties, like Riverside and LA County, OC Supervisors could easily reverse much of that trend by reducing the fees to non-profit Rescues to match the other counties and then billing the contracted Cities for the difference. The high fees at OCAS are a detriment to the animals finding homes. City Councils of contracted cities should insist that they be reduced to help more of their city’s animals find homes.
There is no supporting evidence that shows recent Los Angeles increase in intake/euthanasia is related to their modified alter bill, versus the same growth trend other shelters show in this years economy.
It is false that intake and euthanasia rates are going down everywhere. OC Register previously reported that OC expects significant increases in both categories. It could be as high as 75% kill rate for felines. Look at the horrendous growth in the Riverside numbers below.
Riverside’s responsibility to meet 10 year old changes to California law, along with updated services requires 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 the proposed Laguna Woods ordinance.
My grandmother gets joy out of having a dog, but if ordinances like this abound, old people will not have dogs and the blind will be falling down in the streets without guides.
Strays have never been a problem in Laguna Woods. What is a problem is people trying to eliminate dogs so that old people and people in need of guide dogs won’t have them. It takes YEARS to get a guide dog because there aren’t any around. With laws like this, you will have to ask for a guide dog ten years before you need one.
This is an offense against dog lovers, against the elderly and against the disabled. It shows the lack of empathy in our society.
Should your Grandmother like to add another dog to her life, I suggest trying the Orange County Shelter that services the strays of Laguna Woods and 18 other OC Cities. There she will find a wide selection. In 2007/2008 14,642 dogs and cats were killed because there were not enough available homes. This year, that number is sadly expected to be even higher.
This ordinance does not threaten seeing eye dogs. Guide Dogs For the Blind breed their own dogs, primarily for disposition and the ability to carry out their needed tasks. This wonderful organization also has no age discrimination. From their web site “Unlike some schools that cut off applications for people who are 75 or older, Guide Dogs for the Blind has no upper age limit. Each applicant is given full consideration based on mobility, need and specific circumstances.”
Some of those posting above, without vision impairments have observed strays in Laguna Woods in the evenings and nights.
Spaying/Neutering a living creature is cruel. No animal should have to be forcefully mutilated. The abiblity to reach sexual maturity is a god given right. Reproduction is the most natural drive in a creature’s life. They are not robots they are alive.
Overpopulation is a legitimate concern for all animal lovers. However, instead of prescribing this barbaric mutilation to the pets your love, how about spending the energy thinking of more creative solutions. Banning the sale of cats and dogs would be a start. Just as a human life should not be for sale or barter, dogs and cats lives should not be a legitimate industry. Instead of unnatural breeding pets should be adopted from those births that occur naturally.
Secondly, we humans faced the same problem. Instead of going around to overpopulated areas and forcefully neutering humans, we are trying to promote less barbaric means of birth control. Obviously having your dog walk around with a condom on is ridiculous, but how about other forms of hormonal birth control? Human women can get a shot every 3 months rather than have her tubes tied. Wouldn’t a similar option for owners who care about their pets without wanting to hurt them be possible? There is even a human shot being developed for males, I’m sure with proper research the same can be done for pets.
Give your animals the ability to develop as nature intended, despite what peta tells you, they will lead happy lives, and no they will not all go on reproductive rampages, my dog and other friends’ dogs are proof of this. Let’s end the war on your pets’ reproductive organs and begin to think of more creative and humane ways to deal with the problem.
Did you know virtually all cats six years and older that have not been spayed WILL get malignant breast cancer. Most unneutered dogs and cats eventually get malignant prostate cancers.
Breast, uterine, prostate cancers prevented with spay/neutering:
http://pets.webmd.com/cats/infection-tumors-breast-cancer-cats
“Breast cancer is rare among spayed females, especially those neutered before their first heat cycle. Early spaying reduces the risk factors sevenfold. Breast tumors occur frequently in unspayed cats. Eighty percent are malignant (adenocarcinoma). The rest are benign adenomas. Breast cancer is the third most common cancer in cats. Most affected cats are unspayed females over 6 years old.”
Dogs also suffer breast cancers; male cats and dogs also suffer reproductive cancers which neutering prevents drastically.
I think it’s cruel not to spay/neuter your pet because they go into agony when the go in heat not to mention birthing-only humans have sexual hang ups, not pets.