- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
No-puppy-mill and spay-neuter bills progress in Sacramento
June 2nd, 2009, 4:00 am · 28 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
(Update: The spay/neuter bill has its last vote in the Senate today. Supporters and critics alike are being urged to contact their legislators.)
Could 2009 be the year that California cracks down on wayward puppy mills and stray beasties who roam the streets, reproducing willy-nilly?
It’s been so quiet as these two (controversial?) bills progress through the Legislature that one might, indeed, believe they could pass. (I mean, California did just become the first state to require that chickens have enough elbow-room in their cages….)
First, a primer:
- The Puppy Mill bill (otherwise known as Assembly Bill 241, The Responsible Breeder Act of 2009, by Assemblyman Pedro Nava) requires a definition: ”Puppy mills are large-scale breeding facilities that mass-produce puppies for sale. Puppy mills commonly house animals in overcrowded, filthy, and inhumane conditions with inadequate shelter and care,” the bill’s web site says. This bill wo
uld limit the number of “intact” cats or dogs a seller can maintain to 50. (Supporters say it won’t impact animal shelters, research facilities, pet stores, veterinarians, groomers or boarding facilities.) It’s a rather difficult bill to vote against - and similar legislation limiting the number of dogs in puppy mills was passed last year in Louisiana and Virginia. If it can make it there …. - The Snip-the-Roamers bill (otherwise known as Senate Bill 250, The Pet Responsibility Act, Senator Dean Florez) targets “irresponsible pet owners,” supporters say, and is a bit like the spay/neuter law that Laguna Woods recently passed. “The bill simply requires that dogs be spayed or neutered unless their owner/guardian obtains an unaltered dog license when they license their animal,” its web site says. However, cats and dogs that roam would have to get their reproductive parts disabled.So, if you are a “responsible” pet owner and your beast stays indoors, it wouldn’t have to be fixed. But if intact cats or dogs are impounded by local animal control, owners would be required to have the animals spayed or neutered, and to provide proof. Owners might get several chances; that would be up to local animal control.
Orange County’s own Judie Mancuso (above right) - about whom our colleague Lori Basheda asked, “How does a pork chop-eating, nightclub-dancing Sicilian from St. Louis become a vegan animal rescuer who is n
ow the driving force behind an impassioned campaign to curb pet overpopulation in California?” - is working like crazy to get these two bills passed.
Mancuso, you may recall, was the driving force behind the mandatory spay-neuter bill that came close, but no cigar, in the Legislature over the last couple of years.
“This is a very very different bill,” Mancuso says. “That’s one thing we want people to understand and look at. Don’t be bringing everything from last time around. The complaint then was, ‘This targets everyone. Why not just target the irresponsible pet owners?’ And that’s what we’ve done this time. And that’s why we’re hearing less opposition.”
This is a critical week for the legislation: The spay/neuter bill must be voted on in the Senate by Friday; and after that, the puppy mill bill goes to the Senate as well. Mancuso will be spending a lot of time in Sacramento this week as the system works its peculiar magic.
The opposition is mobilizing. The American Kennel Club is against the spay/neuter bill, and so is Save Our Dogs, both asking members to call, fax and email Legislators to register their opposition. ”One misstep and for the rest of your life, your dogs are subject to mandatory spay/neuter at the whims of your local animal control agency,” says SOD’s analysis. “Get cited for a barking dog, even if you were out of town and the dog was with you, then for the rest of your life, at any time, AC can swoop in and force you to spay/neuter your dogs.”
It could be hard for legislators to wind up on the wrong side of the puppy-mill bill - who wants to be seen as anti-puppy? - but Mancuso knows the spay-neuter fight is, again, going to be a tough one.
As we’ve noted before, people get funny about the long arm of the law reaching toward their pets’ reproductive tracts. But spend some time in the back rooms at the Orange County animal shelter - where half of the animals taken in wind up on the euthanasia table, and then in the rendering vats, and then in protein meal - and one might reconsider.
Could this be the year Sisyphus rolls the rock all the way up, and over, the hill? We’ll see.
More Watchdog on dogs (and cats):
- Killing up, adoptions down, at county shelter
- Cat’s meow: About three of every four don’t leave shelter alive
- A dog’s life? Pooch’s chance of survival slips at county shelter
- No mandatory spay/neuter law for OC pets
- Stop the killing! A no-nanny approach OC can emulate
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain. Mmmm.
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain, part two
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain, part three
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain, part four
More Watchdog on other stuff:
- Millions misspent by state insurance agency, and nobody cares, OC attorney says
- Brown sues to shut down five O.C. charities
- Management company calls us names, defends ‘mystery’ incentive program
- Maddening DMV glitch fixed, state says - but it’s too late for Irvine man
- Addiction center suffers from flawed state investigation, attorney says
- Irvine will spend $275,000 to expand vintage aircraft collection
- Mystery incentive program cost Laguna Woods Village seniors $5.4 million
- San Onofre performance will improve, officials vow
- Wow! Cost of mothballing nuclear reactor rivals cost of building it
- Bad timing: State slices program that helps schools slice costs
- Conflict? Councilwoman backs $24 million tax break for upscale hotel near her upscale bar
- Sweetheart deal for company headed by former Caltrans official?
- Push for more local water leads to hefty $204,000 fine. Unfair?
- State water board will think harder about $204,000 fine
- Former Anaheim city manager hits jackpot with pension
- “Free” credit report costs Orange woman $832
- Retired Vernon official collects a $500K pension–while under indictment
- Did fired OC air marshal endanger flying public, or protect it?
- How did consultant’s $15 million job morph into $126 million job?
- Torture memo’s author may face discipline from state bar
- Kills double at OC’s largest “pro-humane” animal shelter
- Former Garden Grove police chief gets house arrest for embezzlement
- As San Onofre struggles with errors, NRC scrutiny picks up
- Oops. State employees wasted millions, auditor says
- Laguna Woods approves OC’s first mandatory spay-neuter law
- State considers ban on big screen TVs
28 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Follow this blog:
-
More from OC Watchdog reports-
ADVERTISEMENT
You can follow this blog: on 
Replace “pets” with “welfare mothers” and you
have my vote. Uncontrolled human breeding
is far worse (for the people and environment) than pets. An a birth control implant is
reversable.
I agree with you on the “welfare mothers” but I would still like to controll the puppy mills and irresponsible pet owners.
Laws already exist for that and aren’t being enforces because the funds aren’t there, since they went to Prop 98, illegal alien welfare, and other Utopifornian boondoggles.
And define “irresponsible pet owner” vs. “responsible pet owner who has had a bad thing happen”. SB250 makes no distinction, and to the Animal Rights whackos and terrorists like Judie Mancusco, the PETArds, and the ALF, there is no difference. Yet there is, but most legislators who drink the AR Kool-Aid are far too stupid to understand it and should not be in office anyway.
I am so glad to hear this. It is about time!
They are punishing already responsible pet owners with SB 250. How will SB 250 actually cut down on irresponsible pet owners? They can’t even enforce the no cell phone policy when driving so how are they going to manage this?
At least they seem to be doing something about the puppy mills, but animals from mills typically come from the Mid West, not California.
Spay strays and welfare moms, I like that. How about spaying politicians so that they don’t begat more spendthriff mutts!
If I was a puppy I’d be scared to death of the state and city government. If I was lost from my owner, I might survive on scraps of food in trash bins and passing strangers. However if I was picked up by animal control officers, there’s a chance they’d kill me at the shelter.
Puppy or human, both should be scared of the government!
But really, the government should be scared of us instead. Only than will we get our republic back.
Animals are the most vulnerable beings on earth. They give nothing but unconditional love and don’t have a bad bone in their furry little bodies. They have INCREDIBLE insight and feel not only physical, but also emotional pain of humans. Their love has been proven to be hugely therapeutic in a wide range of human emotional anomalies, and this love has miraculously broken through emotional barriers in humans when all alternative attempts have been exhausted and all hope seemed lost. I can’t believe that laws are so lax in protecting them. This needs to change. Animals bring light to our stressful lives. Loving animals makes us better people. Every single animal deserves to be loved and protected. THEY HAVE NO VOICE, SO WE MUST BE THE VOICE FOR THESE ULTIMATELY VULNERABLE FUR ANGELS WHO GIVE US NOTHING BUT SHEER HAPPINESS AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.
I agree completely, and that’s why these pet bills are the wrong answer. There are plenty of cruelty and neglect bills out there that are simply not enforced, and the issue of shelter overpopulation is solved by no-kill and proper management, both of which are severely lacking. Better pet ownershsip is accomplished by education and working with owners, as is done in Calgary, for example, instead of penalizing them, as seems to be the norm and the agenda being pushed by the Animal Rights whackos.
There are better ways to do this. Judie Mancusco and her ilk are not among those better ways. Too bad the OC Register can’t get a staff writer that understands that.
Thank you again Teri Sforza for pursuing this issue and letting us know what is happening. SB 250 has now passed the State Senate and is awaiting signing by the Governor. In this horrible economy it will save the State of CA. more than $250 million a year. There is no impact on Responsible pet Owners from this bill and we have all had more than enough of the irresponsible ones. Legitimate Breeders and responsible pet owners are protected by this bill and those people who continue screaming for their “individual rights” to be irresponsible are the ones who have caused pet overpopulation resulting in thousands of pets beinging killed every year at a cost of millions of dollars for tax payers. The majority of citizens have rights too. We want the killing to stop and we do not want our tax dollars to be spent killing pets
Boy, Jean Bland must be one clueless person!
First of all, SB250 is not at the Governor’s desk. It’s in the Assembly. Someone who barely passed junior high civics would know that!
Second of all, SB 250 does punish responsible pet owners and their pets, because there is no “accidents can happen” clause in there, and it makes the classic “does not follow” argument that a loose pet is a breeding pet, which isn’t necessarily the case. It assumes a loose pet is a sex maniac.
Third of all, there are lots of responsible pet owners who are screaming for our rights, most importantly the right for the government to leave us ALONE! Pets are property, and AB250 is a blatant property rights violation and is therefore unconstitutional, especially the part about needing a license to own property. Had you done more than regurgitate talking points, Jean, you would know that.
Last, we have a $24B budget problem to solve and the Legislature is doing bills on the sex organs of animals. Nice priorities, huh?
According to the Center for Disease Control, Orange County is number ONE in the amount of dog bites and the majority of dog bites are commited by male dogs that have not been neutered.
Save taxes, save lives, and safer pets, I want the politicians that represent me to vote yes on SB250. I’m watching your voting!!!
According the government, Cheerios is a drug and Gardasil and other vaccines are safe, a lone gunman killed JFK, and three WTC towers fell exclusively from fire, and “public use” of property and “public purpose” are the same thing.
All of which is clearly BS.
Why believe anything the government says?
Bites happen from training and temperment, not testicles.
SB250 and AB241 are not the total solutions to the high rates at which animals are killed in OC, but they are a start. More than 15,000 dogs and cats will be killed this year in OC. By cutting the supply of animals thnrough puppy mills, AB241 will help reduce this number. By requiring people who allow their animals to roam free to spay/neuter them, the numbers will also decrease. Add to this low cost spay and neuter programs and Trap/Neueter/release programs for feral cats, and we will go far in reducing the numbers.
You’ll go even farther by going no-kill and actually implementing ideas that work. MSN is not one of those ideas–ask LA and Calgary what works and what doesn’t.
Dear Jean–It will NOT SAVE the State $250 million dollars. That is false because this is the cost to RUN shelters, a fixed cost, of salaries and maintenance, etc. Would shelters CLOSE? Not likely. So where is the savings? What no one realizes is that the cost to the state is $70 per animal KILLED. ($25 million per year, NOT $250 million). The shelters receive no incentive to adopt out as the Hayden Act was interpreted so they have an incentive TO KILL for the $25 million they bill the state. All shelters other than No-Kill shelters like San Francisco KILL unweaned kittens and puppies then BILL THE STATE. There is no incentive for the shelters to seek adoptions. The Hayden Act was very poorly written as is SB 250. It will only cause MORE animals to be surrendered, abandoned and KILLED. To support SB 250 is to support KILLING of shelter animals. Punitive draconian laws are KILLERS for pets. No-Kill is the SOLUTION but Mancuso does not believe in No-Kill even though it is PROVEN to work whereas MSN has never proved anythingmore than a SPIKE in pet killing. An informed opinion can SAVE animals!
Please read Redemption- The Myth of Pet Over-Population by Nathan Winograd. Thank you!
It is obvious that Teri Sforza is an Animal Rights fan and any reporting of hers will be biased, note the pictures that fly along with her articles. She neglects to point out the DISASTER that has befallen the animals in Los Angeles when they passed a mandatory spay neuter law. The woman Teri advocates for in the pictures in her article took this horrible law that kills animals to Los Angeles and schmoozed the politicians and their now failed Animal Control Leader into buying this bill of goods which has killed more animals than ever before. How can anyone who profess to love animals promote a law like this and sleep after having been responsible for killing so many more animals. But hey, PETA kills 97% of the animals they take in and HSUS claims they have no problem with the extinction of all domestic animals……………..does it mean that this is the actual goal of all these people promoting these “feel good laws”? Are they actually looking to eradicate all pets, hmm, spay neuter all kill everything going into the shelters and where will future pets come from in 10 years?
Why give so much publicity to that wench Mancuso? She puts on a facade for the public but underneath is a vindictive angry you-know-what who tramps around the state, obsessed by pet sex to the point of being an obsessive-compulsive disorder (read: mentally ill!), when in fact she had no idea of what she is talking about, and allegedly she is in violation of her own local animal codes as well.
BTW, the cited Laguna Woods ordinance addressed guess how many intakes into their system last year? THIRTEEN! Sounds to me like Laguna Woods had no overpopulation problem at all.
Besides, who do you trust, Judie Mancusco, and her pals in H$U$ and PETArds, who should be MSN, or Lassie, who would actually be a undeserved innocent victim of MSN?
I’ll trust Lassie every time.
Voters in California already voted against mandatory spay and neuter because it is not effective and costs go up and revenue goes down. Right now LA is in the red with a cost increase of 226% and a downturn in licensing revenue. Mainstream American now recognizes that the animal rights philosophy advocates the end of all domestic animals. These organizations such as HSUS and PETA hide behind the myth that they are saving abused animals. The real thrust of HSUS is to slowly and methodically push laws in all states that make owning, raising and caring for animals more costly and difficult. Over the past 35 years before MSN, the number of animals killed in California had been decreasing despite an increasing population. Passing punitive laws such as SB 250 only increase the numbers killed and increases the cost to enforce and operate these shelters. In these economic times California cannot afford SB 250 especially since it is proven to fail. The AVMA who would benefit most came out against msn because it is not effective. In counties with no msn laws such as Washoe County NV, 90% of all dogs and 83% of cats were saved in 2008. In Nevada County California, 87% of all dogs and cats entering county shelters are saved compared to just 50% state wide. Fort Worth Texas repealed its MSN law because the compliance rates dropped so low reducing revenue to nearly 0. Both Oklahoma and Texas said no to the same laws and avoided being in the red. California should be as progressive. Read a liberal democrats view on how regressive msn is in his article “There is nothing “progressive” about mandatory spay/neuter” by Christie Keith at Daily KOS.
People don’t trust the shelters or the dog police especially in LA. Calgary’s success depends on trust. Calgary does not have mandatory spay/neuter, breed-specific legislation, pet limit laws or breeder licensing fees and yet they manage to operate in the black.
These laws like SB 250 destroy trust and cooperation. Without cooperation you lose revenue because the cost of collecting those licenses means entering and confronting people in their homes. Nothing destroys trust like home invasions or threats. Success comes with trust and compliance and compliance can never be forced. Calgary Animal Services provides valuable services by encouraging cooperation among community stakeholders and supporting an extensive education and PR campaign that emphasizes responsible pet ownership
When people get something for their money they will comply and 95% of dogs are licensed in Calgary, compared to just 10-30% in California. High licensing compliance means that Animal Services costs the taxpayers nothing. DID YOU READ THAT, IT COST TAXPAYERS NOTHING.
Calgary works to reunite stray pets with their owners very quickly sometimes taking them to the owner’s home right away. This service saves lives, keeps costs low, and builds more trust. Imagine what one could do with 95% compliance in California. California has a choice. Pass SB250 that piles on unreasonable punishments leading to more animals being killed and higher costs to the taxpayers, or pass progressive legislation that has been proven to save lives and save taxpayer dollars.
Be suspicious of any representative in your government who supports any animal rights agenda. Check this expose of HSUS and how they actually spend their “oops” your money just go to vidoosh and type in HSUS and see the expose of HSUS.
An interesting note is that all of the puppy mills being raided were held accountable under present animal welfare laws. It is under these laws that they were shut down. HSUS just jumped in for the TV coverage they do not pay to support these animals at all.
Do you really want to see a world in which we only view animals through the pages of a book? That is the world that awaits your children if you support animal rights organizations like HSUS, PETA and elect any representative that supports these goals.
I was mistaken, this bill does have to go to the Assembly now because it originated in the Senate. I was thinking it had started in the Assembly. However, the $250 million is not the cost to run shelters. It is reported as the cost to taxpayers, per year, to kill 1/2 a million unwanted pets and house twice that number (due to overpopulation). Without the pet overpopulation we would still have shelters, but at a very significantly reduced cost.
Per CA. State Senator Dean Florez , “California’s animal shelters and, indeed, our entire pet population are in crisis. Nearly a million unwanted pets enter California shelters each year. More than half are being put to death. For cats in some rural areas, the euthanasia rate is as high as 96 percent….I think we can all agree that the quarter of a billion dollars we spend to house and kill unwanted pets could be better spent protecting health care for the elderly and education for our children.” The Orange County Grand Jury, in 2008, reported the cost for euthanasia to be $159 per animal so that amounts to $79.5 million per year for the 500,000 pets that are euthanized in CA. each year. That $79.5 million is just for the cost of euthanasia, additionally there is the cost of housing and feeding and for disposal of all the bodies.
Per the Orange County, CA. Grand Jury Report in 2008, “In 2006-2007, the Orange County Shelter euthanized over 13,000 animals at a cost of $322,478… Using the 13,000 number of Orange County animals impounded and euthanized in fiscal year 2006-2007, multiplied by the State figure for the average stay of five days, plus euthanasia and disposal costs, a mandatory spay/neuter law could save the County about $21 million over eight years. (That’s $2.6 million per year just for Orange County, CA. for 13,000 animals that were euthanized) The average total cost to the County to euthanize an animal is $159. (That amounts to $79.5 million per year for the approx. 500,000 pets that are euthanized in CA. each year just for the cost of the euthanization) While some pet owners oppose spay/neuter legislation on the premise that it smacks of governmental interference or “nanny-state” mentality, both hobby and registered breeders appear to be more concerned about the monetary impact than the animal population.”
Again there is no impact on Responsible Pet Owners with SB 250 and no reason for tax payers to pay for Irresponsible Pet Owners. If pet owners are going to scream about their property rights and expect us to pay for all property that they don’t adequately care for where would that end? In other areas people are held responsible for their property and consequences of their actions. If property owners don’t cut weeds on their property the city or county will do that for them but will make the property owners pay a higher fee. If people don’t take care of their homes, cars, computers, or pay their property taxes, etc. the tax payers will not pick up their bills. Dr. Gardner is correct this bill is a start toward cleaning up this enormous problem. This problem has been allowed to build to crisis levels in CA. because CA, assumed pet owners would be responsible and ignored the consequences of the drain on the taxpayers for many years. I will be watching the vote as well
Jean, arguments are like angels dancing on the head of a pin.
The shelters are required to report intake and disposition. So it would do well to observe statistical effect of MSN on the richest and poorest of counties in California.
My background is in science and evidence based medicine.
Let’s look at the data as any serious taxpayer or ANIMAL lover would.
Within California, mandatory spay/neuter laws have shown an amazing track record.
Los Angeles, the first year their 2008 MSN ordinance went into effect:
-30% increase in shelter euthanasias, sharply reversing 10 years worth of steady progress
-20% increase in shelter impounds
Santa Cruz County
-animal control costs doubled
-impound and euthanasia per capita rates are higher than in nearby counties w no MSN
Lake County w MSN has worst shelter kill stats in California, worse than the national average
per 100,000 population)
. Lake County, CA: 4560
. USA national average: 1000-1300
. California average: 1066
. Nevada County, CA: 163
. Calgary, Canada: 44
Those are just a few. It is a clear FAIL and uses more money. People living in our economy are not just destitute people but people who have to cut corners to make rent, HMO, and food bills.
Decide whether you want to vote for A BILL or vote for animals.
A bill doesn’t keep you warm at night, does it? And it does NOT save lives.
I vote for animals
NO on SB 250
I semavilady,
Since you say you’re familiar with science and evidence based medicine, you should be familiar with the perils in using a single year for a comparison, and particularly without regard for baserate figures. The plain (and sad) fact is that almost every shelter everywhere experienced significant increases in admissions and euthanasia rates in 2008, so you can’t attribute the increase to MSN laws.
A proper study would take two comparable counties/cities, and in the same time period, look at the differences in costs, admissions, and euthanasia rates for the county/city that invoked a MSN law and the one which didn’t. Such a study should be done over a period of years to counteract for the differences, either positive or negative, associated with any start-up enterprise. As far as I can tell, none of the “studies” or “evidence” you cite live up to that standard.
Dr Rosset
You mention the results of work in Calgary, but are you fully conversant with how the Calgary animal care program works? Calgary has both a Humane Society and an Animal Control and these are often mixed up. For example, there is some data to suggest that the euthanasia rates for the Humane Society are significantly higher than normally thought.
See http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=296dd806-6505-4f0d-bcdf-3ecf005db18f&p=2
Moreover, Calgary has a whole set of laws that dictate animal behavior, including licensing for cats, dangerous dog laws, etc.
BTW - Calgary’s rate of owner surrendered pets rose more than 300% last year. See http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090416/canada/canada_calgary_cgy_pets_abandoned_humane_society_economy_9
You mention the fact that Calgary’s licensing rate is high, and that’s probably because their fee is so low. The result is that loits of money has to be raised through a lottery, a fact you didn’t mention.
It’s important to look at the results obtained in other cities/counties/countries, but it is equally important to present all the facts that are relevant.
Get the year right? Look at ALL the stats?? Okay, we can do that… According to the stats I’ve seen, the downturn in regional-Calgary’s numbers started AFTER the “Humane Society” got into the act, and somehow ONLY affects areas served by the HS rather than by AC. The Calgary HS has been clamouring for MSN and punitive laws, and in a nutshell, is doing their best to *create* evidence of the “need” for same.
Sorry but the bill is about to pass with support in both Senate and Assembly check out yes for SB 250. I wonder why so many people are for the bill including the ones against puppy mills and dogfighting all three are going to be in effect Jan 2010 funny you didn’t mention that maybe you should check out the website Yes for SB 250
Ican tell you personally that my pet has a micro-chip and hey failed to call me. The gardener let my dog out and will not admit it or someone had stolen him because screwa were taken off my fence. Westie rescue OC has my dog and will not return. Do they really want to give the dogs back to owners? Not always your dog may make them a profit.
Please think about this
There are many responsible pet owners, but there are apparently many irresponsible pet owners otherwise there would not be so many animals euthanized at the shelters.
Those animals didn’t drop out of the sky. There are people who just don’t care and after reading some of these comments, there are people who only have one paddle in the water. There are people who don’t think it is necessary to neuter a male dog, because it’s not the one having the babies.The breeders are just concerned about profit and finally there are people who still have a teenagers attitude “you can’t tell me what to do.” Come on people,SB250 is long over due.