This is a great way to let the general public know about SB250. Also, be sure and direct people to www.SB250.org, CDOC's informational site on this bill.
The PETA statement about moving their people to Los Angeles said "PETA will transfer about 40 employees - a quarter of its staff - from its Norfolk headquarters next summer to capitalize on the bright lights and big names of Los Angeles. The organization will move its campaigns, youth and online marketing divisions to Los Angeles, said Tracy Reiman, PETA's executive vice president.These departments conceive of and carry out those eye- and headline-catching, envelope-pushing and just plain quirky actions that have helped put animal rights on the map. She said PETA is expanding that office, she said, to be closer "to the city that defines popular culture and cultivates big personalities and bigger ideas. We can have a big impact on the small screen and the larger screen."
Dr. Heller has impressive credentials, a history of activism, and she organized both adults and children into a cohesive, yellow-ribbon bedecked band of supporters. But what she never did was present any evidence that MSN works. Nor did the County Public Health Department. And that is because all the statistics go the other way.
If there is evidence of success for MSN why was it not presented? Why has the State Legislature rejected it for the last 3 years? Why has the California Department of Finance reported that it will have a negative financial effect of local government? Why have the American Veterinary Medical Association and ASPCA issued written position papers opposing the MSN of owned dogs? Why did HSUS not weigh in?
There were no shelter experts on the Task Force. The three people that are nationally recognized as having the most expertise are Richard Avanzino, Nathan Winograd and Bill Bruce. Avanzino and Winograd live in California; it would have been easy to get their testimony. Bill Bruce attended a task force meeting but was not allowed to make a presentation the the meeting. Is this the way an organization seeks real solutions, by not listening to the people who have run successful programs?
The Santa Barbara MSN ordinance was based on fear, sympathy and perhaps political contributions (some task force members bragged they had made large contributions and the Supervisors would vote yes). One could never base a YES vote on facts because there are none.
Instead of embracing programs that have worked, the County chose to put in place a model that has never fared as well as licensing, education and incentive programs. The winners are the veterinarians because Dr. Ron Faoro, DVM and Task Force Chair made sure that only they can issue exemptions. And if they decline to give an exemption, they will be right there to sell the S/N surgery. The losers will be the additional owned animals that will die, the additional owned animals that will be surrendered and the taxpayers that will pick up the extra costs.
Spay-neuter does work
Thank you for your extended coverage of the recent Board of Supervisors hearings and vote on a new spay/neuter ordinance for dogs and cats. The ordinance will require that pet owners get a certificate from their veterinarian if they want to keep their pet intact. Its goal is to motivate people to spay or neuter their pets by getting them to think a little about the consequences of not doing so: namely, overcrowding and unnecessary deaths in our county’s shelters. Those who truly wish to keep their pets intact may do so simply by obtaining the certificate as part of their normal rabies vaccination/licensing process.
The good news is that the mere passage of the ordinance is already having its intended effect. The day after the vote, because of coverage by media outlets like the Journal, one of our local rescue groups got a call from the owner of two kittens: she’d read about the new law and was looking for information about how to get her kittens fixed. Those are two cats that will not be adding to the overabundance of excess kittens we have been seeing in the past few years!
It’s also important to let your readers know that if they want to fix their pet but fear that they can’t afford to do so, they are lucky to live in this county. Our three humane societies -- Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley, and Santa Maria Valley -- all have low cost clinics, and in some cases fee waivers for those in need. Private cat rescue organizations such as Catalyst for Cats and VIVA (Volunteers for Intervalley Animals) will cover all costs for feral cats and in some cases, tame ones also. And CARE 4 PAWS is offering free spaying or neutering of any owned pet. For more information, readers should contact the organizations listed. CARE 4 PAWS, which currently runs its free clinics with the generous support of Buellton Veterinary Clinic, can be reached at (805) 968-2273.
Lee E Heller, Ph.D., J.D., Summerland
Today the Santa County Board of Supervisors heard testimony on the proposed mandatory spay and neuter ordinance proposed by Santa Barbara County Animal Services. This ordinance would require dog owners to visit a veterinarian every time they wanted to license their dogs. It would be up to the veterinarian whether he or she judged the owner suitable to own an intact dog. No ordinance guidelines have been suggested; it is totally up to the veterinarian’s opinion.
Speaking in opposition to the bill was Santa Maria Mayor Larry Lavagnino. Santa Maria contracts with Santa Barbara County for animal control. Mayor Lavagnino pointed out that while the number of animals processed by the Santa Barbara shelter has actually decreased almost 13% from 1998 to 2008, “Santa Barbara County’s bill to the City of Santa Maria has increased 247% in the same 10 year period. Ten years ago they charged Santa Maria $145,000 and now they are charging us $503,000. And we are at the tipping point.” Lavagnino urged a program that focused on licensing since identified dogs don’t end up in the shelters.
Also speaking in opposition to the ordinance was former County Supervisor Brooks Firestone. He said that emotions rather than logic are prevailing in addressing this issue. Firestone urged the Board to vote No.
Dr. Ron Faoro, who was also a sponsor of the failed AB1634, is the guiding light behind this ordinance. He has stated that anyone has the option to try and convince their veterinarian that they should be allowed to own an intact animal. His practice charges $71.00 for a visit and rabies shot. This ordinance, if adopted, will be a huge financial boon to the Santa Barbara Veterinary community. With only 50% compliance, the Ordinance would generate more than $11 million in income to the veterinary community.
Andy Caldwell, Executive Directive Director of Santa Barbara non-profit COLAB testified “something that makes the licensing program more expensive and complex is not going to increase compliance.”
The proposed ordinance is modeled on a Santa Cruz County ordinance. Santa Cruz has had mandatory spay neuter for 15 years. The dog euthanasia rate is 24%, the same as Santa Barbara County, and their cat euthanasia rate is 51% while Santa Barbara County’s is 38%. Those in opposition point out that this is evidence that this approach does not work.
The final vote on the ordinance will be held on December 1st.
