WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?

As we continue to follow the meltdown of subsidized spay and neuter in the City of Los Angeles, several things are clear. Unless someone starts to view this as a business problem and determines appropriate metrics, we are dooming ourselves to continual failure while we penalize responsible dog owners.

CDOC said from the outset that it is the uneducated and disadvantaged that are most likely to be prosecuted in this MSN frenzy. And they are the people least likely to be able to be able to afford the surgery, $245 in city shelter-sponsored clinics unless you have a voucher.

So think about this.

1. Where are the dogs coming from that are in the shelters? According to Ed Boks last Friday, 35% are turned in by their owners. These people are probably not turning in healthy, well-adjusted and much loved dogs. Those stay with people through good times and bad. Rather LAAS is getting old, infirm, socially-challenged and sick animals. And statistically 83% of owner turn-ins are not deemed "heathy and adoptable". Indeed, some are turned in to AS just for euthanasia.

2. Are the dogs that go into LAAS intact or neutered. This information is not tracked per Boks because they are all altered when they leave. But that is not true. LAAS unites a number with their owners. So let's look at this subset. Whoops, not tracked.

3. How many of the dogs that come in are licensed? Whoops, not tracked.

4. Do the LAAS people check all the registries to try and reunite dogs with owners? Whoops, no information available on that.

There is absolutely no nexus between the reproductive status of OWNED dogs and dogs in the shelter. There is probably some correlation between roaming intact dogs and increased breeding; we saw a huge drop in shelter dogs after the Vincent Act was passed. Because shelter dogs are far more likely to be back in the shelter than privately acquired dogs.

Let's enforce the laws that we have (leash laws) and write some new ones that require positive permanent identification and require that after a dog is picked up by AS a third time, it will not be returned to its owned until it is altered. Because that dog doesn't have a responsible owner.

But instead of managing this like a benevolent business, we let emotion get in the way and make decisions that exacerbate the problem and divide people who should be working together. The proponents of MSN and Boks could get their minds around these two things.

1. There is no automatic connection between reproductive status and actually reproducing in owned dogs.

2. People who want intact dogs to show, for performance, to raise for autistic children (not covered as a service dog by the way) or just for health reasons are not all breeders. Indeed, the vast number of people who show dogs have never and will never breed a dog. But Boks continues to call the dog show people breeders.

Should people with intact dogs pay a higher licensing fee. There's no particularly good reason for it but if it would mean that AS would be out there picking up the roaming dogs, it is worth it.

What we should do is concentrate on licensing and identifying dogs. And you can't do that when you treat a large part of the community like criminals.

I have left cats out because everyone knows that these laws really affect only dogs. But cats are the biggest part of the problem. Boks agrees that TNR is the best and only way to manage this issue. And what has he done to institute that. Nothing.

LAGUNA WOODS MEETING ON MARCH 18th

Don't forget that the Laguna Woods City Council meeting is this Wednesday at 2:00 pm. The City Council has been particularly unwilling to meet with their constituents to discuss this issue. Although it is hard to imagine the Council taking definitive action before they replace the member who died earlier, they are being pushed hard by Judie Mancuso. The City Manager recently told someone she is not involved; she is just their 'guest'.

You will be hearing more in the coming weeks about building the CDOC Legal Fund which will do more than just fund the LA City lawsuit. Again, here is a community that is considering an ordinance for which there is no rational argument. And as proposed, it has jail time for miscreants. This is a city where 80% of the resident live in Leisure World and are senior citizens.

We sympathize with the Laguna Woods residents who are upset with loose animals on their yards. But the answer to that is enforcing leash laws; not requiring surgery.

Ed Boks Cancels SN Vouchers

UPDATE ON SB 250 "The Responsible Pet Act"

SB 250 was heard and passed in the California Senate Local Government committee. The author spoke to the idealogy that SB 250 represents the $250 million a year that California spends on impounds and euthanasia (thus suggesting that the state could save this amount of $$ if his bill passes) and then turned the microphone over to his supporters. Once again, the supporters spoke about their concerns regarding the number of animals in the shelters and the euthanasia costs. There was nothing about how this bill was going to make more owners responsible. And even though the audience was constantly being told that this is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill every single pro-SB 250 speaker exaulted the idea of mandatory spay/neuter. Not once was there any point that voluntary spay/neuter and education can also accomplish a decline in impounds and euthanasia as shown by actual shelter numbers over the last decade.

Speaking in opposition was a coalition of AKC/CDOC/NAIA/SaveOurDogs. PetPac also had a representative speak. The opposition dealt with the concept that punitive and coercive measures do not encourage compliance with the law. In fact, the opposite is true and more owners go "underground" rather than risk the penalty. The ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT OF DOGS... FOREVER was presented but appeared to be ignored by the members of the Committtee. Instead of dealing with any of our concerns, the committee chair, Senator Wiggins offered a set of amendments that basically eliminated the "laundry list" of infractions that could be punished by mandatory spay/neuter and substitute those she thought most egregious. HOWEVER THE HEART OF THE BILL REMAINS THE SAME-- get a citation and the penalty is mandatory sterilization.

PERSONAL OPINION:  I will give Senator Florez the credit that SB 250 is not AB 1634. In the original version of AB 1634, all dogs and cats in the state of California were required to be sterilized unless met with one of several (albeit confusing) exemptions. In the final versions of AB 1634, a pet could be left intact but by doing so, the owner was subjected to a new set of penalties. In other words, the same infractions were punishible by a different set of penalties with the "third strike" being mandated sterilization. SB 250 follows current state law through the requirement that all dogs must be licensed (of course, there is less than 15% average compliance in the State for this law) and that intact dogs must be licensed at a higher rate (as a way to encourage sterilization). In AB 1634, it basically became a secondary crime to have an intact animal. Senator Florez is emphasizing that having an intact pet is not a violation unless the intact pet is subject to a violation. And what basically makes it not the final version of AB 1634 is that the penalty of mandated sterilization happens on the FIRST STRIKE and you're completely out of intact dogs FOREVER. It is a lifetime penalty for a one-time infraction.

Laura Finco
CDOC Communications