JustOneMorePet

Every Pet Deserves A Good Home…

Tomahawk, General and Commander

I’m writing to you today with an urgent plea to help a very special group of wild horses who were victims of the deadliest Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) roundup in recent history.

It was January 2010, when the thundering helicopters descended on the pristine Black Rock Desert in Nevada’s Calico Complex. For the wild horses living there, life would never be the same. The relentless helicopters, chartered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), forced the horses to run for miles. Stallions tried desperately to keep their families together; foals struggled mightily to keep up with their mothers. Finally, they reached the trap. In an instant, their families were shattered; their freedom destroyed.

General and CommanderIn the BLM holding pens, Tomahawk, a stallion captured at Calico, hung his head low. General and Commander, loyal friends, huddled together. The tags hung round their necks made clear that these noble band stallions — once great leaders and protectors of their herds – were now just numbers … casualties in the BLM’s war against America’s wild horses and burros.

In total, 1,922 wild horses lost their freedom in the 2010 Calico roundup. Hundreds of them perished in the years following the roundup in government holding pens. An untold number were sold by the BLM to a kill buyer, and almost certainly met with a horrific fate at slaughterhouses in Mexico.

Thankfully, over 100 survivors of the brutal Calico roundup — including Tomahawk, General and Commander — are safe, because Return to Freedom, the founder and parent organization of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, rescued them. The horses are living peacefully in the sanctity of Return to Freedom’s American Wild Horse Sanctuary in the rolling coastal hills of Santa Barbara County, California and at another sanctuary in northern California.

But Return to Freedom needs your help to continue to care for them. Will you join me in remembering the Calico horses by donating to Return to Freedom today?

Since 2010, our attention has turned away from Calico toward other roundups and battles. But Return to Freedom must still care for the Calico horses, as well as 300 additional refugees from other federal roundups. The price of doing so is steep. Hay costs alone are $40,000 per month!

For 15 years, Return to Freedom has been on the cutting edge of the fight to save America’s wild horses and burros through its sanctuary, education and conservation programs. Return to Freedom pioneered a sanctuary model that utilizes birth control in order to allow wild horses to live together with their families, in their natural state. And Return to Freedom founded the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, a coalition that is now 50 organizations and tens of thousands of supporters strong.

Please, as we continue this fight, please let’s not forget Tomahawk, General, Commander and all the other beautiful Calico horses. Please help us show Return to Freedom that we stand with them… that we as a community are united our commitment to America’s wild horses both on and off the range.

Whatever amount you can give, no matter how small or large, will make a big difference in the lives of these horses. So please contribute as generously as you can today.

I thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your compassion, generosity and dedication to saving our beloved wild horses and burros.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Roy

If you can donate, please do and if you know someone who can donate please forward this on!!

Horse lovers, Check out: StemEquine®

American Wild Horse Preservation

Facebook Twitter

March 27, 2013 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, Animal Rescues, Holistic Pet Health, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Political Change, Wild Animals | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Taking Away More Liberties: WI Pet Ordinance Forces Homeowners to Choose — Your Pet or Your House

Wasau Wisconsin Pet Ordinance Limits Number of Pets Homeowners Can Keep | James and Melissa Lecker

Melissa and James Lecker

Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:03pm by Tiffany GabbayTiffany Gabbay to the Blaze

In a push many see as a gross infringement on one’s personal liberties, a small Wisconsin town is forcing homeowners who keep more than the town’s “permitted” allotment of pets a choice: Give up your animals, or give up your house.

takinglibertiesdog.jpgJames and Melissa Lecker take their dogs for a walk near their Wausau, Wis., home.

This is the dilemma currently being faced by one couple — James and Melissa Lecker — who, unbeknownst to them, moved to Wausau with four dogs.

For Melissa, there was no “choice.”

“These dogs are our family. They’re like our children,” she said.

In Wausau, homeowners are not permitted to have more than three cats, gerbils and rabbits or two dogs.

Melissa told Fox News she was in disbelief when a police officer showed up to her door to inform her that she was subject to a $100 per day fine for being over her dog “limit.”

“I had never heard of anything like that,” she said.

“They told us that the ordinance clearly states they [City council] cannot work with us… that it’s either two dogs or that you have to move, as you can’t have four dogs here.”

Meanwhile, the town’s officials said their hands are tied as the “ordinance doesn’t allow for variance.”

According to Fox, Jeff Gold, a municipal attorney from New Jersey, said the law makes sense when it comes to dogs:

“They smell. They bark. They have excrement,” said Gold.

“You’re not punishing [the Leckers], he explains. “You’re regulating society.” Wow!!  Progressive alert!

No one from Wausau, including Mayor James Tipple returned reporters calls for comment.

Melissa says she has put her house on the market and is prepared to take a $15,000 loss in order to keep her dogs.

“I hope we can work something out,” she told Fox. “But they are just being so mean. My dogs didn’t bother anyone.”

Watch the report HERE, courtesy of Fox

Melissa and James Lecker

Melissa and James Lecke

I too would fight for my pups and would take a $15,000 loss on my house.  Pets are part of your family… They are forever!  Good for James and Melissa Lecker.

These ordinances will become more and more prevalent if we do not stand-up.  They already are in towns, cities, and states with large Progressive populations like California and primarily San Francisco (who tell you who, what kind and how many), New York, large pockets of Wisconsin and the list goes on.  They are also prevalent Internationally, from China to Europe and even pockets of New Zealand, a wide open country where there are more sheep than people. Progressives hope to regulate every moment and action of everyone’s life for their idea of “the greater good”.  Every single day we are losing rights and liberties.  Time to take a stand for pets, for parental rights (of two and 4 legged kids), for individual liberties, for the inalienable rights we are all entitled to in all circumstances.

The Lecker’s situation is not an isolated case by any means.  I was personally involved in a situation in Leisure World in CA where they changed their restriction to 1 cat or 1 dog per unit (ridiculous in a community where pets are sometimes the only friends and love its residents have).  An elderly lady living there had promised her friend and neighbor that she would take her dog if anything ever happened to her because she had no family.  Right before her friend’s death LW initiated a policy of 1 pet and left a poor dying woman to fret over her beloved pet and companion in her last hours and then left her elderly friend in a position to either sell or rent out her home in Leisure World and move to keep her word and take care of her friend’s dog or try to find a home for the pup before it had to go to the shelter or rescue and probably be put down (senior dogs are hard to place).

Nobody is advocating hoarding (which is an illness and wouldn’t be stopped by laws) but good pet parents can and should be allowed to have 4 or 5 dogs, especially if they own a house, or a combination of 6 dogs and cats plus a bird, gerbils, turtles, fish etc.  Each case should be an individual matter and should only be of concern if there is a problem.  And then it should be based on ability to care for the pets in question and the circumstances.  For some people 1 pet is too much.  For most people 2 to 4 are plenty but for some 6 to 10 are perfect.  I have been to people’s houses that only have one pet (or one baby) and you can smell the litter box or diapers the second you walk in and there is a mess or fur/feathers (or dust) on the furniture. I have several friends with between 4 to 8 pets whose houses are no different than the ‘average house’; with either no pets, just kids or a just a couple of each.  And on the extreme, I had an acquaintance that was a vet tech and worked for the local vet that took in strays and hardship cases who had 23 pets, and probably fostered another 100 until permanent homes could be found, and her house was immaculate.  Today it is pets, tomorrow it will be children, activities, food, where you can live, what you can drive, how many vehicles you can own and the list will go on endlessly unless we stand up!

Our shelters are over-flowing because of the tough economic times added to by limit laws like in Wausau.  Everyone who can and wants to should be able to adopt just one or two more pets instead of continuing the flood of euthanization.

Please help the Leckers take a stand by calling, emailing and writing the City Council of Wausau as well as the Chamber of Commerce, Marathon County and state offices of Wisconsin.  I would suggest a call to Jeff Gold, the municipal attorney from New Jersey.  Today Wausau, tomorrow your town… your state… your neighborhood.

I care not for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." -Abraham Lincoln

Related:

STOP Los Angeles and Other Major Cities from Unreasonable Pet Limit Laws and Restrictions

Southfield Implements Limit on Cats – Over Reaction!

Pet-Limit Laws Unconstitutional

Massachusetts Town Puts Limits on Cat Ownership

Adopt Just One More…MV Temporarily Reduced Adoption Fees

And here we thought Chicago’s attempt to pass a five-dog limit was controversial!

Shocking Report…Gov’t to decide what pets you can own – Episode 006

Adopt Just One More Pet… MV Shelter Reduces Cat and Kitten Adoption Fees Until Sept 27th – Good Job MV!

Homeless With Pets… Choosing Pets Over Shelter

Is Your Pet a Voiceless Victim of the Tanking Economy?

Chinese City’s “One Dog” Policy Has Residents Howling

Florida’s Idea of Cat Population Control

Humane Society list of pet financial aid-related organizations

Where there is a will…

Declaration of the No Kill Movement in the United States

This is in America: No Mercy: Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed We Are Still Euthanizing 4 Million Dogs Plus Additional Pets in Shelters in America Every Year… And We Allow the Murder of 3,700 Unborn Human Babies Per Day Through Abortion

Again, please help the Leckers take a stand by calling, emailing and writing the City Council of Wausau as well as the Chamber of Commerce, Marathon County and state offices of Wisconsin. I would suggest a call to Jeff Gold, the Progressive municipal attorney from New Jersey as well. Today Wausau, tomorrow your town… your state… your neighborhood.

March 19, 2012 Posted by | Adopt Just One More Pet, Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Change Number of Pet Restrictive Laws. Ordinances and Rules, Dogs, Dogs, Help Familie Keep Their Pets, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, NO KILL NATION, Pet Adoption, Pet Friendship and Love, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change, We Are All God's Creatures | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

(CSI Poop Police) DNA Test Helps Enforce Pet Clean Up Policy… You Gotta Be Kidding Me?!?

Photobucket

SAN DIEGO – The same DNA technology that has solved cold case murders is now being used to crack down on a whole new class of criminals: dog owners who don’t clean up after their pets.

"Unfortunately, people leave surprises in my yard, but I always carry plastic bags, so I can clean up those surprises," said dog owner Ted Stevens.

Now, BioPet Vet Lab ,a company in Knoxville, Tenn., has developed technology that is says can identify the dogs that leave unwelcome calling cards on neighborhood lawns. The system, called Pooprints, can help communities manage and enforce a pet clean up policy, according to company officials.

Here’s how it works in an apartment complex or condominium community: The property management company or homeowners association builds a DNA database by collecting cheek swabs from the dogs that live in the community. When doggie dung turns up unexpectedly, the affected resident can send a small sample to a lab. DNA testing reveals the identity of the canine culprit.

It sounds quite effective and a bit draconian.

"It seems a little hard core to me, but I guess some are rather offended by that," said Donna Deatrick. "It’s a big issue. We take care of our lawns here. We don’t want to walk out and look at nasty, smelly, dog droppings."

Eric Mayer, the director of business development for BioPet Vet Lab, says dog doo is more than just a nuisance. The dog population has exploded in this country, he said. Each dog creates 275 pounds of waste every year, and 40 percent of that stays on the ground. Twenty percent of contamination in waterways can be traced back to doggie dumpings, Mayer said.

"It’s just rude. I walk my dogs and carry bags. It’s not that big of a deal really. If it’s your dog, you should clean up after it," said veterinarian Dr. Farley.

Photobucket

Bosco spends his weekends doing probation for his offending lawn deposits …

And if this does not work… They will be sending in the drones!

European Union Considers Drones to Monitor Farmland for Violations

February 10, 2012 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, Dogs, Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, Pets, responsible pet ownership | , , , | 2 Comments

San Francisco City Gov Bans Pet Fish? Hello?

First the bay city decided we American’s just shouldn’t be able to decide matters such as circumcision.

A Ryukin goldfish from The 6th "Pramong N...

We shouldn’t have to worry about decisions like that since we have a brilliant and all knowing government to think for us.

Now San Francisco is taking things a step further by possibly relieving the American’s that live within its limits of the terrible right to purchase a pet goldfish.

San Francisco’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission is recommending that the City ban the sale of goldfish, tropical fish and guppies in its borders, according to Matier and Ross.

The recommendation to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is part of the commission’s ongoing efforts to discourage “impulse buys” of animals.

The commission’s ban would cover pet stores and breeders in the City. It comes after more than a year of study and findings that aquarium fish are often mass bred under inhumane conditions or stripped from the wild.

It almost seems as if these idiots read Atlas Shrugs and instead of learning lessons from it, they got ideas.

I mean, San Francisco has managed to chase off most parents with children, cutting off future generations of workers, business and tax dollars. They kicked a medical industry to the curb and now Pet Smart and many other pet stores are likely to notice little value of sticking around.

Good going liberals… way to succeed as a city.

Eric Odom

Source: Eric Dom

Related:

STOP Los Angeles and Other Major Cities from Unreasonable Pet Limit Laws and Restrictions

Southfield Implements Limit on Cats – Over Reaction!

Pet-Limit Laws Unconstitutional

Massachusetts Town Puts Limits on Cat Ownership

Adopt Just One More…MV Temporarily Reduced Adoption Fees

And here we thought Chicago’s attempt to pass a five-dog limit was controversial!

Homeless With Pets… Choosing Pets Over Shelter

Is Your Pet a Voiceless Victim of the Tanking Economy?

Chinese City’s “One Dog” Policy Has Residents Howling

Florida’s Idea of Cat Population Control

Humane Society list of pet financial aid-related organizations

Where there is a will…

I care not for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." -Abraham Lincoln

June 17, 2011 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Change Number of Pet Restrictive Laws. Ordinances and Rules, Just One More Pet, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies

Almost nine months after a Missouri dairy was ordered to stop selling cheese made from raw milk, I share details of another hare-raising story from the Show-Me State: John Dollarhite and his wife Judy of tiny Nixa, Mo., have been told by the USDA that, by Monday, they must pay a fine exceeding $90,000. If they don’t pay that fine, they could face additional fines of almost $4 million. Why? Because they sold more than $500 worth of bunnies — $4,600 worth to be exact — in a single calendar year.

About six years ago, the Dollarhites wanted to teach their young teenage son responsibility and the value of the dollar. So they rescued a pair of rabbits — one male and one female — and those rabbits did what rabbits do; they reproduced. Before long, things were literally hopping on the three-acre homestead 30 miles south of Springfield, and Dollarvalue Rabbitry was launched as more of a hobby than a business.

“We’d sell ‘em for 10 or 15 dollars a piece,” John said during a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, comparing the venture to a kid running a lemonade stand. In addition, they set up a web site and posted a “Rabbits for Sale” sign in their front yard. Most customers, however, came via word of mouth.

In the early stages, some of the bunnies were raised and sold for their meat. Much further down the road, John said, they determined it more profitable to sell live bunnies at four weeks old than to feed bunnies for 12 weeks and then sell them as meat.

“We started becoming the go-to people” for rabbits in the Springfield area, John said. “If you wanted a rabbit, you’d go to Dollarvalue Rabbitry.” He added that the family even made the local television news just before Easter in 2008 for a report about the care and feeding of “Easter bunnies.”

Initially, the Dollarhites sold the large, white, pink-eyed variety of rabbits. Eventually, however, they switched to selling a couple of different varieties of miniature rabbits, the mating pairs of which were purchased from breeders across the state. Not only did their “show-quality” miniatures reproduce well, but they ate less and seemed to be more popular with theme park visitors and retail buyers.

During the summer of 2009, the Dollarhites bought the rabbitry from their son who had grown tired of managing it. They paid him what he asked for it, $200. Things kept growing, however, and the Dollarhite’s landed a pair of big accounts in 2009.

A well-known Branson theme park, Silver Dollar City, asked the Dollarhites to have them provide four-week-old bunnies per week to their petting zoo May through September. When the bunnies turned six weeks old, they were sold to park visitors. The Springfield location of a national pet store chain,Petland, purchased rabbits from the Dollarhites as well.

In the fall of 2009, the theme park deliveries ended for the year and the Dollarhites scaled back their operation. At about the same time, the folks at Petland asked the Dollarhites to raise guinea pigs that the store would purchase from them. No big deal.

By the year’s end, the Dollarhites had moved approximately 440 rabbits and grossed about $4,600 for a profit of approximately $200 — enough, John said, to provide the family “pocket money” to do things such as eat out at Red Lobster once in a while. That was better than the loss they experienced in 2008.

Then some unexpected matters began demanding their attention.

It’s an understatement to describe the Dollarhites as being “beyond surprised” when, in the fall of 2009, a female inspector from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed up at the front door of the family home, wanting to do a “spot inspection” of their rabbitry. She said she had come across Dollarhite Rabbitry invoices while inspecting the petting zoo at Silver Dollar City.

“She did not tell us that we were in violation of any laws, rules, anything whatsoever,” John said, explaining that the inspector said she just wanted to see what type of operation they had. Having nothing to hide or any reason to fear they were doing anything wrong, the Dollarhites allowed the inspection to proceed.

John said he had to go to work at the family’s computer store, so Judy took the inspector to the back of their property where the rabbits were raised. There, the inspector began running the width of her finger across the cage and told the Dollarhites they would need to replace the cage, because it was a quarter-inch too small and, therefore, did not meet federal regulations.

Such a requirement came as a shock to the Dollarhites, because they had just invested in new cages to ensure the bunnies had a healthy amount of space to develop, John explained. Though raising dwarf breed varieties of rabbits which require less space, they had opted to purchase cages designed for “large breed rabbits” so the dwarfs would have plenty of room. All for naught.

Not only was the cage too small, according to the inspector, but she noted a small rust spot on a feeder and cited it as being out of compliance. When the Dollarhites told the inspector that rabbit urine causes the cages to rust and that they worked hard to keep the rabbits cages in top shape, she told them it didn’t matter. The rust spot would count as an infraction.

The inspector then asked how the cages were sanitized, John said, and Judy explained how she moved the bunnies to travel carriers and powerwashed the cages, using bleach when necessary. Afterward, she allowed the cages to dry in the sun before putting the bunnies back inside them.

The Dollarhites’ practice was much safer than that used by some breeders who used blow torches to burn hair and manure from the cages — a practice that can lead to rusting metal and produce toxic fumes from burning metal.

During the course of the spot inspection, John said, the inspector asked his wife if she and John would like to have their operation certified by USDA. Judy said she wasn’t sure and asked what certification would entail and if it would help them sell more rabbits. The inspector responded, telling her it would involve monthly inspections and was completely voluntary. The inspection ended with the inspector telling Judy that the Dollarhites rabbits looked healthy and well-cared for.

After the inspection, the Dollarhites didn’t hear from the USDA again until January 2010, John said, when he received a phone call from a Kansas City-based investigator from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

“He called us and said, ‘I need to have a meeting with you and your wife,’” John recalled.

After explaining that he asked the investigator to come after the workday at the computer store had ended, John said he asked the investigator about the purpose of the meeting,

“He said, ‘Well, it’s because you’re selling rabbits and you’ve exceeded more than $500 dollars in a year,’” John said, “and I went, ‘Okay, what does that have to do with anything?’”

John said the investigator refused to discuss details over the phone and made it clear that rejecting his request for a meeting would be a costly error in judgment.

When Judy asked if they should have an attorney present, the investigator responded, saying, “Well, that might be a good thing.”

“At that point, we kind of set back, (wondering) what in the world is going on,” John said. Then he found an attorney who is also a farmer.

“I didn’t want a ‘city slicker,’” said John, a farmer himself until 1996 when he sold his farm to build a home in Nixa. “I wanted someone that had been around the agriculture and farm business.”

John found a guy and they met for the first time a couple of days later — at the same time both met the APHIS investigator in person at John’s home.

“The first thing (the investigator) said was ‘My name is so and so, I’ve been in the USDA for 30-plus years, and I’ve never lost a case,’” John recalled, continuing. “He said, ‘I’m not here to debate the law, interpret the law or discuss the law, I’m here just to do an investigation.’”

John said the investigator went on to explain that he would ask questions, write a report based on the answers and send that report to his superiors at the USDA regional office in Colorado Springs, Colo. The entire process was suppose to take about a month, and John was told to contact the regional office if he had not heard anything in six weeks.

“At this point in time, we were still not knowing anything about the law he was talking about,” John explained, adding that his rabbitry had never had any issues with any animal welfare agencies.

Eight weeks passed, and John decided to call Colorado Springs. Immediately, he was given the number to a USDA office in the nation’s capitol. He called the new number, and the lady he reached there was blunt, John said.

“She said, ‘Well, Mr. Dollarhite, I’ve got the report on my desk, and I’m just gonna tell you that, once I review it, it’s our intent to prosecute you to the maximum that we can’ and that ‘we will make an example out of you.”

When John once again tried to determine which law he and his wife had violated, he said the USDA lady replied, “We’ll forward you everything.”

“Ma’am, what law have we broken,” John said.

“Well, you sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in one calendar year,” she replied, according to John.

“Okay, what does that have to do with anything?” John countered.

The lady replied by saying there is a guideline which prohibits anyone from selling more than $500 worth of rabbits per year, John recalled, but she refused to cite any specific law and, instead, promised to send him the report containing details.

At that point, John said he called his attorney and was told not to worry about it, because he couldn’t find evidence of any law or regulation the Dollarhites had violated.

Soon after the meeting with the APHIS investigator and with the stress of the investigation hanging over their heads, John said he and his wife traded everything associated with the rabbit operation for other agricultural equipment.

At this point, some important facts about the manner in which the Dollarhites conducted their operation are worth reviewing:

The business was carefully conducted on the property of their Missouri home;

The business complied with all applicable state laws;

The bunnies were kept in large, clean and well-maintained cages; and

Not a single bunny was sold across state lines.

Recently, the Dollarhites received a “Certified Mail Return Receipt” letter (dated April 19, 2011) from the USDA informing them that they had broken the law and must pay USDA a fine of $90,643. Their crime? Violating violating 9 C.F.R. § 2.1 (a) (1): Selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in a calendar year.

At this point, Dollarvalue Rabbitry is expected to produced a $90,643 certified check to cover the fine issued by the Department of Agriculture. The USDA was, however, kind enough to provide in the letter the web address for a website — http://www.pay.gov — where they could go to pay their fine by credit card by May 23, 2011. Now, that’s convenient!

Based on an average price per rabbit sold being $10.45, the fine comes out to more than $206 per rabbit. In addition, the letter contains the following statement:

APHIS laws and regulations provide for administrative and criminal penalties to enforce these regulatory requirements, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each of the violations documented in our investigation.

If the threat contained in the letter is to be believed, the family could be fined as much as $10,000 per rabbit beyond the first 50 bunnies that netted the family its first $500. Do the math (390 rabbits x $10,000 each) and, if they don’t pay the initial fine, they could face additional fines totaling $3.9 million.

Needless to say, the Dollarhites stopped selling rabbits in January 2010 and are considering setting up a legal defense fund.

To see what the USDA has to say about the matter, read my follow-up post, USDA Stands Behind Hare-Raising Fine.

by Bob McCarty at BigGovernment.com -  Cross-Posted at JustOneMorePet.com

Hat tip: Bungalow Bill’s Conservative Wisdom

May 22, 2011 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Just One More Pet, Pets, Unusual Stories | , , , , | 3 Comments

Stop California SB 250 – Save Our Dogs and Our Rights

I hate “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” as much as the next gal, but you know, when big hunks of blue stuff dotted with clouds are crashing into your head while you walk across the street, what are you gonna do?

So, Californians who think that medical decisions about your animals should be made by you and your veterinarian and not the good folks in Sacramento, please check out this action alert from Laura Sanborn of Save Our Dogs, who says that despite recent amendments, the core provisions of California’s SB 250 are unchanged — and very similar to the defeated mandatory spay/neuter bill, last year’s AB 1634:

Violate an animal control law even once and you may never be allowed to own an intact dog ever again. One violation and your intact licenses can be denied or revoked at any time, forever. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires a PETA member as head of animal control. In an effort to balance the budget, this person revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours, generating millions of dollars in fines. He/She is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. Say you get a citation for some minor animal control infraction. No longer can you just pay the ticket.  You have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to preserve your future right to own intact dogs. If you lose you either get out of dogs or leave the state. Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, go to court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.

The new fees for having intact licenses denied or revoked almost seem designed to drive dog owners underground. The state has a poor licensing compliance rate already, 10-30% compared to over 90% in Calgary. If you apply for a license and it is denied, you can be charged an additional fee for having the license denied. Maybe the local agency doesn’t charge such a fee now, but they may when it is time for renewal. Just one more thing to drive people away. And of course what will they do if you don’t pay the fee? Impound and kill your dogs, of course. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You have to have a intact license to do that.

All these new fees and punishments will be enforced with the threat of impounding your dog. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Most owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is usually a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs. Before they are killed, the impounded dogs will sit in the shelter for the state mandated waiting period. The state is required by the existing Hayden Act reimbursement mandate to pay local governments for this cost. The state already pays over $20 million a year for this reimbursement. How many more fire fighters, police officers, teachers, and nurses will have to be laid off to cover the addition reimbursement the state will have to pay out if SB 250 passes?

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB 250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance and licensing fee income. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed.

SB 250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs and strips pet owners and people in general of another right.

This is a terrible and stupid law. It will not do what it claims to want to do, and it will worsen the lives of pet owners, cost money, and kill pets. Please follow these simple action steps and help stop SB 250. Act now!

UPDATE: Gina mentioned this in the comments, but I’m adding it here, too: Alley Cat Allies is urging Californians to contact their legislators to speak against SB 250, saying it will hurt stray, homeless, and feral cats. You can read their take on it, and use their action tool, here.

Source:  PetConnection.com

SB 250 – full Senate votes this week!

Posted:  Just One More Pet

Related Articles:

June 2, 2009 Posted by | Animal Rescues, Just One More Pet, Pet Blog, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change, Stop Euthenization | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments