My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Denver ban? Still not working | Main | More on Los Angeles »

March 11, 2009

Comments

Selma

Way to hurl, LA!

What happened to government of the people, by the people, FOR the people?

I guess they can't afford to subsidize neutering, since California is going bankrupt. Yet they cling to a law that is not only based on lies, but also has the opposite effect to that intended.

Dawn

Love this statement!!

"Successful animal control programs have shown that they are successful by removing barriers to responsible dog ownership -- not creating them and punishing non-compliance."

Rebecca

We are asking the city council of Los Angeles to repeal this law. It makes no sense that the council passed a law that now stands to punish the most vunerable in our society, the low income, disabled and senior residents all of whom have lost any assistance they desperately needed to comply with this ridiculous law. The punishment by the way is fines upto $500 and a misdemeanor and a/c has the right to take their pet away.

Rebecca

The AP has picked up on the story and it is in outlets all over the country. Great press for failed legislation.

Brent

Rebecca,

Thanks for the updates -- and good luck on pushing for the repeal. The combination of the law and the lack of low-cost spay/neuter vouchers is a huge recipe for a lot of bloodshed in the shelter. Sigh.

Please keep us posted on any progress.

I'm glad the story got picked up by the AP. I really wish they had dived deeper into the story. I'll be posting it in the next day or two.

JAL

Brent Brent Brent..

You wouldn't be asking the media to, ya' know, do real research beyond a good headline or anything would you?

How's SweetP? I've done the ACL thing a few times. No fun at all.

E

Last year was also a year of record foreclosures and collapse of the economy which caused the rise in dogs and cats being abandoned to shelter, it has nothing to do with the spay/neuter law. There are other non-city funded low cost options, they are easy to find with a simple google search. People say they cannot afford it but also do not bother to find the affordable services or adopt animals that are ALREADY FIXED. People should stop paying $500 for a puppy and then complaining that they cannot afford to fix them...

The city has also have said they cannot afford to enforce the law, so really, you cannot claim that it is causing oh so much hardship.

Rebecca

Um, E..Not the case. As a resident of Los Angeles, the forclosures did not cause the high increase of intakes into shelters. In areas that were MUCH more hard hit than Los Angels in the foreclosure realm, their intakes did not increase at the levels that LAAS did. Nice excuse and argument from Ed Boks (E???) but like most of his (your) justifcations, they don't makes sense. It's easy to make a claim, much more difficult to back it up with proof.

There are not other non-city options. There is much outdated information on the internet. Almost every single program offering assistance has ceased to exist in the city.

To say that people should adopt animals that are "already fixed" isn't an argument. People owned pets already when the law was passed. That doesn't help those people. The city has been releasing animals intact (which by the way is against state law) and then expecting people to spay/neuter them at their own cost. So even "adopting" animals from shelters doesn't help financially.

The city can not afford to enforce the law, but having the RIGHT to do so, at the whim of an a/c agent is still wrong. The right to prosecute someone (misdemeanor remember???) should not be allowed if there are not significant resources to provide every resident to comply with the law.

Remember is was passed assuring $2.2 million was available to pay for spay/neuter. That was 4 months ago. Now there is zero, zippo. The law was passed on deception. It now needs to be repealed.

It's pretty cut and dry. Bad management, bad law, bad for animals and the people of Los Angeles, time to go.

Brent

E,

Yeah -- MSN doesn't happen in a vaccuum. There are always other factors.

However, I think discounting MSN's role in this is naive.

For starters, in October, the state of California passed a law to slow the rate of foreclosurers - which worked in the back quarter of the year.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/11/dont_pay_attent.html

Forclosures were down in October and November. However, if you look at the month over month canine euth rates - the single highest increase month was in October -- the month when forclosured dropped, but MSN started being enforced.

http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/yearend/DogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf

I think it's also fair to note that LA saw an increase in forclosures in 2006 and 2007 -- but still saw a decrease in shelter kill rates -- prior to MSN.

I also think that it's disingenous to blame people who buy $500 puppies. You and I both know that that is not who is receiving the discounted vouchers. It is low-income people who are receiving the vouchers -- and they're not buying $500 puppies instead (at least not most of them).

It would all also be different if similar increases in shelter kill rates hadn't taken place in virtually every other city that has passed a MSN ordinance. Denying reality is not helping animals.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)