There certainly has been some interesting stuff on the internets the past couple of days.
This afternoon, Ed Boks, the very controversial head of Animal Control in the city of Los Angeles stepped down.
Boks has been criticized by many for many things in Los Angeles: failure to address feral cat issues, allowing too many animals to die while in his care, pushing for a mandatory spay/neuter program in L.A. that, in part, led to a 24% increase in euthanasia -- the first increase in euthanasia at the shelter in 6+ years, and then, most recently, discontinuing their low-cost spay/neuter vouchers due to budget constraints.
Gina has her take on the announcement.
LA Animal Watch has his resignation speech.
I have no doubt that the head of LA Animal Control is a difficult job -- and it will be interesting what direction the city takes to replace him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, I had intended to type up something on H.R. 669 -- an ordinance that is supported by HSUS and is designed to end the ownership of "non-native" species of animals in the United States.
While the bill sounds ok on the surface, it would have a majorly detrimental affect on many in the pet trade -- including ownership of exotic birds, fish, reptiles and even a lot of small furry pets like hampsters and guinee pigs. Heck, the bill was so broad, it very well could have been applied to a large percentage of our farm animals that we use for food in this country.
The bill was heard in Congress yesterday and Christie did such a nice job covering it, I'll just link over there. Here's her post from yesterday. And another (even better one) from awhile back. And a video from Gina too.
Doolittler had a nice post on this yesterday as well. Her perspective is particularly interesting because, being from Florida, she has a great view on the damage done by non-native species in this country in the wild. But even with that, understands the bill is WAY too broad.
Some live-blogging action from the house floor from Christie.
And here's the bill summary.
While the bill didn't restrict any particular animals, per se, it did open up the possibility that virtually every non-native species (going as far back as the pilgrims) that was not a dog or a cat could be restricted in this country. I still have major problems with the support of a bill that could have had such a devastating impact on so many pets in this country.
Comments