[ SHOWGSD-L ] A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: by DR. RONALD E. COLE (AB1634)
- From: "Ginger Cleary" <cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Showgsd-L@Freelists. Org" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:19:13 -0400
-----Original Message-----
CROSSPOSTED FROM
TX-RPOA E-News
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization,
not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
Permission granted to crosspost.
June 24, 2007
How do you know when an "animal rights" activist is lying? When his lips
move ... Excellent article by Dr. Cole below! AB 1634 is the proposed CA
bill to mandate spay/neuter of all dogs and cats over 4 months of age
which
means no pets 10 years from now.
________________________________________
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
By
DR. RONALD E. COLE
181 YERBA BUENA AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127-2549
415 661-1881
ron-cole@xxxxxxxxxxx
Re: OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION AB 1634
Several years ago I came across the following definition in an old (1980)
edition of William Safire's Political Dictionary, subtitled the New
Language
of Politics: BIG LIE: a falsehood of such magnitude and audacity that
it
is bound to have an effect on public opinion even if it is not given
credence by a
majority; a propaganda technique identified with Adolph Hitler.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in
causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the
depths
of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and
intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a
more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often
tell
little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.
Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most impudent lies,
a
fact which all bodies and individuals concerned with the art of lying in
this world know only too well, and hence they stop at nothing to achieve
this end."
The discussion went on to cover the McCarthy era hearings and the lies
perpetrated by them. What does all of that have to do with AB 1634? The
rationale for this misguided proposal is based on false and misleading
figures. Can I provide you with correct figures? No. No one can, but,
the proponents of this bill are making false and misleading claims because
reporting on euthanasia and shelter surrenders is neither accurate nor
complete in this state where there is no standardized or uniform reporting
from each shelter in the state. Those of us who have been observing these
figures over time see, even with the inaccurate and incomplete data, a
steady downward drop in euthanasia and in shelter surrender, even though
the
human population has risen precipitously over the past three decades. We
also know that several districts, beginning with San Francisco, which
paved
the way, have achieved a no kill goal without any adverse dog and cat
legislation, whatsoever.
Richard Avanzino, whose innovative and marvelous ideas led to this
breakthrough, has since left and moved on to administer the Duffield
Foundation's Maddie's Fund, which helps poorer districts replicate this by
providing advice and funds with the qualifying proviso that there must be
no
adverse dog /cat legislation in that district. Passage of AB 1634 would
effectively cut off those funds. The secret to vanzino's success lay in
free and reduced cost neutering and spaying for dogs, cats and feral cats
as
well as lots of public education. He was neither judgmental nor
confrontational, and this attitude and willingness to work with all
factions
(animal welfare and animal rights) of the pet world set the tone at the SF
SPCA, resulting in record amounts of donations in both volunteer hours and
in monetary contributions. He formed a partnership with the public,
rather
than setting up an adversarial role, as most adverse dog and cat
legislation
is apt to do. His example, not that of Santa Cruz, the single district
that
passed a mandatory s/n law, is the one we should all be emulating.
The Big Lie is that there is no statewide pet overpopulation problem in
this
state. There are some districts that have not yet reached no kill that
have
local pet population problems, and in all of them the numbers of adoptable
dogs and cats that are euthanized are going down without adverse
legislation. Notice, I said "adoptable dogs and cats," because those are
really the only ones we should be counting. There will always be
euthanasia because there will always be animals too old, too sick or too
vicious to be placed in a family home environment, and there will always
be
owner surrendered animals.
The exaggerated, inflated, and fabricated numbers of animals put to sleep
is
not something new. It has been going on for many years, now in fact,
since 1990. The original San Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous
attempt at change with its complete moratorium on breeding to be followed
by
mandatory neutering and spaying of each and every dog and cat (with no
exceptions), as well as to make it illegal to transport animals for the
purposes of breeding. This 1990 proposal was made in San Mateo County,
and
the County Supervisor, Tom Nolan, and Peninsula Humane Society (PHS)
Director, Kim Sturla, posed for T.V. cameras in front of barrels of dead
dogs and cats with paws and tails grotesquely hanging over the barrels.
They
claimed that 10,000 animals were being euthanized yearly. Fortunately, no
action was taken, and two task forces were formed that met
regularly. I monitored one of them. "Where did that figure of 10,000
come from," we asked? After getting the data we requested, we discovered
that the animals were eliminated to reveal about 650 adoptable dogs had
been euthanized. Today that figure has been reduced to zero in San Mateo
County, and without mandatory n/s laws.
So, what about the claims of the proponents of AB 1634? First of all,
this
is not a statewide problem and is not in need of statewide solution
because
one size does not fit all. The Big Lie is being used to try to convince
law makers that it is a problem, and we can prove this unequivocally, and
without playing our opponents' "numbers game."
Fact: Shelter euthanasia has been going down statewide, even in the worst
areas.
Testimonial Truth: In the City of Los Angeles at a recent public meeting
(May 2, 2007) the following was revealed in a report to the Public Safety
Committee:
"Since 2000, ASD has reduced the euthanasia rate by 20 percent using
licensing incentives, promoting adoption programs and strengthening
alliances with the animal rescue community. In addition, ASD has reduced
the
number of impounds by a similar percentage through aggressive voluntary
spay/neuter programs."
>From Assemblywoman Shirley Horton from San Diego County: The primary
>reason I opposed AB 1634 is because it is overreaching. For example,
about
>7 years ago, San Diego County adopted a voluntary spay/neuter program
with
>education
as a centerpiece. They had the chance to adopt the Los Angeles model,
which
was very similar to what AB 1634 does, but they chose to take the less
forceful, voluntary route. This has, in fact, reduced the euthanasia of
adoptable pets by 100% and is one of the most effective programs in the
state.
Supply and Demand Proof: The numbers of adoptable dogs, especially the
medium, small and toy sized dogs, in many district shelters have been
reduced so much that the demand far exceeds the supply, forcing shelters
like Animal Care & Control in San Francisco to send employees to the
Central
Valley shelters to find and bring back adoptable dogs. Some shelters and
some prospective owners have even gone so far as to import these dogs off
the streets of Mexico and Asian countries, all without health inspections.
Sickly dogs have been reported imported from Eastern European countries,
too.
Yet, the hobby breeder, who will be most adversely affected by this bill,
is
the least responsible for dogs and cats winding up in shelters. A
responsible breeder checks out the home of the prospective buyer before
selling a dog and always is willing to take the dog back if things don't
work out. The irresponsible breeder probably is one who does not license
a
dog (less than 20% of dog owners buy licenses) and undoubtedly won't
follow
this law, either. The tariff on each intact dog will not only raise the
cost of these dogs to the average buyer, but will make it impossible for
many breeders to keep extra intact dogs to preserve the gene pool. It
will
result in more breeding of closely related specimens with more genetic
diseases as a result. Some of the rarer breeds will probably disappear.
Epidemiological studies in 4 major universities, including U.C. Davis,
have
shown that hobby breeders are the least likely source of shelter
surrenders.
They also provide a setting where a buyer can inspect the source (sire,
dam
and breeder) of a prospective puppy and check on its genetic background
and
its early socialization.
AB 1634 does not begin to address the feral cat problem, which in San
Francisco was much improved by a policy of aiding the feral cat caretakers
by providing free cat fixes to ferals that were brought in to the shelter.
These cats are then placed back in the colony, which keeps other ferals
from
moving in, and which stabilizes and eventually reduces the size of the
colony. In all probability (without complete data), feral cats are the
single largest number of animals being euthanized, and these are all
without
owners.
So, even without accurate reporting figures, we can accurately state that
the proponents of AB 1634 have been perpetuating the Big Lie that has been
part of their propaganda since 1990. We know that the ultimate aim of the
Animal Rights groups is the complete elimination of purebred dogs and
pedigree cats through the elimination of breeding of these species. This
bill goes a long way towards that goal. I still remember the chilling
sight
of a young man in his twenties sitting in the front row at one of the
hearings in San Mateo in 1990 wearing a tee shirt with the letters "ALF"
emblazoned on it.
AB 1634 is also draconian and outrageously manipulative, as was the
similar
proposal in San Mateo in 1990 which frightened hobbyists and breeders into
seeking compromise. Social scientists in the mass communications field
have
found that the size of a requested opinion or behavior change is important
to the degree of change effected. Herbert Adelson, of Opinion Research
Corporation observes: "The more extreme the opinion change that the
communicator asks for, the more actual change he is likely to get." In
other words if you want to produce a change, the more outrageous or
extreme
the requested change, the more likely you are to get it. The original San
Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous attempt at change because some
who opposed the mandatory n/s proposal thought that compromise of a lesser
sort would help prevent the original proposal from being adopted. And, so
the unincorporated part of San Mateo County got an ordinance that included
breeders licensing, something that would have had little or no chance of
passing had it been the original proposal.
John Hamil, DVM, a past president of the California Veterinary Medical
Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal
Advocates
that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care
Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal
Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and
Policy, author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter, is
undoubtedly the leading authority on this subject. The following quotes
are made with his permission and should effectively debunk the proponents'
propaganda, adding considerable weight to the list of proofs cited above.
He
has stated that "The number of animals being euthanized in California
shelters has dropped steadily for more than two decades despite the
continuous population increase in families with pets. Importantly, the
numbers continue to drop faster in shelters that are in jurisdictions that
do not have mandatory spay/neuter."
He further states: "The majority of dogs euthanized are medium to large
mixed breed individuals .. belonging to irresponsible owners who are hard
to
identify and who will never comply with this law and are noncompliant with
many other community laws. The number of young,healthy, well socialized,
adoptable animals euthanized is much smaller than the humane and
sheltering
community has claimed.
The number of animals euthanized continues to decline each year and varies
greatly from area to area within the state.
Why do we need a coercive, punitive and intrusive "broad brush" state law,
when this is clearly a local issue?"
And the answer to that last question is a resounding We do not need such
a
law. It is totally unnecessary.
One of the more preposterous claims is that it will reduce the costs of
shelters and to the public throughout the state. Dr. Hamil effectively
debunks this spurious argument:
"Even if it was possible to 'turn off the faucet', as Assemblyman Levine
likes to say; there would be little reduction in the cost of shelter
operation.
As hospital owners know, most costs are fixed (facilities,administration,
trucks, equipment, etc.) The shelter can't even reduce staff as we can in
private business. Unfortunately, a reduction in the numbers of animals
entering the shelter will only effect a small reduction in the overall
cost
to the taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the steady increase in animal
control budgets over the last two decades despite the number of animals
entering the shelters and the number of animals euthanized decreasing
significantly.
The method of accounting, linking the overall cost of animal control to
the
number of animals euthanized, exploited by the sponsors of this bill is
very
misleading. Using this method, the cost of each euthanasia goes up as the
number of euthanized animals goes down. The use of this tactic is
dishonest,
disingenuous or, at best, misinformed."
They would also have us believe that this would save the state millions of
dollars because of reduced euthanasia. Not so. The animal control
shelters and pounds would not close their doors. Euthanasia is a
miniscule
cost in the overall picture of animal rescues, rabies checks, animal
abuse,
dog fighting, reuniting pets with owners, etc. that animal control
officers
engage in every day.
It is time to set the record straight and to tell the truth .The truth is
that there is a pet population problem in some parts of this state, but
not
statewide. The truth is that those areas having problems should emulate
the
techniques and efforts made in the successful areas, and perhaps the state
should contribute money to assist with more public education and more low
cost and free spay and neuter clinics in those areas having problems.
A special aside to Democrats, many of whom seem to support this bill: The
truth is that the public is tired of big lies, whether they be about
mushroom clouds, W.M.D.'s and other false reasons for going to war, or
about
a supposed pet overpopulation problem and use of propaganda, based upon
inflated, incomplete and inaccurate data. Dog and cat owners come in all
sizes and belong to all political parties. We are united in our desire to
see the truth prevail. We are tired of propaganda and spin, and we will
cross party lines, if needs be to vote against those who propagate it.
Every poll I have seen shows that the public overwhelmingly opposes this
overly intrusive bill. If it were brought to a vote in this state, it
would most certainly go down to defeat. We should be able to count on our
elected representatives not to perpetuate the Big Lie and not to enact
such
an unpopular and unjust law.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ronald E. Cole
Member Board of Directors San Francisco Dog Training Club
Member Board of Directors The Animal Council (TAC)
Member and former Vice President & Chair of Legislative and Legal Affairs
Committee of the American Dog Owners Association
Past President of THE ASSOCIATED OBEDIENCE CLUBS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Fax: (210) 822-9038
Website: www. responsiblepetowners. org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)
To share information, subscribe or unsubscribe,
send an e-mail message to rpoa @ texas.net.
__._,_.___
===================================
Ginger Cleary,Rome, GA ww.rihadin.com
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo
the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine
Member GSDCA
Member Sawnee Mtn Kennel Club
GA Director Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007
8:33 AM
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
