[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: why MSN doesn't work.....
- From: Stormy435@xxxxxxx
- To: cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx, showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:36:10 EDT
I want to repeat these excellent comments, but also give credit to Laura
Atkinson, CFDC Board member. SHE gives credit to much of the research done
by
(and on) the Cat Fanciers' Association (www.cfa.org). This will soon be on
the NEW California Federation of Dog Clubs website, coming soon to a computer
near you.
Stormy
In a message dated 3/22/07 5:27:22 PM, cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> San Mateo County, CA ordinance passed in 1991.
>
> â?¢ The ordinance requires spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in the
> unincorporated parts of the county unless the owner obtains an unaltered
> license or breederâ??s permit. Chap. 8.02.090, Sec. 3332.4 (a) If an
> unaltered animal breeds accidentally, the owner must obtain a breederâ??s
> permit. The license fee for unaltered animals is nearly twice that of
> spay/neutered cats and dogs. Any owner redeeming impounded unaltered
> animals must pay an additional fee. This fee is refunded if the animal
> is spayed or neutered within 30 days. Any unaltered animal impounded
> twice or more within a 3-year period will be altered at the guardianâ??s
> expense prior to redemption. Chap. 8.02, Sec. 3330.8 Penalties for
> violation include fines of up to $100 on the first offense, $200 on the
> second offense, and $500 for each additional violation of the same
> ordinance within one year.
> â?¢ After the effective date of the ordinance, dog deaths in the areas
> governed by the ordinance, increased 126% and cats 86% while licenses
> declined by 35%. For the county as a whole dog deaths decreased 5% and
> cats 16% in 1993; in 1994 dog deaths declined 12% and cats 17%. From
> 1991-1994 there were no cat breeder permits and 50 permits for dog
> breeders, eight of which were renewals. In addition, licenses dropped
> dramatically. For 1998-99, the number dropped to 36,023, a dramatic
> decline from the 48,000-51,000 range of the previous two decades.
>
> Los Angeles (city), California ordinance passed in 2000.
> â?¢ requires the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats unless the owner has
> obtained a $100. annual unaltered animal or breederâ??s permit. Sec.
> 53.15.2 For any dogs that breed, the owner must obtain a $100 annual
> breederâ??s permit for each animal which allows 1 litter. A second litter
> during the annual permit period may be permissible "to protect the
> health of the animal[,] avert a substantial economic loss to the
> permittee" or "if the first litter was euthanized". A breeder must
> register all dogs bred for sale and disclose their name and permit
> number in any ad and on any sale documents. The city also tracks the
> identity of subsequent owners of the animals sold by breeders. There is
> a $91.50 license fee for unaltered dogs and a $6.50 charge for animals
> that have been spayed/neutered. Sec. 53.15.3 Violators are subject to
> fines of up to $500.00.
> â?¢ Since the passage of this 2000 "spay or pay" Los Angeles ordinance,
> there has been a decline in dog licensing compliance. The animal control
> budget after passage of the law rose 269%., from $6.7 million to $18
> million. The city hired additional animal control officers and bought
> new trucks and equipment just to enforce the new law.
>
> Capitola, California ordinance joined Santa Cruz Countyâ??s 1991 ordinance
> â?¢ requiring spay/neuter of dogs with limited exceptions for breeding.
> Secs. 6.10.030, .050 The city requires a $15 certificate and charges
> twice the amount for a license for unaltered dogs. Dogs without the
> certificate must be spayed/neutered. There is a warning for a first
> offense, and a mandatory spay/neuter order is issued for a second violation.
> â?¢ Since the lawâ??s 1991 inception, licensing compliance has dropped
> significantly.
>
> Montgomery County, MD the mandatory spay/neuter law was repealed.
> â?¢ When the law was enacted, it was estimated that 550 breeding permits
> would be issued per year. In reality only an average of 30 permits were
> issued per year. There was an estimated 50% decline in licensing compliance.
> â?¢ Although the euthanasia rate declined 21.5% after the ordinance was
> passed, it had declined 34% prior to enactment of the law. The Office of
> Legislative Oversight recommended in its 1997 report that the county
> eliminate the new breeder permit system and return to their former
> license fee structure. Under the current ordinance, Montgomery County
> requires a 3 year $75 license for unaltered animals and an annual $25
> license for those that have been spayed/neutered; there are discounts
> for low income applicants for the license for a spayed neutered animal.
> Secs. 05.00.01.01, 05.401.01.02
>
> Fort Worth TX ended its manadatory spay/neuter program.
> â?¢ licensing compliance fell off after passage of the ordinance. As a
> result there was a reduction in rabies vaccinations which lead to an
> increase in rabies in the city.
>
> Camden County, NJ ordinance passed in 1996
> â?¢ mandatory spay/neuter ordinance required a $500 permit fee to possess
> an intact dog or cat. In 2000 it was changed to $10, because of there
> were so few requests for it. But then again in 2001 the permit fee was again
> raised to $100, its current rate. As for the euthanasia rates
> since the effective date of the ordinance, the PAWS NJ website comments,
> "An analysis of these statistics shows the Humane Society of Southern NJ
> which operates the Camden County Animal Shelter, to be consistently one
> of the leading, if not the leading killers of animals in the state of
> New Jersey." The report covers 1998-2001, well after the effective date
> of the mandatory spay neuter ordinance. The siteâ??s report on the top 50
> New Jersey animal shelters reveals some in Camden County have
> significantly lower euthanasia rates than others in the state, but at
> least 2 had the highest kill rates in New Jersey.
>
> King County, Washington ordinance passed in 1992
> â?¢ requires all dogs and cats over 6 months old to be spayed/neutered
> unless the guardian buys an unaltered license for $60, $40 more than for
> an altered pet. Chap IV, Secs. 11.04.035, 11.04.210, 11.04.400. The
> ordinance provides for a breeder certification program. Sec. 11.04.570
> It is illegal to advertise to King County residents the availability of
> any unaltered dog or cat without the animalâ??s license number; breeders,
> however, may advertise litters for sale. Chap. IV, Sec. 11.04.510. It is
> also illegal to sell or give away an unaltered animal in a public place
> or as a raffle or other prize. Sec. 11.04.235 Anyone selling or giving
> away an unaltered dog or cat must notify animal control in writing with
> the new owner's name, address, and telephone number. Sec. 11.04.570
> There is also a provision for door to door canvassing to ensure
> compliance. Sec. 11.04.580
> â?¢ License compliance has appeared to decrease since passage of the
> ordinance. Animal control expenses have increased 56.8% and revenues
> only 43.2%. In 1990 the total cost of animal control was $1,662,776; in
> 1997, it was $3,087,350. Euthanasia rates actually fell at a slower rate
> after passage of the ordinance. In the years prior to enactment of the
> law, euthanasia rates were plummeting in King County. The data shows
> that the one real success as a result of the ordinance was the increase
> in adoptions.
>
> Aurora, CO
> â?¢ requires breeder permits as part of its mandatory spay/neuter
> ordinance, licensing compliance has dropped dramatically. Secs. 14-42;
> 14-71(b), 14-101(a)(1). Pinellas County Florida has required breeder
> licensing since 1992. Sec. 14-29.
> â?¢ Since then the animal control budget has increased 75% with revenue
> increasing only 13%. There have also been increases in shelter intake
> and euthanasia rates since the law took effect.
>
> In all of my research, I've been unable to find MSN ordinances that
> solve the problems that proponents claim they will solve. I'd be happy
> to be wrong and would love to see a working MSN ordinance that doesn't
> a) decreasing licensing compliance
> b) increase Animal Control budgest beyond the additional revenue created
> c) fairly target the people that are the source of the problem, the
> irresponsible owners who allow their animals to run loose and breed
> indiscriminantly.
>
>
>
"You may never know what results come from your action.
But if you do nothing, there will be no result."
                                         Â
Mahatma Gandhi
Stormy Hope
*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
Dog's love is different, it requires no return
www.FairhopeGSD.com
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
============================================================================
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: