So, I'm, like, getting a lot of mail today. Most of it's hate mail, and nearly all of it in response to my news piece this week about the “California Healthy Pets Act,” a mandatory spay-neuter bill on its way to the state Senate business committee on Monday local governments committee on Wednesday.
Many of the letters contain long lines of capital letters (as in "THIS IS A SICK JOKE!!!" and "YOU SUCK YOU NAZI!"). Many others contain pictures: sad dog eyes staring through kennel bars and lovely little pit bull terriers covered with sores and poodle-mixes with clotted fur.
A favorite in this genre is the skinny Chihuahua, for whom I, now, am personally responsible, having dared to write about the people who oppose the only possible means by which someone might save this poor little Chihuahua’s life.
The letter writers want me to see these pictures and recant. They want me to go back and say the Earthdoggers were wrong, and their terriers should all be altered at knifepoint.
Instead, they have made me ever more certain that while the intent of AB 1634 may be right -- no one wants more dogs and cats killed in shelters -- the approach is deeply flawed. The bill may have been crafted to reduce the population of unwanted pets in our shelters, but it may end up making it worse.
Many of the people who write in seem to suggest that my story – now known among my colleagues as “the dog-balls story” – proves that I have never been to a pound or shelter, have never seen a stray dog and deny the pet overpopulation problem in California. But the pit bull terrier mix currently snoring in her bed in the middle of the floor, nearly drowning out the radio, attests otherwise. (Molly, is my second. My first pound pit, Buster, was immortalized in the pages of the LA Weekly 10 years ago after he was killed by a rattlesnake.)
If Molly isn't enough, there is also Thomas the Terrier, whom I adopted from a rescue organization (the wonderful Pet Haven in Murrieta, California – you can see his ad still up here). And then there's the two cats, Bean and Flower, to whom a friend and I devoted an entire month bringing to life after they were born in my backyard and abandoned by their feral mother the morning of their first day on earth. They now stay very busy indoors with such important collaborative ventures as dragging the dogs’ water dish across the kitchen.
I have been to the shelters and pounds and seen the stray dogs and cats on the street. I do not dispute that Los Angeles has a problem with unwanted animals, and that the official policy of killing them is horrible. But I also defend the right of the responsible breeder to, as one letter writer, Jane, put it, to “embark upon an unending quest for perfection in their breed of choice.”
Jane, however, does not defend this right. Jane, who wrote me only the least hysterical and most respectful of the self-described animal-lover letters, finds responsible breeders in pursuit of a breed standard “to be scarily reminiscent of supporters of the eugenics movement,” and adds, “thankfully, those are in a minority.”
Thankfully? In other words, Jane implies, thankfully, most breeders don’t give a damn whether their dogs are bred so small they have collapsing tracheas, or so big their hips degenerate, or from such limited gene pools they pass on genetic skin, eye, joint and bowel problems. Thankfully, says Jane, most breeders aren’t a “quest for perfection,” they’re just randomly breeding whichever cute bitch comes in with whatever stud dog they can get of the same breed, just so they can crank out a big litter of puppies to sell.
Thankfully, then, the pet stores with their huge political lobby behind them have plenty of dogs and cats with which to stock their sorry shelves, because most breeders can’t be bothered working diligently for a decade to breed dogs to an agreed-upon standard for health and temperament.
And that’s how we get the sick dogs, the biting dogs and the endlessly whining, overbred creatures who end up in our shelters, along with all the millions of poodle mixes that seemed like such a good idea and yet, when their new owners realize the dogs are sick, aggressive, compulsively itchy or crazy, end up in the pound.
No doubt, Jane doesn’t like the word “eugenics” (from the Greek word for “well born”) because it reminds her of Nazis. But the Nazis also believed in forced sterilization. The anti-AB 1634 side, equally rabid and playing fast with the facts, alludes to Nazis, too. So you see how far that gets you. We're talking dogs here, folks. They can't make decisions about how they're bred. Eugenics doesn't apply.
Many of the aggrieved breeders indeed fail to acknowledge that Assemblymember Lloyd Levine's proposed state spay-neuter bill makes allowances for purebred and mixed breed working dogs. But the proposed law also leans in favor of large, professional breeders, not the small, breed-club aficionado. Many of the people fighting so hard to get it passed have no interest in responsible breeders, and their misguided message is creating confusion in miscommunication among animal lovers that can do nothing to help our shared cause – to reduce the number of suffering pets that end up in our shelters, public or private.
We will not get anywhere controlling the unwanted pet population if we deny all of humanity the beauty of a good hunting dog, or a tenacious rat-catcher, or a herder or a heeler or a sled-pulling Huskie or a Newfoundland who rescues little children from the water. To suggest that the woman who runs the training group I belong to and raises Keeshonden, the Brodericks of Duffy's Cavern and their Cairn Terriers and my friend who raises Rottweilers as therapy dogs are populating shelters is to obdurately ignore the truth. These people are not the enemies of animal lovers. We should have them on our side.
But we don't. Because the message that's getting out is one in which the breeders who consciously work to breed good dogs are evil people who ought to be confined to little cages munching uncooked tempeh for dinner. And that will only keep the pet stores in oats, with all those democratically bred dogs.
(Oh, and by the way, the Chihuahua above is available at Perfect Pet Rescue. The American Staffordshire "Pit" Bull Terrier with the burned back, I'm told, is at the South Los Angeles Shelter. Please somebody go get them, or I might have to.)
Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.laweekly.com/mt-tb.cgi/35689
Comments
There are 14 comments posted for this article.
Great article - you should go have a chat with Patt Morrison at the L.A. Times. She needs enlightening. Here's an excerpt from the letter I just wrote to the Senators. Fits right in with your article - and thanks for writing it!:
While I certainly agree that it is emotionally devastating to see animals euthanized on a daily basis, it is equally devastating to allow those emotions to enable the big leap from there to mandatory sterilization without further thought. Statements such as, “I work at a shelter and I’m tired of seeing animals put to sleep every day,” are not a valid reason for enacting new legislation. Laws should be based on the logical results of research, statistics and analysis, and clearly separate from the often misleading pull of emotions. So, with that in mind, consider the following:
1. WHO is bringing animals into the shelters, either directly or by abandonment?
Primarily, irresponsible owners.
2. WHY? Irresponsible in what way?
They frequently buy on impulse, with no prior research into the requirements of pet ownership. They do not know, or do not care, that animals need to be taught basic house manners, and they do not bond with them. They ignore the present laws and rarely bother to vaccinate or license their pets. They let them roam free, without a leash. And when the cute puppies invariably grows up to be problem dogs who chew, dig, bark, and bite because they were never taught otherwise, these owners abandon them rather than resolve the problems.
3. HOW are these owners, defined as the main source of shelter animals, likely to respond to a mandatory spay/neuter law:
The threat of higher penalties sends them even further into hiding, making them even less likely to license or vaccinate their animals. Or, unwilling to deal with additional trouble and expense, they either take their animals to the shelter, or abandon them on the streets.
4. WHAT is the likely outcome for shelters?
An increase in shelter population and euthanasia numbers, both of which drive up shelter costs. Less compliance in licensing drives revenue down. A decrease in rabies vaccinations creates a public health hazard. And, going back to my opening, more shelter workers emotionally devastated by seeing animals euthanized on a daily basis and begging for a quick fix.
If this seems simplistic, it is. It’s a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to hear when confronted with the horrific images being presented by those who believe their individual experiences are reason enough to require new legislation. However, it is equally IRRESPONSIBLE to allow emotional responses to displace factual information, and will result in even MORE harm to the animals we all want to save.
Dogs and cats are sentient beings, and as the animal rights advocates are quick to tell you, yes, they do suffer. So it’s vital that we focus on the animals themselves, rather than our empathetic response to an image. Look at the big picture. Don’t let their suffering increase.
Posted on July 5, 2007 10:07 PM by Carole Raschella
I don't understand. If AB 1634 specifically allows for dogs to be bred by licensed breeders for the purposes of police and service training clearly that can't be the center of the argument against it. Also, are only purebred dogs suitable for such training? Are there no such purebred dogs already available from local shelters (especially considering the statistics available from the humane society stating that 25% of all shelter dogs are purebred)? I just don't see the need to breed more puppies.
Anyone who continuously asserts their rights with disregard for the obvious consequences is simply being asinine. Am i actually supposed to believe that these breeders, one of whom isn't even responsible enough to pay the $60 fee to the county for her five dogs, are keeping tabs on the 10 to 20 puppies created every time one of their dogs has a liter? At only two liters a year that could be 100 dogs in just 5 years. And this idea that there is a serious need for ratting and hunting dogs in a modern city is a little laughable. Who are these people? I suppose i could frame pictures of my rat terrier mix and hang them next to my musket and the big game trophies that fill my small Los Feliz apartment, but really... why bother?
It might also be worth mentioning that for those absolutely convinced that they must own a purebred dog for whatever reason that there are also breed specific rescues and pet adoption websites that allow you to search by breed.
Posted on July 6, 2007 1:07 PM by hannah
What dog has 20 puppies in a litter? Or even 10? Do you really even have a dog?
Rat terriers are great little dogs.
AB 1634 does except mixed-breed utility and working dogs. You could probably even make an argument for keeping your Frisbee dog intact, which is part of the problem with it.
And indeed, there are breed-specific rescues, as I mention above. That's how I got Thomas the Cairn Terrier.
But as for the purpose of a working terrier: The state of California is not crammed into your modern-city Los Feliz apartment with you, as much as it might seem that way some days. I have a friend in Topanga overwhelmed with rats. I had rats in a West L.A. House 10 years ago (and a Cairn Terrier to take them out). Thomas routed mice from the compost when I lived in Hollywood Hills.
Not everyone is up to the task of rescuing dogs. I do it because I can -- I'm an experienced dog person, I don't have kids, I do a lot of my work at home (and can also bring them into the office). But someone with a family might want a more predictable pet. It's important that they get the dog they're happy with from a breeder who will take back that puppy if it doesn't work out. And the breeders I reported on do take back those puppies. You might not believe me, or believe them, but I know for a fact that they do.
I agree that they ought to pay their fees and their taxes and get their licenses, and I've said so. But part of the reason they don't is because they don't want to be noticed by the authorities at all, because they're afraid of the consquences.
There's a big problem in this state with unwanted pets. But not even the CVMA supports AB 1634 anymore -- not because it doesn't know there's an overpopulation problem, but because it doesn't think the proposed law will solve it.
There's a great discussion about all this (and other things) going on here: http://petconnection.com/blog/
Posted on July 6, 2007 4:07 PM by Judith Lewis
I have two dogs. They are both rescues and they are fixed. I'm not at all sure they will do much to protect me from the plague. I would much prefer to put my faith in proper sanitation and let the dogs keep their place on the couch. I am fairly certain however, most mice don't demand to see a dogs pedigree. Plenty of shelter dogs already in existence would love to chase your rats.
Sorry if I was wrong on the number of puppies in a typical liter. I'm not a breeder so I'm a little unclear on the specifics.
I am sure some breeders do accept returned dogs. So will a good rescue. If you have a child and are concerned with the dogs temperament you could adopt a dog that has been fostered? The foster family would have no problem filling you in on the dogs personality. Rescues also screen applicants and visit homes.
Altering you dog may also make him less aggressive. It might also prevent him from running off and ending up at the pound.
Why would someone put their name on a waiting list for puppies when there are so many already around. There just isn't any excuse for it.
Even if this law is horribly flawed and has no chance of helping, breeding is unnecessary and misguided and these breeders are part of the problem.
Posted on July 6, 2007 5:07 PM by hannah
Thank you for your article. It's interesting and it made very clear to me that the people who created, sponsored, and support AB 1634 are not so much Animal-Lovers as People-Haters.
This bill has a mild anti-pet flavor to it and if passed would be the first baby-step in a long line of socialist legislation designed to take away the rights of law-abiding pet lovers.
This bill needs to be quashed, California legislators needs to go back to improving our schools, our roads, and protecting our rights, Animal Welfare societies need to continue their monumental efforts to educate people and get abandoned animals into the homes of real animal -lovers, and animal activists need to get back to the business of minding their own damn business.
Posted on July 7, 2007 7:07 AM by Chris
i don't like your jaded, flippant attitude. and get your facts right before you publish something for people to believe. there's no business meeting on monday, go look it up at leginfo.ca.gov. the dog you may have to go and rescue from south l.a. was already rescued. YOU'VE EXPLOITED THE ANIMALS PICTURED HERE TO MAKE YOUR POINT. DID YOU GET PERMISSION TO PUBLISH OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS PICTURES? I SUGGEST YOU REMOVE THEM.
forget discussion about the bill, it's your sloppiness coupled with your brazen attitude i'm talking about.
Posted on July 7, 2007 7:07 PM by rene
Yeah, well I don't like the jaded, flippant attitude of most of the pro-AB 1634 people -- a bill I would love to support, by the way, were it not for the "YOU NEED TO COME TO THE SHELTER AND SEE THE SUFFERING DOGS!" one-note argument on your side.
People sent me pictures. Did I need permission? I'm glad the dog has been rescued. Good! So why did someone send me the picture? To make me feel bad? I feel plenty bad, thank you.
And you're saying *I'm* exploiting animals! Ha. I have an inbox full of suffering animals sent to punish me for publishing a news story about your detractors. Don't talk to me about exploitation.
Increasingly, I feel bad that the people who think they're saving unwanted pets are ruining their cause. You guys are unwanted pets' worst enemies right now, because you are not addressing the root cause of the issue.
I'm not in Sacramento at the moment, but as far as I can tell, there's a business & professions hearing on Monday. Things can change, sure, and maybe you've got some psychic connection to the legislature I can't access, but as a public rube, I only see this:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070706_status.html
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 07/03/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend,
and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended,
and re-referred to Com. on L.GOV.
HEARING DATE : 07/09/2007
Posted on July 7, 2007 9:07 PM by Judith Lewis
anyone on the fence about fixing there pup should read this...
http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/myths_and_facts_about_spaying_and_neutering.html
The root cause of the issue is to many dogs and cats, not enough suitable homes.
Can we stop adding to the problem yet?
Posted on July 7, 2007 11:07 PM by hannah
it's one thing to use a suffering animal's picture to cry out help for that animal. quite another to use it to whine about how harrassed you've been by the public and your irreverent colleagues.
speaking of irreverent, jaded attitudes, the bunch opposed to this bill is one of the nastiest i've seen. i've heard their rallies. they care about their rights, it's not about the animals.
a friend of mine who supports the bill says spay neuter laws are not THE answer, but ONE OF THE answers. that is how i see it too.
re b&p meeting, there is a meeting on monday, but ab 1634 is not on the agenda.
Posted on July 8, 2007 5:07 AM by rene
I agree with your friend -- spay-neuter is one of the answers. But other jurisdictions have implemented voluntary, funded spay-neuter programs that have worked better than mandatory programs, which addresses one of the biggest reasons for the proliferation of unwanted pets: Poverty.
New Hampshire has a subsidized spay-neuter fund that over the last 13 years has reduced shelter killings from 11,000 to 3,000; Utah had a huge problem until they instituted their subsidized spay-neuter program, six years ago. After the program kicked in, shelter killings dropped 57 percent (and they expect more, because it takes a while for results to show up).
Dear "rene": (Is that "reen" or "re-nay"? Or just a dumb fake name?) AB 1634 was scheduled for Monday's business meeting, but was moved to Wednesday's local governments meeting on June 29, which was after I wrote the article (and leginfo still says the AB 1634 hearing is on Monday, as you can see). I was no longer in reporter mode when I wrote the blog post, but I've changed it to mollify you. To suggest that the whole argument crumbles because the hearing date was changed, however, suggests a certain level of desperation I can only pity.
Also, I was personally for AB 1634 when I wrote that story. I was being a reporter, which involves listening to the side you don't agree with. But the screeching, hateful letters I've received -- all of which deny any difference between puppy mill/backyard breeders and responsible hobby breeders -- have made me realize how recklessly the law can be applied, targeting exactly the wrong people.
Posted on July 8, 2007 8:07 AM by Judith Lewis
it's rene w/ accent aigue (no html option in this text box). you're putting words in my mouth re crumbling arguments.
read what i wrote. i said never mind discussion of the bill. that, i believe, would be a futile effort.
it's the way you exploited those animals to grizzle about your hate letters that provoked me to wrath. being in the spotlight comes part and parcel w/ fan and hate mail. so let's get this straight: my argument with you is primarily regarding using those animals to rant and then there was the reckless reporting to boot.
mollify me by publishing facts straight? seems you'd do that for your own reputation. if you wanted to mollify me, you'd take down the chi and the pit photos.
Posted on July 8, 2007 9:07 PM by rene
René,
My reputation isn’t harmed by reporting the date of a meeting on Friday that changes on Monday. But I forget — you’re not interested in journalism. Just in your side of the story.
Next time you weigh in here to assail my integrity, René, use your real name. Anonymous cowardice is cheap and ugly.
(P.S. You don't need html for the accent. You don't need it for a last name, either. Or an email that identifies you.)
Posted on July 8, 2007 10:07 PM by Judith Lewis
my real name's rené. i will not subject myself to harvesting and spam, so no last name out here in public.
you prefer to dwell on my lesser criticism, why is that.
Posted on July 9, 2007 6:07 AM by rene
Hannah, the number of dogs euthanized in California, per year, is about 1 for every 300 Californians (120,000 dogs, 33,000,000 people.)
The number of dogs euthanized in the entire United States, per year, is estimated at between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 - out of a population of around 300,000,000. That is about 1 for every 200 US citizens.
Look up the numbers and do the math yourself.
Posted on July 12, 2007 1:00 PM by Sally