Because Dogs Won't Wear Condoms
By Walter Moore, Chief Economist and Legal Analyst, L.A. Public Policy Institute.May I just start by saying God bless Assemblyman Lloyd Levine for taking ACTION to promote the humane treatment of pets? Thank you.
According to the Daily News, Levine has sponsored a bill that would make it mandatory to spay or neuter nearly every pet in California. "The bill, if passed, would help save the 500,000 dogs and cats euthanized in California each year, said Levine, D-Van Nuys."
I love this guy! (And I'm not just saying this because my (first) mayoral campaign included a platform plank for mandatory and free spaying and neutering.) Let's stop killing perfectly adorable, perfectly adoptable dogs and cats as if that kind of carnage is normal. Let's stop the overpopulation by preventing the birth of unwanted pets in the first place.
And don't whine to me about the cost. Mass killing and disposal of pets is no bargain, and it's immoral. This is a humane way to stop the problem once and for all.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 3/02/2007 09:11:00 AM
49 Comments:
Wacko - surprised you're giving into a liberal sychophant like Lloyd. He's always doing some grandstanding legislation like banning shopping bags and light bulbs.
How about this? Lets hold people responsible for their pets and not the government.
I don't really care about whether someone labels himself as a "liberal" or "conservative" or "green," I care about his policy proposals. This one, by Levine, is a good one.
And, since you mention it, the shopping bag and light bulb proposals are, in my opinion, EXCELLENT proposals for protecting the environment and reducing our dependence on Middle East oil.
As for holding people responsible for their pets, No. 1, that's what this law would do -- the law would hold people responsible for spaying and neutering. No. 2, the status quo isn't working. No. 3, the pets are the ones suffering now, not the owners.
What do you mean dogs won't use condoms! Antonio started using one right after his 3rd illegitimate child.
Walter,
Would this work for California general population (humans).
LOL. Man, it's worth a try!
And mandatory wouldn't fly, but I bet we'd get a massive return on our tax dollar if we offered $5000 to everyone of child-bearing years who would forego the infrastructure -- to play on Zuma Dogg's radio quip this morning -- necessary to reproduce.
Wacko Walter - What the Fuck us the " L.A. Public Policy Institute"?????
On a Google search it doesn't even exist. How many "members" does this "institute" have? What are its qualifications? What work has the "institute" conducted? (Not pieces written by YOU!)
Where is the headquarters of this "Institute"? What is its annual operating budget? Does the "Institute" file taxes? Is it a non-ptofit?
Or have you self appointed yourself to some lame-ass title because the only place the " L.A. Public Policy Institute" appears IS IN YOUR POSTS!
11:58 --
As you would know from previous posts if you would read every single one, which is your duty, the L.A. Policy Institute my way of pointing out that the incessantly quoted "Jack Keyser, Chief Economist of the L.A. Economic Development Corporation," is not, in fact, an economist. He has no degree in economics and, to the best of my knowledge, no papers published in peer review journals.
Get it?
You're killing me Walter - I find us to be in agreement more and more of late. Who's changed? You or me? ;-)
This is a common sense approach to a problem that has eluded a popular solution (though not the most pressing problem facing Levine's district/state and he should approach other issues with as much enthusiasm and seriousness).
Require a license to breed dogs/cats in lieu of a required spay/neuter procedure and we'll solve a big problem without taking away a legitimate right to operate as a breeder.
Of course, many animals will still find their way into shelters after families break up or owner's lifestyles change and that will continue to create thousands of euthanizations each year. We'll need increased awareness about, and activity by adoption agents to help solve this part of the overall problem, which requiring spay/neuter sadly won't solve.
9:46 Herr Valter: Achtung Weinerschiel
We need a government to tell us what light to put in. By the way I already use those f-g expensive bulbs. It depends on what your definition of light is.
One only has to see the video taped carnage at Animal Services. What is that website? - it made a beliver in me. But about cows and ducks?
I support the L.A.E.P.I. (Los Angeles economic policy institute) and anyone who questions it's legitimacy, or, right to exist is in my opinion, no better than an abortionist commie.
In your heart you know she's right.
Way to go!
Progressive --
I think all that's changed is you are now aware of the specifics of my positions. My platform, dating back to 2003, I believe, and certainly by 2004, included mandatory free spaying and neutering.
As for the "rights" of "legitimate breeders," I supposed I could care less, but it would be hard to do so. To me, the public interest in saving hundreds of thousands of innocent pets' lives each year completely outweighs the interests of some people in having a "desiger" dog that looks "just so."
How about we stop all the killing first, and then worry about whether people can keep making thousands of dollars by breeding foo-foo pets?
As for the lightbulbs and grocery bags, are we serious about conservation, or not? Are we serious about reducing dependence on foreign resources, or not?
Taking a canvas bag with you to the grocery store is a trivial imposition, especially compared to the cost of ruining our valuable real estate with unnecessary pollution. As for the lightbulbs, the "up-front" price presumably deters people from buying them, so maybe the public interest favors shifting entirely to flourescent.
Look, we regulate all kinds of other technology to cut down on pollution -- car engines, gas additives, etc. -- and we have other regulations to conserve energy (e.g., new construction in L.A. must include dimmer switches, I believe). So let's do this, too.
It really isn't ideological to me; it's more a matter of the public interest. Don't we all want cleaner air, cleaner land, and independence from crazies abroad?
1:14 -- LOL and thank you -- I think. (I AM pro-choice, you know.)
And where does that line come from? It sounds familiar, but I forget who the "she" is.
First, I am not a commie.
Second, my dog's face looks like kim jong ill.
third, it's like condoms. you're on the way home your spouse calls you: "Buy milk"-- but wait did you bring your ecobag? No food without it. it'l make panzies out of all of us.
fourth, I am never going to follow a law where Fabio or any other of those creeps tells me what bag to use.
fifth, we do need to be independent of f-g foreign oil. Take it, were the USA, we deserve it (allright, along with those Frenchies). We should be taxing those ragheads everytime we save one of their corrupt regimes.
And the quote is from the new goldwater.
I want the troubleshooter; Judd McEvain, (you know, the guy with the bad toupe) back on CBS, along with someone with a deep voice who sounds like a real broadcaster.
I want an America where you can turn up the TV loud for the fights, and your friends can come over sit on an orangecrate and smoke (macs) Cigars.
I want a world that's progressive.
Walter, so what happened last night at Antonio Cardenas's ?
Was it a good debate, any blood?
11:58 You must work for the City. The L.A.E.P.I. (Los Angeles Economic Policy Institute) DOES HAVE a new toll free PHONE # especially for YOUR complaints: 1-800-EAT-SHITO.
LOL.
I SHOULD post the mayor's line as the hotline for the LAPI.
Someone may get hired as the LAPI's press secretary, with lines like that!
LEDs are the future. They don't contain mercury, they use less energy and last far longer than compact fluorescents. Most importantly (from an adoption standpoint), unlike the compact fluorescents I've seen, they produce warm, natural light.
The irony of dimmer switches is that they shorten the life of the bulb. I'd like to see a study that weighs the benefits of reducing energy consumption with dimmer switches vs. the negative effects of more light bulbs in the landfill. I'm not arguing one way or the other on that, I'm just curious.
An expose on the state of affairs of Animal Services. There was no decline in the euthanasia rate in 2006. Why not, Antonio?
When Antonio Villaraigosa was running for Mayor of Los Angeles in 2005 he promised the citizens of Los Angeles that if elected, he'd "hold the new General Manager (of LA Animal Services) accountable for creating a legitimate plan to reduce euthanasia." He said he would "demand better performance and real accountability from the Department." Well, the truth is in the statistics and the statistics show that his new General Manager Ed Boks failed. In 2006 751 fewer animals made it out of the shelter alive than in 2005. The euthanasia rate did not go down from the previous year. This is the first time since they had public records available that there was no improvement. What went wrong? And what is the Mayor going to do about it?
The rest is below.
http://www.geocities.com/annangeleno/
When Antonio Villaraigosa was running for Mayor of Los Angeles in 2005 he promised the citizens of Los Angeles that if elected, he'd "hold the new General Manager (of LA Animal Services) accountable for creating a legitimate plan to reduce euthanasia."
The reason he made that promise?
Walter said it first, then Bob copied Walter, then Jim copied Bob and Antonio didn't want to look like the only guy who didn't care about the dogs and cats.
By the way, is that Stucky guy still on the blackmail consultant payroll or did they finally find a way to cut him off quietly?
Antonio Watch:
Stucky got his $50,000, wrote his little report and left.
January 2005 there was the CHULA convention, a convention for people interested in animal issues. Moore already had his animal platform. AV already had his animal platform. We invited all candidates to come and speak. The rest wrote little animal platforms. Everyone came except Hahn whom the activists had been attacking for years.
It was a good debate. Moore spoke best. Moore won the convention. Of course when Moore lost the primary he then put his vote behind Hahn, the enemy of animals. I still don't forgive you for that, Moore.
Moore already had his animal platform. AV already had his animal platform.
I stand corrected on the order, but the fact remains that this issue wouldn't have received much attention had Walter not raised it.
Thanks for the Stucky update.
12:07 You already need a breeders license to breed. It hasn't helped the problem of overpopulation much.
Ann Angeleno, if that is your real name, that is a pretty outrageous expose. You'd better have your facts straight or you will be sued.
Antonio Watch --
Thank you for noticing. I really do believe I made it an issue. Now, if we can make it a reality, that would be nice.
And Mr. or Ms. "I won't fogive you" -- I'm not asking you to. Look around. Do you think Villaraigosa is an improvement over Hahn? Do you think there's a dime's worth of difference between them?
Actually, don't answer. Let's focus on improving the city, including the humane treatment of dogs and cats. It doesn't matter who came up with the idea first -- I'M KIDDING, IT DOES MATTER AND IT WAS ME, ME, ME -- but rather that the City and State stop the slaughter.
antonio watch,
We planned the CHULA convention before we knew of Moore. We were just going to invite all candidates, which we did. ADLLA was already doing an anti-Hahn campaign then they decided to back Moore as well. I think Antonio had his animal platform written first, not like it matters. He did bring the animal issues into the campaigns, as did Antonio.
I first became aware of Walter's candidacy because of my involvement in the cat rescue community. Only his name was generating major buzz on the message boards because he was perceived as truly genuine on the issue.
At this point, it really doesn't matter who came up with the idea first. AV campaigned on it and won, so now the focus needs to be on results.
The General Manager of Animal Services is spending time trying to take credit for bills which he didn't originate or write. He needs to instead spend his time saving the animals. We need more spay and neuter now.
There were supposed to be spay and neuter clinics in the new shelters but they forgot to put them in the design. Now they have to ask for more money to pay an architect to add them. It will be at least a year or two before we have the clinics. Why did he wait a year to start this process when we told him about the problem when he first arrived?
What will he do to make sure there is improvement this year?
5:16
Excuse me, but there is no @#$% way Villaraigosa had no-kill in his platform before I did.
First of all, I was the first person to file to run against Hahn, and my platform was up on the web a short time later. Villaraigosa wasn't even in the race at the time, much less had a platform.
Second of all, I believe the convention was set up in part because people wanted to endorse me, but needed a vehicle to do it without jeopardizing their non-profit status.
Third, Villaraigosa didn't even know what he was talking about at the convention. He started by telling the group that he "could throw you 'red meat'" -- a brilliant statement in a room with a major vegan component. Plus, this was AFTER he had voted IN FAVOR OF Guerdon Stuckey -- at confirmation hearings where I spoke out against Stuckey's appointment.
So don't you DARE claim Villaragosa was first!
The guy didn't even have dogs!!!! Sheesh!
P.S. LED's, huh? Interesting. And how fitting that dimmers actually increase usage! You just can't win sometimes!
Speaking of spaying and helping to control the pet population, our favorite game show host, Bob Barker (pun?) is retiring soon.
Walter,
Sorry, but Antonio also ran on the animal platform for his previous run for Mayor when he lost to Hahn. The animal plan was up when he first started his website. Here is the plan.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050209043106/www.antonio2005.com/vision?id=0004
We did not start CHULA for you. It was the second convention, not the first. We had it all planned before we met you. We campaigned as individuals, not as non-profit organizations so we had no fear of losing our status.
Yes, Antonio didn't sound too good. He made a lot of mistakes and blunders, didn't know the issues well. If you go to youtube.com to doggytv, you can see the video. They boo'd AV when he made his big blunders. He responded to tough questions by going "uhhhhh."
from AV's animal plan
""It has been said that how a society treats animals is a measure of how it treats people. By that standard, L.A. is in trouble on both counts. I want to see a Department of Animal Services that does everything it can every day to increase spay and neuter, increase adoption, improve conditions in its shelters and eliminate euthanasia as a major component of public policy in this city."
-- Antonio Villaraigosa
Let's see. They didn't increase adoptions, euthanasia stayed the same, more animals died in the shelters, they lost a spaymobile, Boks forget to make sure to add the new clinics to the new shelters and now they have to pay extra to add them after the fact... I'd say Antonio didn't keep his main promise. Does he even know what's happening in that Department? Blackman, tell me you're not telling Tony that all is well.
The animals actually fared better under Hahn. Now that is sad.
Sorry, but the link you provide is to his 2005 website, not 2001.
My platform predated that by 1-2 years.
He obviously did not write that; perhaps you did?
His platform does not promise no-kill; mine did.
Can you cite any indication that no-kill was an issue in the 2001 campaign? I certainly don't remember that, nor does your 2005 website prove it.
As for CHULA having already existed, I'll believe that. But I was told this was the first time it convened to make an endorsement for the mayoral race. I don't know personally, because I was not involved in CHULA. Perhaps you were. Was there such a meeting in the 2001 race, that Villaraigosa, Hahn, Soboroff et al. attended? I think not.
I will therefore continue to live, for now, with the view, that I made this an issue. I sure as hell don't believe Villaraigosa did, notwithstanding all the wishful thinking of his supporters.
And another thing:
As I pointed out during my campaign, Villaraigosa had already been in office for YEARS, both at City Hall, as a Council Member, and in the state legislature, BEFORE running for Mayor. Why the hell didn't he lift a finger to stop the killing then?
Answer: because he did not care. The only reason he pretended to care was to get votes. He got the votes, and then turned his back. Only after people started screaming about Stuckey did he do something, and even then, all he did was appoint someone else to head animal services. BFD.
Oh my God I love the internet!
Check THIS out, my babies (you have to say it the way Conan O'Brien does):
There's a website -- the one the Villaragosa apologist used -- that saves old websites. Well guess what the website of yours truly said as of OCTOBER 8, 2003 -- you read that right, two YEARS before Villaraigosa "discovered" the issue? Give up? Here's what my platform said:
"Dog Beach And Animal Shelters. Okay, this isn't the most pressing public policy issue in the world, but, for the record, Moore supports turning Dockweiler into a dog beach -- a place where dog owners can let their pets run free. This works in San Diego, works in Huntington Beach, works in Long Beach, and it can work here. Also, while we're on the subject of Man's best friend, Moore would implement an immediate no-kill policy at the City's animal shelters. We need to find homes for animals, not kill them. And another thing: let's eliminate the separate tax on dogs. We pay enough taxes without having to fund a bureaucracy to extract $10 per pet per year. "
Did you catch that: "Moore would implement an IMMEDIATE NO-KILL POLICY," October 2003.
Please visualize now, the scene from "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective," where he revels in having proved the person who died from falling out of a high rise was murdered. YES YES YES!
Here's the link so you can see for yourself: click here
I know. I've gone on too long. But Mrs. Moore is scouring the South of France for rental properties, and I've already seen the "Bourne Supremacy" about nine times....
P.P.S. That same link also proves that I, not Hertzberg, was the first mayoral candidate to make LAUSD an issue.
But, of course, since the media in their wisdom decided that I did not exist, why bother reporting it?
Grrrrrrrrrrr..... "Bitter, party of one." Kidding. At least now the City is finally awake on the issue.
It has been said that how a society treats animals is a measure of how it treats people.
It's difficult for me to take seriously this statement from a guy who lists fois gras as one of his favorite foods. I'm just sayin' y'all.
LOL.
'When Antonio Villaraigosa was running for Mayor of Los Angeles in 2005 he promised the citizens of Los Angeles that if elected, he'd "hold the new General Manager (of LA Animal Services) accountable for creating a legitimate plan to reduce euthanasia."'
Tony is a liar. He lies about everything. He is a little Napoleon without Napoleon's brains.
And a wannabe mentor with a 1.4 GPA
Okay, you win, Walter. But, Antonio did things for animals as a councilmember. He did the research for the animal cruelty task force but Cardenas made the original motion. He worked on a dog park also I think. Of course right now he's not doing much for animals. He hired a "specialist" who can't even get the euth rate down 1%. He needs to kick that guy into gear. And he does have dogs, two dogs. But I don't really think he's an animal person at heart. He just wanted their vote.
No, it was Pacheco who initiated the dog park.
Cardenas doesn't do anything for a bonafide reason, just for a press conference. Show me otherwise. Show me results.
The expose is now in Indy media front page
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/03/194547.php
Lotsa misinformation floating around here. Somebody finally did correctly note that Villaratgosa did have an animal issue platform in 2001. He also earned the endorsement of the Animal Legislative Action Network, one of the groups that later started CHULA for the 2005 election.
Villa-lagrossa got his "first" dog in 2001 and second one about a year later. Maybe he had one when he was a kid. Who knows? Who cares? I was able to read a little before I enrolled in school. Does that make me morally superior to anyone who didn't read til they were actually in class? Hardly. They caught up. (At least some of them did.)
As for the guy at Animal Services - Ed Boks - being responsible for the spay/neuter clinics being left out of the budgets for the new shelter construction, what part of a calendar don't you guys understand? He started his job in January '06, by which time all of the project budgets had long been set and the new facilities were already under construction. He fixed the problem by getting the clinics added to the budgets after the fact, he didn't cause it.
By the way, Boks and the City Attorney DID help write Lloyd Levine's bill - Levine was the one who didn't have anything to do with writing it until just before he introduced it - and Tony Cardenas is asking the City Council to endorse it so the City will be a full sponsor of it. You can whine all you want about that because it doesn't fit your preconceptions about these individuals, but it's true.
Yeah, Boks may not have improved the kill rate statistics much in his first year, but that's life (and death) in big city shelters that have real problems, not imaginary ones you can wish away with slogans and tough talk.
During his mayoral campaign Walter Moore promised to stop the killing with a phone call, but never told anyone what he'd do with all the "surplus animals" that would start overflowing the shelters within a week of his genius "executive order." And his champions in the animal activist community (the ones whose votes got him the CHULA endorsement in 2005), the Animal Defense League, spend their time jacking off in front of the Mayor's residence, yelling and holding picket signs, instead of actually helping the animals. Walter's right about Levine's bill being good, but he shouldn't be proud of having the support of those clowns.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home