Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Thursday, June 28, 2007

And now for the other side: Mandatory anything is generally not a good thing

My good friend and blogging partner Walter Moore has a plank of his otherwise excellent platform that I can not support.

Despite that, I will still endorse him, donate to him, campaign for him and vote for him. But that comes later.

Super Nanny Bachelor Backstabbing Daddy's Boy Lloyd Levine has yet another one of his "nanny state" bills in the works, this time he wants to force you to cut off your pets' private parts.

No doubt, serious pet overpopulation problems exist but more government control is not the answer.

When testicles and ovaries are outlawed, only outlaws will have testicles and ovaries.

If you look at the bill, you will quickly see that it benefits the rich and large commercial breeders of dogs and cats. It will also have the effect of rendering many if not all breeds of cats and dogs nearly extinct. From a practical standpoint it's unworkable, unfair and purely based on emotion.

You may remember the movie "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" where apes became pets because dogs and cats became extinct. This may be what does it.

This law will actually serve to reduce the number of pets that are licensed, drive breeding underground and create more sick and unwanted animals.

Statistics show that as the human population in California has increased, the number of animal impounds has actually decreased. This is the result of voluntary efforts as well as the trapping and spaying/neutering of feral pets. The City of San Jose has had tremendous success with a program such as this.

Animal rights activist and author Patrick Burns - who is an expert and advocate for pet population control - has an excellent piece on why mandatory laws would be a disaster. Before you let your love for animals (as any normal person should feel) rule your intellect on this issue, read Burns' article. If you want more reasons why Lloyd's bill won't work, click here.

Finally, besides all the practical reasons why this is a bad bill, it goes right to the heart of why the Nanny State is a serious threat to our freedom. As noted by this blogger, the words of (Democratic) President Lyndon Johnson have deep meaning: "You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."

Labels: , , ,

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

A drivers license is mandatory if you want to drive, a SS# is mandatory if you want to receive social security,
spaying and neutering should be mandatory if you want to own a pet.

June 27, 2007 11:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Walter, we all know you are getting contributions from developers. Why else would you say you "support" them (6/27/07 3:29am). While we're at it, why were you still awake and blogging at 3:29am anyway?

If you're not taking contributions from developers, we'd like some proof. Please share who has been giving you that $7000 each month.

June 28, 2007 12:06 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:06 is off topic and crossposting.
Mayor Sam, please remove this clowns post

June 28, 2007 12:12 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

There's nothing sadder than trying to give away unwanted kittens and not always succeeding... but some people want kittens and shouldn't be forbidden. Especially if they live on farms, huge yards...But they should have to pay some sort of fine, which is worth it to them if they really want the kittens so much. But one litter, maybe two, maximum. How are they going to enforce spaying, anyway? Go around checking them all?

June 28, 2007 12:19 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Now, staffers, here's how you respectfully and civilly disagree with someone. Please note how it's done:

Sam, I respectfully disagree with you.

First of all, all laws are -- or are supposed to be -- mandatory. Indeed, laws are typically adopted because people on their own are doing something that hurts others, in this case, dogs and cats.

Second, assuming as I do the correctness of your assertion that, as the population has grown, the number of shelters has not, so what? Perhaps the reason it has not grown is that we're killing 500,000 pets each year.

Third, you say certain breeds may die out? That doesn't particularly trouble me, much less justify killing 500,000 dogs.

Fourth, if the law contains loopholes for commercial breeders, let's close them. That makes more sense to me than simply continuing the killing.

Fifth, as for back-yard breeders, I think the law will make it easier to crack down on them. For example, if they run an ad for "puppies for sale," there's your probable cause for a spay/neuter violation. You send over animal control, catch them, and fine them and fix their pets.

That's probably enough for now.

See, staffers? You don't have to call someone names to disagree with him.

And why was I up so early? One of my dogs was barking at something -- either a would-be intruder or, more likely, a stray cat.

June 28, 2007 6:39 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Oh!
P.S.
It's not "nanny state." Laws that protect a person from himself (e.g., transfats) are "nanny state." This law protects PETS from irresponsible people. It's the pets who suffer now, not the people who cause their unwanted birth.

June 28, 2007 6:41 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I love animals. I have always had dogs and cats, and pigs and horses. Now, as a senior, i can no longer afford to have animals because I cant pay for the licensing, spaying, medical care ( teeth cleaning, illness, etc) yet, someone dumped a four week dog in my yard over night. Will i take care of it? Yes! My wish is that seniors, who have paid taxes for more than forty years, could get free benefits to care for those animals that they choose to care for. A $900 medical bill takes what little savings I have. A $3,000 bill causes the animal to be destroyed.

June 28, 2007 7:42 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Walter, where can I find out who has contributed to your campaign?

June 28, 2007 8:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Once their in a shelter fix them and donate to senior citizens, assisted living facilities, and shelters for abused children were one would benefit greatly by the unconditional love of a pet.
Pro-lifers where are you now? What that type of courtesy doesn't get applied towards pets? Just like people, you don't have to like them to appreciate their worth. Instead of donating tons of money to bridges to nowhere, or presidential candidates that you know are not going to make it out of the gate, put it towards programs to save these animals,find them homes and feed them. Allow these animals an opportunity to fulfill their roles in life. Whatever one might that think that is.

June 28, 2007 9:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Spaying and neutering is only half of the solution to the problem. The other part of problem with the pet population is irresponsible pet owners and puppy mills. Pet owners - because there are too many who let their animals out of the fenced yard to travel around neighborhoods where they can freely breed, catch diseases, and either hurt or get hurt by other pets or people. Puppy mills – because they are unsanitary in the breeding process, overcrowded, and the city does not enforce the laws to stop the owners from continuing such businesses.

June 28, 2007 9:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Perhaps it's just my mood this morning,I thought your comments could be said about people too.

"because there are too many who let their animals(children) out of the fenced yard to travel around neighborhoods where they can freely breed, catch diseases, and either hurt or get hurt by other pets or people"

June 28, 2007 9:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Get the facts on the bill, official websites

http://www.ab1634.org

http://www.cahealthypets.com

June 28, 2007 10:00 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Once their in a shelter fix them and donate to senior citizens, assisted living facilities, and shelters for abused children were one would benefit greatly by the unconditional love of a pet. "

City of LA does not give puppies to seniors; only dogs over 8 years. They "contribute' to the spay fee, but its not free. Only the license is free for a Senior. Chipping is $25.00. I've been there.

June 28, 2007 10:32 AM  

Anonymous Jack Hoff said:

Mayor Sam, I read the article you linked. It looked like a lot of mental masturbation to me.

June 28, 2007 10:51 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Sam - I love you all, but it's your word against Bob Barker's. This man has been trying to cut down on pet overpopulation for as long as he's been giving away free cars.

Bob writes "In a perfect world, pet owners would do the right thing and spay/neuter their pets. [But] California's current answer to pet overpopulation -- simply hoping that everyone will care enough to have their pet spayed or neutered -- hasn't worked. We know that universal spay/neuter laws get results because they are working in other states across the country. Santa Cruz County cut its animal shelter population in half after it passed a universal spay/neuter law."

We aren't gonna run out of dogs or cats, and if you really want fluffy to keep his nuts, just keep him in the yard and make sure he doesn't hump anything other than your leg.

June 28, 2007 11:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You know where else there seems to be an overpopulation problem? The blogosphere. California needs legislation to thin the herd. I wonder...who could author such legislation...

June 28, 2007 11:20 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Until you have walked through the city's Kill Rooms, and see the bodies piled high, from large dogs, to tiny kittens a few days old, you are all UNQUALIFIED to talk on the subject.

Until you have walked through the jam-packed BRAND NEW east valley shelter, and the others, and see the hundreds of paws reaching out to be the one chosen for a home, you have NO BASIS for suggesting that we don't need this law.

The truth is, Lloyd Levine is a SCUMBAG with, in this one instance, a good idea.

Don't let the collective hatred of Lloyd or his dad take your focus off of the fact that this is a critical law.

If you want a tour of the shelters, posted your contact info here and I'll create a new email address and arrange it or you.

HOW'S THAT FOR A DEAL? I'LL GIVE YOU THE TANGIBLE, VISUAL PROOF YOU NEED TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

When you see the young bodies piled high in dumpsters, you'll have a new view of the truth.

June 28, 2007 11:47 AM  

Anonymous matt dowd said:

the words of (Democratic) President Lyndon Johnson have deep meaning: "You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."


I like that bit.

but to all the people concerned about this spaying law:

fireworks are illegal, but just watch how many clowns show complete disdain on 4th of July.

the outlaws are everywhere, and excessive regulation makes otherwise good people into outlaws.

Is it not hypocrisy for anyone who demands law enforcement on aliens or gangs, or graffiti, but then flout the law themself by purchasing and expending firework devices.

who will admit on this blog that they're in possession of fireworks.
let's see the extent of anonymous admissions.

its a fair indicator of who is prepared to ignore the law when it suits them.

better yet, count the people ignoring 65 on the freeway, and cruising at 80mph.

oh wait, that's just about everybody.
cancel the survey, I just answered my own question.

June 28, 2007 12:12 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

So, Matt, since we cannot enforce all laws, all the time, shall we just repeal all of them and allow murder, rape, theft, etc? Is that your "reasoning?"

June 28, 2007 12:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Amazing this moron Matt Dowd still comes on and post such crap. Matt go to the library and educate yourself.

June 28, 2007 1:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey 11:47-

I have been to one of the East Side shelters recently-one that had just received a face-lift in its facilities. I know folks who work or volunteer there too. Unforunately I have had to turn in abandoned animals there as well, knowing full well they might not be saved.

There are still too many animals that are destroyed because of irresponsible owners and overbreeding. But this bill is a quick fix. Education and pet owner/breeder responsibility needs to along with it in order for to to be effective.

June 28, 2007 1:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So, Matt, since we cannot enforce all laws, all the time, shall we just repeal all of them and allow murder, rape, theft, etc? Is that your "reasoning?"

That's not Matt's reasoning. He was talking about EXCESSIVE REGULATION. Laws against rape and murder are not excessive regulation, a law requiring people to spay or neuter is excessive regulation. Get it, Walter?

Is Mayor Moore going to waste the public's time with frivilous laws? Stick to the REAL issues.

June 28, 2007 1:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If you think it's frivolous to stop breeding of animals, you're an idiot.

But don't look at it from a humane standpoint: try fiscally, too. California spends about $250,000,000 PER YEAR to run its public shelters.

If you stop the breeding, or at least curb it, you'll save hundreds of millions. And maybe, just maybe, others will see the merits, too.

Fiscally. Humanely. This is the way to go. I LOATHE Lloyd Levine, but this is an important bill. I see it the current situation FIRST-HAND, and this is as far from frivolous as it gets. If you had MY experience, you'd know it, too. So since you don't, rely on those of us who do, and who dedicate our lives to changing the situation.

June 28, 2007 4:06 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

4:06:
If I win, I want you involved in my administration, okay? You clearly get it. This is an issue on which one's heart and wallet agree: mass slaughter is inhumane and unjustifiably costly.

1:46
Read his posting again. His argument was that because people violate fireworks and speeding laws, those laws must be excessive. But all laws get broken. You can't credibly argue that, because a law is broken, it must be excessive.

You must then come up with some OTHER reason that one law is "excessive" and another is not. In my opinion, a law to require a safe, relatively inexpensive surgical procedure on pets, to prevent the killing of 500,000 dogs and cats each year, is not "excessive." On the contrary, it's a bargain, it's humane, and it's reasonable.

Now, if you have some other argument, based on something other than the "people light firecrackers, and drive faster than 65" thing, let's hear it.

June 28, 2007 4:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Walter won't win, but he's spot-on on this issue.

June 28, 2007 7:57 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

Yeah, and nothing can stop Bush and the Democratic majority from granting amnesty.

June 28, 2007 10:31 PM  

Blogger la femme wonkita said:

Wow. Where did Walter get his data? 500,000 dogs killed? That's not what state health department statistics show. It's actually about twenty percent of that, including dogs that are too sick or injured or too vicious to be adopted out. The proportion of shelter animals adopted has been increasing steadily while the proportion euthanized has been dropping, and total euthanizations have also dropped even as the state population has increased greatly.
And Walter, as to that $250,000,000, it appears to be based on a per impound cost of $308 provided by the City of LA. Oddly,if you multiply that number times the number of annual animal impounds shown on the City web page, it EXCEEDS THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET for LA animal services. And remember that budget includes more than just the pound. There are enforcement officers and other stuff. Maybe Ms. Chick should look into this.
There is way too much that is unknown on this issue. For example, of the number of animals euthanized, how many are actually adoptable? Some counties are reporting zero adoptable dogs euthanized. How many are feral, so would not be affected by the bill? Where do Californians currently get their pets? What proportion are from shelters or rescues? What proportion are from small,hobby breeders? How many from pet stores? Which brings up another issue. After decades of educating people NOT to get dogs at pet stores, since they are probably puppy mill dogs, they will be pushed back to pet stores again, since small, local breeders will be gone. No chance to see what sort of animal the mom and pop are, just a shot in the dark at a pet store.
The Levine bill is not only a shot in the dark, it is a shot in the dark with an elephant gun. I shudder to think what it will hit.
(By way of background, I have two canine companions, a spayed female and a neutered male. One is a resuce and one straight from mom. I have no interest in breeding pups, but appreciate the work and dedication of those who do as a hobby. This bill worries me because I see it leading to more business for the puppy mills.)

June 29, 2007 2:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:23 a.m. has drunk the breeders' Kool-Aid. They've been shamelessly lying to the legislature for two months in a desperate attempt to preserve their right to abuse their animals by breeding them every time they can, illegally running a business by selling as many of them as they can, and filling up public shelters with the leftovers who we have to pay to kill.

The State gathers data every year from all the animal control agencies around the state and has plenty of documentation that, in recent years, the kill figure has been coming in around 400-500,000. 2:23 claims those figures are wrong but cites no source. We can safely assume there is no source other than a fervid imagination and penchant for lying.

2:23 asks some potentially useful questions about where people get their pets, but no amount of attempts to re-direct our attention can obscure the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of animals, including purebreds and lots of puppies and kittens who are NOT the product of ferals, end up in our shelters and many of them are eventually killed because no one adopts them.

The whole debate about adoptability is semantic and another smokescreen. Shelter managers trot it out when they're being attacked by angry animal lovers who don't want them to kill any of the dogs or cats or rabbits or lizards or whatever. Rhetorical defense mechanisms shouldn't trump the realities.

Same for the BS about all the backyard breeders disappearing. They're breaking laws right now by running unlicensed, untaxed businesses, and if a mandatory spay/neuter law will force the serious ones to abide by all the laws, they won't be going away. They'll just behave a little more lawfully, act a little more responsibly and make a little less money.

And the rest of us will save a lot of tax dollars that could be better spent on other things, be it $250 million or some other figure.

June 29, 2007 5:48 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement