AB 1634 supporters co-opting the language of No Kill

Robert P. Miller, director of Animal Services for Riverside County here in California, got off some spinnage today that did more than make my head spin, it made it explode. And I knew you've missed that, haven't you?



In a piece entitled "When Will The Killing Stop?" on the blog of Los Angeles Animal Services, he wrote:

When will the time come when the residents of California say enough is enough and make a stance on ending the unnecessary euthanasia of cats and dogs? I say that time can be now.

Hmmm, so do I. But as I read on, I saw that Mr. Miller and I have very different ideas about how to accomplish that. He continued:

With the introduction of Assembly Bill 1634, the California Healthy Pets Bill, comes the opportunity and moral obligation for California and its residents to become the model to states and countries around the world for ending the euthanasia of dogs and cats in municipal and private animal shelters.

Miller makes it sound like California is going to be breaking new ground by ending the use of killing for population control, but it's already happened in a number of communities -- and none of them accomplished that goal by passing a law mandating the sterilization of pet dogs and cats. They did it by systematially implementing community-based programs and policies such as low-cost and free spay/neuter, TTNR programs for feral cats, foster programs in the shelters, and cooperation with rescue groups.



Those are the programs and policies that genuinely lead to the end of animal population control killing. And the philosophy that underlies those programs and policies couldn't be more different than Miller's -- which makes the fact that he's blatantly borrowing their words and concepts all the more disturbing.



"Why now?" Miller asks.



I'd say it's because the real No-Kill movement is the one place that diverse stakeholders find common ground, where hobby breeders stand with shelter workers, rescue groups with dog trainers, veterinarians with nearly every dog or cat owner in the country. Instead of fighting over laws and rules and regulations, we're uniting to reform how animal control is practiced in the United States. As Richard Avanzino said, "The public's on board, and that's the salvation. That's what's going to be there as the true safety net for the animals."







But that attitude is anathema to Miller, who sees the public not as the salvation of animals, but as the enemy:

Animal organizations in the State of California have spent millions of dollars year after year caring for animals and reducing euthanasia rates with great success, but the ultimate goal continues to elude them for one reason: irresponsible pet owners.

"Shelters call people 'irresponsible pet owners,' but (shelters) are the ones refusing to take responsibility for the fate of the animals in their care," said Nathan Winograd when I saw him speak in San Francisco last November. "While it's people who surrender animals to shelters, it's shelters who kill (those animals)."



I'm also guessing that it's animal lovers and pet owners who are the source of those millions of dollars the "animal organizations" spent, too. But heaven forbid you should make alliance and common cause with people for the good of animals, when you can play the blame game instead:

These pet owners continue the animal breeding cycle leaving a renewable population of pets, thus forcing animal shelters with finite resources to continue to euthanize surplus pets. AB 1634 puts the onus of responsibility to spay or neuter pets on the owners.

Yes, it does. And that's the whole problem with it, because the vast majority of pets in California are already spayed and neutered (that was the "great success" Miller mentioned above). This is certainly a good thing and I'm all for it. Free or low-cost, mobile or easily accessible spaying and neutering are the bedrock of ending animal population control killing.



But making spay/neuter mandatory will not stop the "renewable population of pets," because that comes from sources that this legislation will not and cannot touch, out of Internet puppy mills and from across the Mexican border, from the unplanned litters of those who don't give a damn what animal control laws are, and the planned litters of those who don't care about any law at all, like dog fighters. As I wrote in my column on AB 1634 for SFGate.com:

People won't own fewer pets because of this law; they'll just get them somewhere else. Unethical breeders who don't care about licensing or complying with the law will create a black market of puppies and kittens. Pets from out of state -- from Mexico and the bountiful puppy mills of the Midwest -- will come flooding into California. Anyone with a credit card and an Internet connection can order up a pet, just like you'd order a new iPod.



While the very hallmark of a responsible breeder is providing a permanent backup home for every dog or cat they breed, pet stores, Web sites and other retailers will sell a dog to anyone with the money to pay the bill. Dogs obtained from these sources have no safety net, and if their family can't or won't keep them, there are few options other than the shelter. Pets from these sources will rush into the vacuum, and the problem of overcrowded shelters will not only not get better, it could end up getting worse.

And even if none of that were true, it's still a fact that none of the communities that have fully or nearly ended animal population control killing did it by mandatory spay/neuter. Nor did they suddenly and miraculously get their budgets increased by local government (although there is money available from Maddie's Fund for communities that want to stop killing).



Mr. Miller whined about the resources he had being finite, but perhaps if he would stop pointing fingers and blaming "bad pet owners" for the failure of the current shelter system, he'd discover those resources right in his own backyard.

Because those resources aren't finite. Not at all. They are far more plentiful than the "renewable population of pets." They are the people who live in your communities, the animal lovers all over the country and the world who work together to transport animals to new homes, feed feral cats, try to adopt pets from shelters who often turn them away as bad risks for arbitrary reasons, put out bird seed, and do rescue and volunteer work. The ones who drove the pet food industry and the FDA crazy with demands for information and action during the pet food recall.



Those are the people who want No-Kill, who demand it. Who want shelter reform and the end of the status quo. They want it with a fierceness that's apparently frightening enough that those who are trying to preserve the old, failed way of doing things are co-opting the language of that movement, and twisting facts to make those people believe they're on the same side.



What do I mean, "twisting facts"? How about this:

(M)any exemptions exist within the bill to ensure the continuity of quality pure bred pets, rather than below-standard or unhealthy pets inhumanely over-bred purely for profit. Exemptions in this bill do allow responsible breeders to continue the genetic lines of purebred dogs and cats and encourage ethical breeding practices.

The legislation Miller is writing in support of, AB 1634, EXEMPTED puppy mills and high volume commercial breeders. The businesses that by their own admission, by design, are breeding "purely for profit" were EXEMPT from its provisions.



Miller's final words are these:

Until the tragedy of pet overpopulation and homelessness in our society is corrected, I cannot support the sad and needless euthanasia of animals simply because we refuse to prevent them from being born.

Setting aside discussion of the Orwellian phrase "needless euthanasia," it's certainly true that animals who are never born can't be killed. Neither can they chase a ball, sit in your lap, run on the beach, or climb a cat tree. Widespread, low-cost, easily available spay/neuter is a good thing, and an important part of the No-Kill philosophy. But at some point that approach is going to hit saturation -- a point I'd say we're pretty close to in California (see "great success," above).



No, the problem now is something else. It's the systemic failure of the existing animal control/shelter model to utilize the animal lover community, to build bridges instead of drive wedges, to reach out instead of hunker down. To blame instead of change.



Animal shelters exist to shelter animals who need a safe haven and a new home. There will always be animals in need of sheltering. Animal control policies need to ensure programs are in place so that no more animals need shelter and assistance than the community can handle, to keep the community active and engaged, to keep the animals moving out, not just in -- and out alive, not in a body bag.



Do you want No Kill in your communities? Stop trying to legislate what pet owners do with their pets' reproductive organs. Do what communities that have reached that goal have done: Implement the No Kill Equation. Stop blaming pet owners and reform the failed systems. Stop pushing for intrusive, divisive legislation with no track record of accomplishing what you want to accomplish.



And stop borrowing the sound bites but not the programs, policies, and philosophy of the real No-Kill movement.

Comments

[EmilyS]

"I cannot support the sad and needless euthanasia of animals simply because we refuse to prevent them from being born."



well, gee, then STOP KILLING THEM.

[Lis]

SOOoooo right – - mandatory laws do NOT work – just take a look at Prohibition – there were NOT less drinkers, jsut drove the whole industry underground!



Oddly enough, that Prohibition "didn't work" is one of the great myths of recent history. Prior to Prohibition, it was normal for people to arrive at work already slightly tipsy. After Prohibition, total alcohol consumption didn't rise to pre-Prohibition levels again until the 1970s--and we have never come close since then to pre-Prohibition per capita consumption levels.



So Prohibition did work for its intended purpose. Whether the unintended consequences were worth it is another question, of course.



OTOH, treating marijuana (not much different from alcohol and tobacco in its effects) legally like heroin and cocaine, mainly has the effect of causing people who want to indulge in this relatively harmless drug to deal with the same people who dispense the much more dangerous and much more addictive ones. More unintended consequences...

[Carol]

WOW have you ever hit the proverbial nail on the head!!! You are SOOoooo right - - mandatory laws do NOT work - just take a look at Prohibition - there were NOT less drinkers, jsut drove the whole industry underground!



I actually had to help some young adults with an animal they got from the shelter - it was ID'd as a boy - when, in reality, it was a GIRL. Sad - those purported experts can't even determine gender???

[Diane Amble]

discounts for Canine Good Citizen certification [much like discounts on car insurance for good driving courses]--- great idea!!! All we can do to reinforce the training of dogs in disciplines such as obedience is a critical component in protecting the dog's future as well as being addititional "insurance" that that dog will always have a place, be it with a new family or a new landlord.

[Dorene]

Based on what I've been reading here about pets being placed in shelters because of home foreclosures, it seems the most expedient thing that CA could do to empty shelters is to come up with decent regulations for landlords that encourage pet ownership.



Rather than wringing their hands over "irresponsible pet owners," organizations with a bully pulpit and resources such as the one mentioned above should be getting either some pro-bono or reduced-rate legal assitance to come up with laws that protect landlords (renters must pay for pet damage) and encourage pet ownership (security deposits a reasonable amount, discounts for Canine Good Citizen certification [much like discounts on car insurance for good driving courses], etc.



Make it easy for good people to do the right thing, lay out the rights and responsibilities of all parties and watch the shelters empty.

[Nadine L.]

Brillian piece, Christie. You've laid it out so clearly. Miller is not the only or last person who has or will be co-opting the language. Your excellent explanation needs to get out into cyberspace to as many as possible. I will share it with everyone on my mailing list. Hope others do the same.



You've lit the fire under me!

[GG]

Yep, welcome to my world down here in San Bernardino and Riverside counties where we have two (up from one) animal control officer to handle all the mountain communities here on the mountain.



Take a step back about 20-30 years and that is what it is like in many of the areas here.



Nice rant...I am sure I have more to say about it but it has been a long day!

[Lynn]

Excellent piece, Christie!



I just despise it when people such as Miller exploit another issue to benefit their own agenda. Deplorable.



Maybe we should chip in and buy plane tickets to southern CA for all the heads of animal control agencies in the US, shanghai them off to an empty aircraft hanger I know of, lock them inside - no food, no water - and force-feed them non-stop of Winograd's No-Kill Equation for as long as it takes for Stockholm Syndrome to take hold. We won't release them until each can recite from memory pages 189-204 without error.



Seriously, do these people realize how stupid we know they are?



Again, great piece, Christie.

[deb]

Arizona seems to be the next state on the list seeking to enact mandatory speuter legislation.

http://tinyurl.com/27c3k7 Insert headwall bashing emoticon here!

The Commonwealth of Virginia, home to AKC, is also working on similar legislation.

In the Arizona legislation, the dog must be speutered by 6 months unless it has earned some sort of approved title. Agility organizations don't allow dogs that young to compete, and it takes at least a year to train one for competition (longer for the human half of the team).

These mandatory laws are like building a wall across the US/Mexican border to curb illegal immigration. It doesn't work, yet we persist with these futile attempts. When are we going to learn ( if ever)????

Touch my 2 boyz' " manly parts" Oh Grand Ole State of Me, and I will fight you all the way to the Supreme Court!!! Arrrghhhhh!

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by deb — January 24, 2008 @ 4:55 am



"In the Arizona legislation, the dog must be speutered by 6 months unless it has earned some sort of approved title. Agility organizations don’t allow dogs that young to compete, and it takes at least a year to train one for competition"



Do these people do ANY sort of research before crafting these pieces of cr- um - legislation? (Rhetorical question - I already know the answer.)

[Kansas City KS Kills Dogs]

I live in a town in the midwest that has had MSN for a few years along with other crappy legislation. The law was passed with no regard for the hobby breeders, dog show folks, agility folks, etc. In fact this group of dogowners chose to move out of the city and county.



The city leaders have not invested any money into lowcost s/n, in fact a private donor who wanted to donate $30,000 for a mobile s/n unit finally had to commit the funds elsewhere. The mayor and powers to be refused to take action, despite the recommendations of a task force that had studied the city's AC issues.



The ACO's do not try to educate owners about s/n, locations of lowcost clinics or assist in transporting dogs and cats to these clinics. Now AC just confiscates the pets, euthanizing them at taxpayer expense.



This is the reality of legislated MSN.

[Susan]

What a joke this Miller clown is. I live in Riverside County and there is currently a 2-month wait time to get a pet into their spay/neuter clinic, PLUS they won't spay/neuter feral cats (thankfully, there is a private vet here in Riverside who does S/N of ferals for only $15 and $25, bless him!). How can he expect to reduce pet population by spay/neuter when you can't even get into his clinics? Progress begins at home, I say.

[Terry]

We all love our pets and I believe there are many solutions yet to be tried. I know most view our pets as family members however, a court of law will not categorize or view pets in this manner. Keep in mind that pets are also personal property and when you consider this, AB 1364 as written, should fail in any court law. In simple terms it a regulatory taking without due process. It would also grant over reaching police powers to the state and local governments. It encroaches upon personal liberty. In essence it would void many constitutional principles well established and adjudicated.