Californians, please act now against SB250

I hate "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" as much as the next gal, but you know, when big hunks of blue stuff dotted with clouds are crashing into your head while you walk across the street, what are you gonna do?



So, Californians who think that medical decisions about your animals should be made by you and your veterinarian and not the good folks in Sacramento, please check out this action alert from Laura Sanborn of Save Our Dogs, who says that despite recent amendments, the core provisions of California's SB 250 are unchanged -- and very similar to the defeated mandatory spay/neuter bill, last year's AB 1634:

Violate an animal control law even once and you may never be allowed to own an intact dog ever again. One violation and your intact licenses can be denied or revoked at any time, forever. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires a PETA member as head of animal control. In an effort to balance the budget, this person revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours, generating millions of dollars in fines. He/She is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.



This will cost local jurisdictions money. Say you get a citation for some minor animal control infraction. No longer can you just pay the ticket.  You have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to preserve your future right to own intact dogs. If you lose you either get out of dogs or leave the state. Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, go to court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.



The new fees for having intact licenses denied or revoked almost seem designed to drive dog owners underground. The state has a poor licensing compliance rate already, 10-30% compared to over 90% in Calgary. If you apply for a license and it is denied, you can be charged an additional fee for having the license denied. Maybe the local agency doesn’t charge such a fee now, but they may when it is time for renewal. Just one more thing to drive people away. And of course what will they do if you don’t pay the fee? Impound and kill your dogs, of course. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You have to have a intact license to do that.



All these new fees and punishments will be enforced with the threat of impounding your dog. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Most owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is usually a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs. Before they are killed, the impounded dogs will sit in the shelter for the state mandated waiting period. The state is required by the existing Hayden Act reimbursement mandate to pay local governments for this cost. The state already pays over $20 million a year for this reimbursement. How many more fire fighters, police officers, teachers, and nurses will have to be laid off to cover the addition reimbursement the state will have to pay out if SB 250 passes?



We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB 250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance and licensing fee income. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed.



SB 250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs.

This is a terrible and stupid law. It will not do what it claims to want to do, and it will worsen the lives of pet owners, cost money, and kill pets. Please follow these simple action steps and help stop SB 250. Act now!



UPDATE: Gina mentioned this in the comments, but I'm adding it here, too: Alley Cat Allies is urging Californians to contact their legislators to speak against SB 250, saying it will hurt stray, homeless, and feral cats. You can read their take on it, and use their action tool, here.

Comments

[Christie Keith]

Anyone change votes from first to second vote, Laura? Do you know?

[becky]

I called all those on the list, any word on who to target specifically?

[LauraS]

No exemptions for any dogs or cats. None. A phony exemption for hunting dogs while they are "at large", but it's phony. That's it.



1 strike and you're out.

[LauraS]

BTW, if a senator abstains or doesn't vote at all on SB 250, that's equivalent to voting NO on it. It has to have 20 or 21 YES votes to pass.



So if a senator's staff says their senator is abstaining on SB 250, sincerely say "Thank you, I really appreciate it"

[Becky]

Going outside to make my calls now.

[LauraS]

The second vote happened. 16 Yes, 15 No. I don't have a breakdown of who voted which way yet. SB 250 is still short of the 20 or 21 Yes votes needed to pass.



Several rules would have to be waived for another vote today. But SB 250 will almost certainly be back tomorrow for yet another re-vote.



Now is a critical time. Sen. Florez will be putting pressure on members of his party who voted No, abstained, or were not present to vote on SB 250. PLEASE keep it up with the calls and faxes.



In his speech, Sen. Florez made the baseless claim that SB 250 would save $250 million a year. Never mind that MSN has never saved any jurisdiction money, and that animal control costs have *doubled* in Santa Cruz County since they passed MSN.

[EmilyS]

No exemption for dogs coming into the state just for shows?

Such dogs also subject to the provisions?

In which case, out of staters would have a good reason to call.

[Gina Spadafori]

Laura, this is AWESOME! I just called every one on your list, said who I was, that the ASPCA/AVMA/CVMA/Allie Cat Allies do NOT support mandatory spay-neuter because it kills more pets than it saves. It's unfunded mandate at a time of fiscal crisis. And that even the HSUS hadn't taken a position.



45 seconds and OUT, each call. Five minutes for the whole shebang. Professional and polite, thank the staff and make the next call!



C'mon guys. Grab your cell phones if you're at work and step outside. The weather's great. Make the calls!

[LauraS]

SB 250 has already been voted on today. It did not get enough votes to pass... YET. It's now ON CALL, which means a re-vote later today. Florez is making the rounds, twisting arms.



Here's the list of those who abstained or weren't present. We need to flood their offices with calls NOW. Californians -- GET ON THE PHONE! This is really easy:



“Hello, my name is [your name]. I live in [your city’s name] California. I’m calling to ask the Senator to please vote NO on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats, when it comes to the senate floor for a vote.”



Moreno Ducheny (916) 651-4040

Leno (916) 651-4003

Pavley (916) 651-4023

Wolk Phone: (916) 651-4005

Wright (916) 651-4025

Yee Phone: (916) 651-4008

Negrete-McLeod (916) 651-4032

Liu (916) 651-4021

Desaulnier (916) 651-4007

Corbet (916) 651-4010

Simitian (916) 651-4011

[bestuvall]

I over taxed my little fax yesterday.. but it is chugging along today... Please use letter head if you are wrting for your club and /or business... i mentioned how many CA members in my national club and how many members in my local breed club and sent on letter head.. asked that they count all 300.. as NO..

[JenniferJ]

Wiggins is sick of me too I'm sure but she'll hear from me daily.



I am going to try to get some more letters signed to fax from folks here in Ukiah today.



We need to make it clear to Florez that THIS sort of law will alienate many people. he wants to be Lt Gov and I think that there is a perception that dems are all FOR this sort of thing.



Uh, no.



Liberal democrat here. keep your laws OFF my pets thank you.

[LauraS]

The main difference between the final, defeated version of AB 1634 and SB 250 is this:



AB 1634: 3 strikes and you're out, at least for now



SB 250: 1 strike and you're out, forever

[bestuvall]

.1:18pm... keep calling... I just talked to Steinberg’s office...their take "most people are against it"... so no more of this rumor that it is 50-50... Keep calling... and when you do... ask if calls are still NO.... Florez office is next on my list... My own Senator Wiggins could use some calls...i am sure they are sick of hearing from me and last i heard she was stil an Aye... (But cannot tell me why)

We can defeat this... nothing but AB 1634 in a Senator disguise... Is it any wonder that Florez has to say first thing...? I am NOT Lloyd Levine and this is NOT AB 1634... Funny thing... the resembleance is remarkable....

Senator Cox to the supporters of AB 1634

"This is not about saving dogs and cats, is it Mr. Boks"... TRUE answer... "NO, Senator, it is not about saving dogs and cats"... True then... true now...

NO ON SB 250

[JenniferJ]

I just drove a hour to take advantage of a "neuter clinic" being done by a clinic I trust. $232.00 for a 50 pound male dog. And that IS a good price for the area, AND the clinic had been filled for weeks.



We need more, lots lots more, lower cost and free clinics. Not a law that makes it illegal to give away an intact dog without an intact license make SURE that any unwanted dog or cat or intact pet from a family facing a financial crunch is GUARANTEED to end up at the shelter. Stupid, dangerous, radical AR and ignorance propelled bill.



But hey, if you can impound and kill em, they can't "suffer", right?

[stellaluna]

I just don't understand how they think something like this is going to do any good in the first place. All it will do is drive more owners to not have their pets vaccinated for rabies at all just so they can stay under the radar.



That's what worries me if and when they decide to pull something like that here; our county (Pima) has the highest rate of rabies cases in Arizona, and it's going up. If people stop vaccinating so they don't end up on the license lists (and I already know several who do), we're really going to be in a pickle.



Making spay/neuter cheaper and more accessible is the best way to go. Our clinic did 65 surgeries on Friday, and every time we have a free s/n day (funded by grants, individuals or group donations), we end up overbooked (we move the extras to the first available day and find an account to cover their surgeries just so they get done). If we could afford it, we could do at least that many every day.



If we made better use of the s/n clinics we already have, we might actually get somewhere on a voluntary basis.

[Gina Spadafori]

Alley Cat Allies has put out an action alert urging its supporters to contact Senators and ask for a NO vote. From their outreach e-mail blast:



"S.B. 250 would place stray and feral cats at risk because it targets the very people that care for them. The bill defines any person feeding or caring for a cat on her property as a “custodian,” and legally requires that person to neuter the cats in their care. If a caregiver were unable to trap and neuter a cat, S.B. 250 would label her a lawbreaker. Caring for stray and feral cats should be encouraged; but tragically, this bill would mean the very people doing the most to help cats would be breaking the law.



The overwhelming majority of household cats—80%—are already neutered. The neuter rate jumps to 93% for cats living in households earning $35,000 or more. A recent study commissioned by Alley Cat Allies found that among lower-income owners of intact pet cats, cost was one of the main obstacles to spaying and neutering. But S.B. 250 does nothing to lower the cost of spay/neuter. Indeed, the bill has no mechanism whatsoever to ensure more cats are spayed and neutered.



Cats live better lives when they are spayed and neutered. For this reason, Alley Cat Allies supports high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter programs. These programs help both stray and feral cat caregivers and low-income cat owners alike, and have proven effective at increasing the neuter rate of cats. But instead of supporting what works, S.B. 250 does not provide for, fund, or even suggest the creation of low-cost spay/neuter clinics."



If you're in California, CALL NOW.



Call your state senator, and then call mine, who happens to be the President pro Tem:



Sen Darrell Steinberg

Phone: (916) 651-4006

Fax: (916) 323-2263



Get on it!!

[Becky]

Done ... and emailed my letter to Save Our dogs so they could fax it to ALL the senators since I can't do all that from work. I'm terrified this will pass...

[Gina Spadafori]

Call your contacts in CA and get them off the dime, that's the best thing~

[H. Houlahan]

I feel like us non-Californians had an important supporting role with AB 1634 -- 'cuz, if for no other reason, we don't need our home states to be following California's "progressive" lead (progressive like bodybuilder-actor-governors and referendum hate laws speshul for da gays).



I followed the lead of our friends in California last time, and now the exact same thing is back, but without the sturm un drang.



I am very afraid that this one will coast in under the radar. It's already been fast-tracked.



So yes, other than the organizational letters we've already sent, what can an out-of-stater do?

[TEH]

Add this on top of the proposed cut to 3 days for holdings of strays at the shelters. This will lead to a total disaster for dogs and cats in this state.

[Barb]

Mancuso and her cronies either don't get it, or (more likely) don't want to get it - people WILL get their pets sterilized if you make it easy and affordable for them to do so. Punishing them with fines never works.



Is there anything that non-Californians can do to help? Besides forwarding this to our CA friends, that is.

[EmilyS]

Why ISNT the HSUS taking a stand against this bill, which will increase the number of pets killed and the financial burden on lawabiding pet owners? Maybe their rep Jennifer can fill us in.

[Christie Keith]

Florez has stated that Prop 2 passing “changed everything”.



Interesting that the organization behind Prop 2, HSUS, is not taking a position on SB 250. I wonder, does Florez know that?

[Gina Spadafori]

Thanks, Christie. Already faxed twice to Sen. Steinberg (who's also my own state senator) but time to put the fax machine in hyperdrive again.

[JenniferJ]

Gah, I know, I post legislative alerts and updates to several lists and you have to be so careful not to overdo it.



But then one of these ghastly things comes up and you have to yell until they all here you.



Florez has stated that Prop 2 passing "changed everything".

Sorry, you cannot use the passage of a laying hen treatment proposition as a mandate to force me to alter my pets! Big big difference guys! Although that does seem to be the attitude the last week or so

[Susan Fox]

Done.

[glock]

Here is the link to California Leginfo, if you want to track this bill.



http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/



FYI, Dave Cox opposes the bill.

[Megan Noes]

SB 250 is a good thing. Responsible breeders will not be affected and it will save millions of animal lives. Moreover why would a person want to have an intact dog? If you are not a registered, upstanding breeder your dog/cat should be altered. Are you going to keep all the offspring it could possible produce... no! So just fix your animals jerks.

[LauraS]

Senator Cox has been our best ally during the fight against MSN in the California State Senate. He's the one who got AB 1634 supporter Ed Boks to admit in his committee testimony:

“No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.”

[Kim Thornton]

Now I've made all the other calls, except for Sen. Negrete-McLeod, who doesn't have an option for leaving a general message.

[Kim Thornton]

I just called Sen. Walters' office. She opposes it. Occasionally, it's good to have a republican representative.

[LauraS]

Voted to abstain on SB 250 in round two:



Correa (916) 651-4034

Moreno Ducheny (916) 651-4040

Pavley (916) 651-4023

Wolk: (916) 651-4005

Wright (916) 651-4025

Yee: (916) 651-4008

Negrete-McLeod (916) 651-4032

Simitian (916) 651-4011



The above senators will be getting a LOT of pressure from Sen. Florez -- SB 250 author and Senate Majority Leader -- to change to a Yes.



If you haven't already called, call the offices above and say:



“Hello, my name is [your name]. I live in [your city’s name] California. I’m calling to thank the Senator for abstaining on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats. I'm asking the senator to continue abstaining when it comes up for a reconsideration vote later this week."



This will make them understand we are still watching and also appreciative of their position.



Abstaining is just as good for our side as a No vote, but is politically easier for a senator to do on a bill that he/she opposes but is sponsored by a member of his/her own party.

[Gina Spadafori]

Actually, "Megan," responsible, ethical breeders would be WIPED OUT. And that's exactly the point, and what the people who are behind this bill want. (Except that since California's reach ends at the border, puppy mills would thrive.)



You are also apparently unaware that spaying and neutering are surgical procedures, and that peer-reviewed veterinary research has documented that there are pros and CONS to the surgeries. For most people, spaying and neutering their pets is the right choice. But not for all, and not as a government mandate for a medical decision.



Finally, and MOST IMPORTANT: Forced spay-neuter actually INCREASES the number of pets killed in shelters, as people dump pets when they cannot comply with the law.



The ASPCA has a policy statement against mandatory spay-neuter (as does the AVMA). What do they know that you don't?



Apparently, everything.

[Becky]

I just got up early to call the abstainers and leave messages urging them to continue abstaining. I also called Sen. Cox to thank him for his support against SB250 and to please continue pressuring legistlators to vote no when it comes up later this week.



And Megan, don't feel bad, early on with 1634 I was misinformed as well and thought it would be a good thing. I was educated quickly I must say. My personal experiences with volunteer work at shelters and rescue groups helps me really see this will not help, and I sure don't want to see more owners turning in their pets, it's already awful. We need truly low cost and available spay/neuter programs, that will help.

[H. Houlahan]

According to the Googles, "Megan Noes" does knot exist.



My goat-powered troll-detector is bleating.

[Becky]

Yikes...was I being nice to Judie...if so, sounding kinda desperate aren't they.

[stellaluna]

"If you are not a registered, upstanding breeder your dog/cat should be altered. Are you going to keep all the offspring it could possible produce… no! So just fix your animals jerks.



Comment by Megan Noes — June 2, 2009 @ 12:44 am "



Megan, you don't seem to understand that just because a dog is not spayed or neutered does not mean it will produce offspring.



In order to produce offspring, the dogs have to actually mate, and responsible owners do take precautions to prevent unplanned litters. I've owned lots of unaltered dogs over the past 35 years and have never had an unplanned litter (and I can count the number of planned litters on half of one hand!)



The people who are irresponsible enough to not prevent their dogs from breeding are more likely than not going to be the ones that won't bother to get their pets sterilized anyway -- they'll just get rid of them if and when they are cited for having an unaltered animal, and get another one later.

[stellaluna]

"According to the Googles, “Megan Noes” does knot exist.

My goat-powered troll-detector is bleating.

Comment by H. Houlahan — June 2, 2009 @ 6:33 am"



Oh, come on -- you've NEVER searched for someone you knew DID exist and not found anything on them? Seriously? (If so, I could really use your help in finding the ex-boyfriend of my late daughter so I can get some of her stuff back -- according to the googles, he doesn't exist, either.)



(I'm not saying Megan Noes isn't a troll, just that I've learned to never assume anything.)

[JenniferJ]

Yikes…was I being nice to Judie…if so, sounding kinda desperate aren’t they.



Comment by Becky — June 2, 2009 @ 7:03 am



Nah, Judie would not have sounded so calm. ;)

More likely a toady.



No not everyone comes up on teh Googles BUT if you've ever posted a comment anywhere, on any blog, you will, so I'm guessing "Megan Noes" is an alias

[Janet Ford]

Just got word that the bill passed today. :(

[Melissa]

I just heard it passed 21 to 16. How awful for all us dog owners in California. What can these legislators be thinking of passing such a horrible bill that includes a nasty REGRESSIVE TAX in it for one thing that hits people on fixed and low income the hardest. Some of California cities are already charging $200 per year for intact licenses, and there is NO LIMIT on what they could charge--perhaps $500 to $1,000 per year??? Or have a surgery that is also unaffordable for some, and which might kill the animal or cause it harm?



Suppose the animal is healthy enough to have the surgery but gets sick from the surgery but the person then can't afford to pay for lifelong care the dog requires because the surgery just wasn't in the dog's best interest? This is entirely a different question then would the surgery *kill* the dog. It's like years ago doctors routinely wanted women to have hysterectomies--only to find out that many of them were unnecessary and caused health problems in many women. Same with dogs. Spay and neuter surgery can cause health problems and should not be mandated ever by the State since it is NOT a veterinarian and cannot know the medical status of individual dogs. It will end up killing, from the surgery, otherwise healthy dogs that didn't need it, make unhealthy dogs that didn't need it, force people who can't afford it to have their dogs get this surgery or become a criminal or pay a VERY REGRESSIVE TAX.



For me I think this is an abominable law. I have owned dogs for my whole life, but I've never bred a litter, either intentionally OR by accident. I spay some dogs and others I don't, it depends on the dog (and I own females, so spaying is the only issue). My dogs are members of my family and I make medical decisions for them the same way I make medical decisions for myself--is it in their or my best interest? I don't decide to have a surgery or medical procedure for myself BECAUSE IT WON'T KILL ME OR CAUSE SERIOUS HARM. That is the preposterous reasoning that the bill author wants us to use on our dogs. Sorry, if I'm to have surgery, or one of my much-loved pets is to have surgery, that surgery is going to be done BECAUSE IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY not because some politician believes it is convenient.



My healthiest dog to date was a Jack Russell Terrier who lived to be 16 years of age. She was not spayed, and she was wonderfully healthy. She was a natural dog. Her rare trips to the vet were for vaccinations. But the State would have labelled her a CRIME!!! And me a criminal for *harboring* her--the terminology of this very offensive bill.

[Gina Spadafori]

Melissa ... all I can say is be ready for the Assembly.

[H. Houlahan]

The only place that "Megan Noes" appears on a Google search is the comment here!



The url link to the "name" is blank.



Now, it's possible that "Megan" is a concerned animal lover who has never done anything in the public eye or signed her name to anything on the internet until yesterday, when she was so moved by a close reading of the discussion here that she felt compelled to add her thoughtful insights to the conversation.



But my troll detector is still bleating rather loudly.



Anyway, it seems that this breed of zombie-troll has prevailed in the Senate for the moment.

[Melissa]

Here's a poll on this dreadful bill:

http://www.ksby.com/Global/category.asp?C=90443#poll84078

[Mike]

Thank you to Lou Correa for resisting pressure from Florez and voting against this draconian bill.



The California Senate passage leaves us in the unfortunate situation of having to ask Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.



Given that AB 1634 made it through the assembly and was killed by Lou Correa and Mark Ridley Thomas in the California Senate, I doubt we will have success against the bill in the assembly. Ridley Thomas is no longer in the State Senate. If he were, he would have likely joined Correa in opposing this bill.

[EmilyS]

But folks: Patti is expressing what the supporters of this bill truly believe. I think they're completely wrong, but just dismissing her as a "troll" isn't particularly productive. Is Mancuso a troll? Or any of the majority of Senators who passed the bill?



How are we going to counter the emotion-laden, "well we have to do SOMETHING" approach?

[JenniferJ]

No I have moved on from troll. Sorry Patti, my mistake.



Patti is earnestly convinced SB250 will improve shelter animals lives and shelter numbers.



Unless you have looked at ALL the evidence, it sounds good on the surface.



What I would like to see her do is critical thinking. Put some of her emotions aside and look at verifiable facts and numbers rather than just swallowing the "it will work!" and "Santa Cruz, 60% drop!" soundbites.



With the internet and FOI, it is not hard to get real numbers and verify or disprove the claims on either side.



Then people on this blog WANT TO SAVE ANIMAL LIVES. Just like Patti does. So, why would we oppose SB250? Maybe it would be worth a little time and research to find out

[Lis]

EmilyS, Patti is a troll because she has a fake url link.



You and I and others don't have urls. Others who post here have real urls.



Patti and "Megan Noes" took the time and trouble to insert fake urls. Why? So that, for anyone who doesn't click on the link, they look like they're more "serious" and you could go to their sites and get more information?

[H. Houlahan]

I think we should thank Patti McTrollson for a fascinating picture-window view inside what passes for the "mind" of a kneejerk "I wuv aminals" wannabe social engineer.



Symptom - witnessed (or believed)

Problem - misidentified

Solution - assumed

Failure - denied



There seems to be no place along that worn and rusty chain of "reasoning" to insert either evidence or logic.



Oh my gawd. I saw some guy break into a car last night. There must be a huge problem with car neglect in this country. Let's pass a law requiring all car owners to buy car alarms.



(Data from cities with mandatory car alarms shows that theft increases because everyone ignores the constant false alarms. Indeed, the break-in she witnessed was in just such a city.)



Oh my gawd. This just proves that we need MORE CAR ALARM LAWS.

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by Patti McLeod — June 5, 2009 @ 9:08 am



MY PUPPY FROM SOUTH CENTRAL LA (picked up as a stray, some dog had puppies and he was either dumped or running loose in a bad area of LA) was in a cage with 20 or so other puppies ready to be euthanized with little chance of adoption. He was lucky and now is a licensed dog in a good area of Orange County with a good home. This bill will cut down on some of the ones that are not so lucky. Sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. There is a problem and it needs a solution.



Patti, you're falling into a common trap of believing that a single anecdotal story of your experience indicates a broader "truth". Your story is much like the person who says "I had an uncle who smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 95, so consequently I don't believe it's true that smoking can cause lung cancer!".



Not only is the story of your puppy just ONE story, but the fact is that it's only PART of the story. People like Nathan Winograd who are in support of the idea of a "No Kill Nation" understand that in some areas there may be more dogs than can be absorbed all at once. But that if you BROADEN your perspective, you learn that homes CAN be found for those dogs by bringing in more resources to bear. Resources that don't have to cost a lot of money - just utilize people's willingness and desire to help.



Instead of sending those puppies to the killing room, the shelter could have put a call out to local rescue organizations to see if any of them could take them in. They could have mobilized local citizens who are very likely willing to open their homes to provide foster care until the puppies could be placed. They could contact shelters in other areas who have open runs and empty cages and arranged to transport the puppies to where their chances of being adopted would be better. And so on. There ARE a variety of possible solutions for a shelter director who's willing to open his/her mind to new ways of thinking about the problem.



You're right that there is a problem that needs a solution. But you're wrong in thinking that Mandatory Spay Neuter (MSN) is the solution that will work. It's been tried. And if you look at the facts people keep pointing you towards, you'll see that people who are threatened with LEGAL action if they don't bring their dog in for a surgery that they may not even be able to afford will be MORE likely to simply turn that animal in to be killed or even abandon that animal to an uncertain future.



Much better to offer them financial help to get that surgery done without the legal threats. The facts prove that THIS is the approach that keeps dogs in homes and - therefore - alive.