« Eulogy for Ted Kennedy, who loved his dogs | Main | One thing and another... »

28 August 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gina Spadafori

Mark, you don't get to vote. If you're in California, your representative in the state Assembly does. I encourage you to call and let that person know of your opposition to this pet-killing bill.

Mark Reasinger

I vote no on SB250. This Bill is unfair to dogs cats and the people that own and love them.




a party line vote according to Laura.

I am ashamed to say I know which party. The party of "if it feels good it must be good" The party whose chief progressive blog claims it's a "reality based community".


I can't believe a state with the magnitude of its budget problems would waste time on this bill.

It's probably log-rolling, as usual.


Britain Hill, are you proposing that dog owners/breeders/etc. must pass a test before being allowed to do what they do with dogs?

Nice idea in theory, but exactly who would be THE central authority who writes, grades, and enforces the results of said tests? This is where it gets tricky . . . . .


This written test idea came up in a forum elsewhere. In a lot of ways I think it is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

What provisions are made for people with learning disabilities?

What about people for whom English is a second language that they have not yet mastered?

Chris L.

You would think that the goals of these people would be high license compliance and low euthanasia, yet SB250 seeks to undermine the efforts of cities and counties like Kern County that are seeking a solution that actually works like Calgary (Bill Bruce) and No-kill.

These mindsets are so distorted that they continue to insist that SB250 is not MSN.

What a good illustration your Baltimore Sun picture (outcry) post was of selective perception and this post sums it up well.

Anne T

On topic but a slight sideways step: Apparently, the Military in it's infinite wisdom has instituted a breed ban for base housing involving pibbles, related breeds, dobes and rotties. However, it would appear that someone showed a grain of common sense and has 'grandfathered' existing dogs that fit the ban IF they pass a CGC or similar temperament test. From Oct 11, 2009, those owners have 60 days to get their dogs certified in any of the nationally recognized temperament/ training test venues.

While I don't support breed bans, or mandatory participation in anything, I do think this use of temperament/training tests has a whole lot of possibilities for municipalities looking for solutions to dog control problems. As an example. You get a pup from whatever source. You license it. You pay a stiff fee. You have until you need to re-license it to get a CGC or whatever on it. You come in, and there is a substantial reduction/rebate on your renewal, as well as financial incentives to pursue training. You get reduced speuter costs, off leash dog park priveleges, all sorts of goodies the more training you and your dog do. For instance, there is this test.


Your dog passes this, and your license fee is $5 for the rest of your dog's life and your dog is welcome anywhere. Just a thought. I have dawned my flame proof suit.


As a volunteer for an animal shelter I am completely in favor of SB250. The daily killing of puppies and kittens is very difficult to deal with. There are more pets than homes. It is a numbers thing , sorry to say but thst is the truth. Our governor now wants to kill pets within three days instead of six to save money. We have to be realistic...unless everyone csn adopt 5 or 6 or more pets per year then death is the only answer. Let's just reduce the number of unwanted pets even going into the shelters

Gina Spadafori

You know, Elizabeth, that would be just swell, except for the fact that mandatory spay-neuter doesn't work, and in fact has increased impounds and dead pets everywhere it has been tried, with the additional bonus of increased cost to tax-payers. More killing! More money! What a plan!

We ALL want lower kill rates for shelters. But "sounds good" legislation that misses by a country mile isn't the answer.

It's not "just a numbers thing" at all -- in fact, every year there are more home than pets, and getting only small percentage of those people to adopt a shelter pet will -- along with low-cost, free or or incentivized spay-neuter -- more than get every last adoptable pet a new home. And we're talking 90 percent go-home rates, by the way, with proven strategies.

Stamping your foot and saying, "Oh, just stop the killing!" doesn't change the fact that no forced spay-neuter law has ever done that -- and in fact, the reverse is true. Forced spay-neuter killed more pets.

Do you wonder why the HSUS isn't NOT in support of SB 250? Do you wonder why the state's veterinary organization isn't either? Do you wonder why both groups did a 180 on forced spay neuter? Do you wonder why Alley Cat Alleys is in full-blown opposition?

Maybe you should find out, and learn something about alternatives that actually DO WORK.


CA has referendums - maybe we could get a referendum on the next ballot with an msn law for politicians. They should not be allowed to breed anyway.

Isabella Britain Hill

How religious and also onerous.

I understand that animals are part of us and that does include domestic pets.

As a person not experienced enough to breed a healthy dog with. The time will come when I can better a breed, but let's get it written down well, before many know about a healthy breed and ruin it

Exams do show much. There might be several levels of exams for various owners with different motives, including, breeding, several tasks and work.

Britain Hill

The comments to this entry are closed.