CHICAGO, IL - Aldermen supporting an ordinance calling for the sterilization of all pets say they want to model the program after the City of Los Angeles, which passed a similar ordinance earlier this year.
If Los Angeles is the model, then the City of Chicago will be in deep financial trouble, according to a recent audit of the Los
Angeles animal control program. The Los Angeles program has been virtually bankrupted in only six months, and the ordinance hasn't even taken effect yet, according to the audit report.
Chicago will be in even deeper trouble if it follows in the footsteps of Louisville, KY, which also passed an ordinance this
year that imposes high license fees for intact dogs, financial records from that city show. The entire fiscal backbone of
Louisville's animal control program has collapsed, and the Louisville shelter system has become a slaughterhouse since the ordinance was passed.
That's bad news for the Chicago city budget, which already is trying to make up a multi-million-dollar shortfall for this year. But there is even worse news for the highly evolved and successful network of private animal shelters in Chicago.
Those private shelters may stand to lose $40,000 in vital Maddie's Fund money immediately, and many times that amount in the future. Maddie's Fund's policy is not to award grants to communities to help implement mandatory spay and neuter ordinances, internal documents show.
The irony is that Chicago has one of the best sheltering systems on Earth, formed around the Chicago Animal Shelter Alliance. CASA is a coalition of municipal and private shelters in the city, and works closely with other shelters in the metropolitan area.
CASA's success has been nothing short of spectacular, and the city is very close to achieving coveted no-kill status honestly, with no manipulation of statistics. The CASA 2007 annual report shows that only 445 healthy dogs were euthanized, and both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates continued a 12-year-long unbroken string of
major improvements.
It is no exaggeration to say that the CASA program is working perfectly. Now the city aldermen want to fix it, when it certainly
isn't broken. The aldermen are being prodded by the PAWS program, which is the smallest shelter program in the city but by far the wealthiest and most visible.
PAWS founder and Chairman Paula Fasseas is a disciple of the radical Humane Society of the United States. HSUS is working toward a long-range goal of eliminating animals from American life. PAWS recently completed a luxurious $9 million shelter to house only 70 animals in separate rooms. Crystal chandeliers adorn the lobby, and fund-
raisers are diamond-studded black tie affairs. Fasseas has a lot of clout in Chicago, and a lot of political influence with some members of City Council.
Based on new evidence from Los Angeles and Louisville, the ordinance that is being pushed by PAWS and HSUS is likely to destroy the success of the CASA sheltering system. This new evidence reiterates the lessons learned by every other American community that has passed a spay and neuter mandate: It will be a disaster. No one has been able to make this grand scheme of the animal rights movement actually work.
There also is a strong message in the new evidence for the City of Dallas, which passed a similar ordinance in July. Dallas just hired a new program manager for $100,000 a year, a retreaded shelter manager named Kent Robertson, who was unable to make changes in Dallas before he moved to Houston to oversee a similar ordinance there that has failed totally and left the shelter system in chaos. License sales in Houston have plummeted, while shelter admissions and euthanasia rates have soared. Now, Robertson is coming back to Dallas to try the same approach, even as it is failing in Los
Angeles and Louisville.
The Los Angeles Audit
The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance this year that mandates spaying and neutering of virtually all dogs. In theory, the ordinance allows for owners of intact dogs used for show, performance events or breeding to buy expensive special licenses, provided they work through an approved registry. Thus far, no dog registry, including the American Kennel Club, has been approved.
The ordinance is supposed to take effect October 1 but animal control revenues have already plunged, an August 19 audit by City Controller Laura Chick shows.
According to the audit report, license sales and revenues have dropped substantially and the program's budget is drenched in red ink.
Chick's fiscal audit found the Los Angeles Animal Services Department has lost "millions of dollars" in revenue by failing to
license and renew the licenses of hundreds of thousands of dogs.
A reported 27 animal control officers will have to be laid off, the city doesn't have the money to open a new $14 million satellite shelter, there has been no money to pay for any of the required community outreach and no money is available to enforce the new ordinance
"If you don't put something behind (the ordinance), then it's a feel-good gesture, and we don't want to be a city that does empty feel-good gestures," City Controller Chick said. "I always think that legislators should research, not only the outcomes and impacts ... but should always research and ask questions about enforcement. Otherwise we, government, run the danger of enacting legislation that is not going to be enforced, which to me is the clearest of messages to our citizenry and our public -- go ahead and be a scofflaw, nothing's going to happen."
Los Angeles also has stalled on a plan to create satellite centers for spay and neuter procedures, as veterinarians simply aren't signing up to do the job, the audit shows.
Noted California Akita breeder, handler and activist Dannielle Malcolm analyzed Los Angeles shelter system financial records and found the source of the problem: fewer dogs and cats entering the system, but far higher costs per animal, mostly because of skyrocketing salaries.
Over the most recent four-year period, she found, costs per animal serviced increased by 56-percent, while the number of animals services dropped by 30-percent.
Here is what Malcolm found:
· In the 2005-2006 fiscal year, Los Angeles paid $350 for each cat and dog serviced by the shelter system. The cost for each
animal's food and medical supplies was just under $14. The per-animal share of fixed costs to operate the system was $20. Each animal's share of salaries was a whopping $316.
· For the 2001-2002 fiscal year, Los Angeles taxpayers paid $220 for every dog or cat entering the sheltering system. Each
animal's share of the cost for feed and medical supplies was less than $6, and the per-animal share of operating costs was $9.43. But $205 in salaries was paid out for each animal serviced.
In a related matter, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America recently performed an analysis of animal control costs, which showed that 90-percent of the budget is for fixed costs to maintain and operate facilities, pay for administration, operate vehicles and pay for bare bones staffing, regardless of the number of animals housed.
Louisville Evidence
The Louisville Kennel Club has obtained and is analyzing fiscal data for the city's animal control program, as part of evidence gathering for a federal lawsuit against the new ordinance. The ordinance requires owners of unsterilized pets to pay high license fees and submit to home inspections.
Here are some of the preliminary results for Louisville:
· The city shelter was built to house 80 animals. It has been flooded with abandoned pets, and now has to care for between 400 and 450 animals.
· Euthanasia rates have risen to 70-percent since the ordinance was passed.
· Less that 10-percent of the animals brought to the shelter are reclaimed by their owners.
· Revenues from the sale of licenses for unaltered pets have fallen by 48-percent.
· Staff time is stretched thin by a 30-percent increase in the number of required investigations.
· A part of the ordinance dealing with dangerous dogs has led to the identification of only 28 dogs (in a city of 700,000 people) that fall under this category.
· Costs to city government are skyrocketing.
The Louisville Kennel Club is analyzing all of the data, and will release a full report soon.
Maddie's Fund Losses
Maddie's Fund is a national philanthropic organization dedicated to supporting "no-kill" shelters and programs. "No-kill" means a goal of not euthanizing any healthy or adoptable animals.
A policy statement says: "Maddie's Fund® does not provide funding for government programs, including state and local animal care and control mandates. This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as to other requirements imposed by federal, state and local legislation."
Grants from Maddie's Fund have been a vital element in starting and improving many no-kill shelters around the country, and Chicago's Tree House Humane Society has been approved for a $40,000 starter grant. This is the initial grant, and much larger grants normally would follow.
Maddie's Fund reportedly has funded several other Chicago programs in the past.
Because of the policy statement, it appears that all Maddie's Fund grants to Chicago would be in danger of being lost if this ordinance is approved.
Most members of CASA have not announced a position on the new ordinance. PAWS is the only Chicago group that publicly supports it.
However, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the nation's largest animal sheltering organization), the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association staunchly oppose spay and neuter mandates.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is totally opposed to this ordinance, as is a local association of Chicago dog owners that is in the process of organizing.
What You Can Do To Help
It is very important for dog owners to take action before City Council meets again in early September. This ordinance can be
stopped if strong opposition arises from every neighborhood in Chicago, and from all segments of the dog community.
Next, please contact your friends and members and officers of any clubs or organizations you belong to that can help. These include dog clubs, sportsmen's clubs, farmers' groups and firearms rights organizations. Hunters, farmers and firearms enthusiasts know that these kinds of laws stem from animal rights groups that also want to eliminate hunting, raising animals for food and the right to keep and bear arms.
It is very important to contact members of the City Council as soon as possible. Letters sent by surface mail are the most effective, followed by faxes and phone calls. Emails are the least effective.
Even if they are brief, personal letters are much more effective than form letters.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with all breeds of dogs, and especially with a focus on the breeds that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans
maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
Our email is ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
URGENT: Horrible Massachustts Dog bill filed and moving! H 5092Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008
Posted On 2008-09-11 , 8:48 AM
URGENT: Horrible Massachusetts Dog bill filed and moving! H 5092Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008
Rep. Brad Hill sponsored H 1948, a bill related to Dangerous Dogs in this session. The bill was excellent and was supported by both The Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and The National Animal Interest Alliance. The bill
basically defined what a dangerous dog was without regard to breed and imposed strict penalties on irresponsible owners. The bill went to the Municipalities Committee and was sent to study. However, on July 28 part of the bill was
recommitted to Municipalities and that committee produced H. 5092 which is no longer a dangerous dog bill, it is something of an anti-dog bill. H 5092 seems to have collected the worst provisions of every bad dog bill filed in the US
this year. It is just awful! It needs to be killed. H 5092 does not resemble Rep. Hill's bill in any way. Because of
the procedural issues involved, there will be no public hearing on this totally different and really awful bill which essentially means that those who will be affected do not have an opportunity to state their objections to any committee in a hearing format. That's why we need everyone to contact people on the committees listed at the end of this email as well as your own
Representative.
It is urgent that you do so! The bill we are told either has just come from the Municipalities committee or is about to come out and go to the Steering and Policy Committee. Steering is the Committee that assigns the bill to a session of
the legislature. Once in Steering, it could be moved to a vote very quickly.
What we need is for Representatives to object to the bill both to the committee on Steering or on the House Floor. We also need to contact the Municipalities Committee and object. Among the provisions of this bill that are objectionable:
1. Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs over 12 mos. This will adversely affect responsible hobby dog breeders who are Massachusetts residents and will force many of those seeking purebred pets to go to other states because there will
be fewer well-bred home-raised dogs available in Massachusetts. We all know MSN does not work where there are problems and Massachusetts does not have problems. That is why shelters are able to import tens of thousands of strays to sell here every year!
2. Intact animal permit at a cost of $500 per dog per year. Only a few wealthy dog owners will be able to afford this onerous tax. Again, small Massachusetts breeders will be penalized even though they are the best local source of healthy puppies.This is a copy cat of what was originally proposed in Dallas
3.To qualify for intact permit: you have to
a. belong to a purebred dog club with a code of ethics for breeding that restricts breeding of dogs with genetic defects (which are not defined) and the club has to be approved by the city or town. Since no clubs have been approved, again, breeders will be adversely affected.
b. have to complete a course on responsible pet ownership approved by the city or town. Cities or towns do not have such classes. In Massachusetts you do not have to take a responsible parenting class to have a baby.
4. You can't breed more than one litter a year from a bitch with minor exceptions or if you don't follow the law to letter. This means the state is arbitrarily usurping the husbandry decisions that should be made by the dog's owner and their veterinarian.
5. Sale of puppies has to be reported to the town. This means towns will have to be involved in more record keeping. Dogs are not firearms but are being treated as though they were in this bill.
6. Dogs cannot be tethered (no allowance for sled dogs or hunting dogs) for more than 3 hours out of 24 hours. Racing Sled dogs are routinely tethered and some hunting dogs are also tethered. This provision is one sponsored by PETA to make dog ownership more difficult.
7: Any town can ban any breed they wish to ban and can establish a committee of 3 to name breeds they wish to ban. This anti-dog provision means that owners of purebred dogs must live in fear that their breed will be banned. This is a
constitutional issue because people do have the right of enjoyment of their private property. Rep. Hill's original bill was a very good generic dangerous dog bill which did not penalize dogs by breed and this one specifically does.
8. Requires vaccinations for permits including Leptospirosis. Many veterinarians recommend dogs not be vaccinated with this vaccine because of side effects and lack of efficacy. Vaccinations have to be certified by a vet. Owners of
multiple dogs often vaccinate their dogs themselves with the exception of rabies which under law has to be administered by a vet. Asking for all vaccinations to be done by a vet will make it financially very difficult to own multiple dogs. Watch your vet bill go up if you do your own shots!
9. If a dog is declared a nuisance (including but not limited to: running at large, barking for a sustained time, digging, scratching or defecating off its property) it can be ordered neutered, banished, or destroyed along with a fine.
This is draconian at best.
10. Animal Control personnel or those designated as such can seize or impound any animal they believe is dangerous. This is a vague provision which gives governmental agencies the right to seize property on suspicion.
11. If your dog is seized and you appeal and then lose, you pay costs of housing and care of the dog and the town can put a lien on your house or add it to your car excise tax.
For all these reasons, H 5092 would be extremely bad public policy.
Please write something in your own words. That is really important. Be sure to sign your note and give your full contact information.
Here are links to the Committees involved:
Dog Legistlation Issues - anti breeder legislation in MI - includes fingerprinting and FBI check on anyone who sells two or more dogs a year!
Posted On 2008-09-11 , 8:29 AM
Good News - This anti -breeder legislation bill has been scrapped and pulled. The representatives in Michigan pulled the bill because of all the opposition.
Anti-Breeder legislation in MI - includes fingerprinting and FBI check on anyone who sells two or more dogs a year!
Yesterday - September 4th, 2008, Representative Bill Caul of Mt. Pleasant introduced Michigan House Bill 6395, which proposes to strictly regulate virtually all responsible dog breeders. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders in Michigan contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of the bill, and their elected Representatives and express their vehement opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
If adopted, HB 6395 would: * Define anyone who sells or offers for sale more than two dogs per year, or more than one litter of dogs per year, as a "pet seller."
* Mandate that those who qualify as pet sellers to acquire an annual pet seller license from their county animal control shelter at a cost of $200/year.
* Require an applicant for a pet seller license to submit his or her fingerprints with a license application for a criminal history and FBI background check.
* Give discretion to county animal control shelters to deny applications for pet seller licenses, regardless of outcome of background investigation.
* Call for pet sellers to comply with administrative rules regarding housing that will be financially detrimental to responsible breeders who operate out of their homes.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Michigan residents should contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee listed below and their elected Representatives and express their strong opposition to this onerous legislation.