Monday, July 16, 2007

Who speaks for pet owners? Lloyd Levine's AB 1634 finally grinds to a halt. Now what? Clock's still ticking for dog owners everywhere. And little feet are tap, tap, tapping. Levine and his best buds, HSUS and PETA, may be nursing their wounds and looking at where they messed up for now. . .but they'll be back. In fact, PETA is calling the failure of AB 1634 during California's 2007 legislative session a mere postponement. Wayne Pacelle's Humane Society of the United States doesn't acknowledge the "postponement" at all. Deny, deny, deny. It's worked for you before, Wayne. Maybe it will again. Maybe. But Best Friends Animal Society, that out-of-control carnival ride of an animal rights organization that withheld official support for AB 1634 for months? Well, now Best Friends is singing Lloyd Levine's praises, and promising to work with him in 2008. Bad Rap plays both ends against the middle First prize for putting the most spin on the ball goes to that savvy image manipulator and San Francisco pit bull "rescue" group, Bad Rap. These are the folks that co-authored California's notorious SB 861--the brainchild of ex-Democratic State Senator Jackie Speier--so that it would be more palatable in some circles, and then made sure Bad Rap appeared on the list of opponents of the proposal they co-authored. SB 861 set the stage for AB 1634 by rolling back California's historic ban on breed profiling. It allows municipalities in California to mandate spay-neuter on a breed specific basis. Now, a year and a half after SB 861 passed into law, Bad Rap blogs. . . In San Francisco, the BSL mandatory neutering law that targets pit bulls keeps SFACC's basement kennels full. Nice dogs, most of them, but uh, caught in the act of being intact. . . And in a final Byzantine piece of hypocrisy, Bad Rap pulled its support from AB 1634 because it "strayed from its initial intent" [of mandating the surgical sterilization of virtually every pet dog and cat in the state of California]. After Lloyd Levine amended, re-amended, and re-re-amended it during its final days, AB 1634 was too watered down for Bad Rap's taste. Why should pit bulls "caught in the act of being intact" have all the fun in basement kennels across the state of California, right? Why not spread the joy? Good thinking, Bad Rap. Any and all dogs (and cats) in California could and should suffer the same fate as the pit bulls you sold down the river. Excellent. Keeping the spotlight on those nasty, nasty, nasty, money-grubbing tax-cheat breeders from hell The one thing that every organization mentioned above agrees on: its all down to "breeders." "Breeders"--whether commercial, backyard, irresponsible, criminal, abusive, accidental, exploitative--its all their fault. "Breeders" stopped Lloyd Levine's AB 1634, according to the Best Friends, Bad Rap, PETA and the rest. And the American Kennel Club pretty much agrees. Lying trampled in the dust: pet dog and cat owners So, while the AKC and the animal extremists indulge in a free and frank exchange of view points, pet owners are left wondering who the hell represents them. With good reason. The over-whelming majority of pet owners already, voluntarily, sterilize their animals. Most pet owners have no practical need for "breeding rights" and few nurse the desire for an intact dog or cat. All the logic and facts presented by the many good and caring people who opposed AB 1634 won't mean jack-shit if typical pet owners are not wooed and won in the near future. And let's face it, there's not a whole bunch for pet owners to cuddle up to coming from the AKC. On the other hand, I've yet to meet a pet owner that believed the state of California could do a better job than they can themselves when it comes to veterinary care decisions for their pets. Stupid is as stupid does. Now, we know Lloyd Levine thinks pet owners are stupid. They are competent to make decisions about their own health care, but not smart enough to make decisions for their dogs and cats. Wayne Pacelle thinks pet owners are stupid, too? Yup. He sure does. HSUS & Co. aims at the hearts, minds, wallets. . . not to mention the ballots. . . of the vast, vast majority of dog and cat owners. And they're doing it by keeping the spotlight focused on those nasty, criminal, etc., "breeders." Let's just hope the Forces of Good wake up, and stop taking the bait. Maybe loosen up those corsets a little. January will be here before we know it. Waking the sleeping giant? Tom Hogen-Esch, a political scientist at Cal State Northridge, said the Levine bill woke a sleeping giant. "That type of legislation Americans find extremely intrusive, so it really sparked a backlash," Hogen-Esch said. . . . [Bill Hemby of PetPac said] The pet owners realized that they had been sitting on the sidelines watching their rights erode and not doing anything about it." B I N G O! Hooray, Bill Hemby! There's a 4,000 lb. elephant parked in the livingroom, folks. Better roll out the welcome mat. NOW! Who speaks for pet owners? Not Wayne Pacelle, not Lloyd Levine. Not Ingrid Newkirk, Bob Barker or William Shatner. "The Fancy"? Better do something about that elitist image, honey. "For the love of the purebred dog" doesn't play well with pet owners, and neither do exemptions from unreasonable restrictions just for "show dogs." Sadly, not the Democratic Party. At least not yet, it doesn't. Who speaks for pet owners? Pet owners like us do!


Anonymous said...

Who speaks for the pet owners?

The orgaizations and owners that are fighting this bill:

and even The AKC.

65% of anonymous Californians own pets, from the mutts to the alley cats and the purebreds.

America has awakened and is ready to preserve the our rights to decide when and if our pets will be sterilized in consultation with our vets. This is certainly not a government decision.

Incidently, there is no pet over population. The proponets figures are a gross exaggeration and that will be proved before this bill ever comes back to the senate.

George B.

Irv Corbin ~ Rebel Pride Plott Kennels said...

THIS WAS an ENORMOUS GRASS ROOTS EFFORT of pet and non pet, registered and non registered dog owners combined!
You can add the following to that list of organizations fighting against this Draconian Bill.


Sacramento said...

California Veterinarians Against AB1634

Caveat said...

Pet owners had better start standing up and speaking for themselves, or their friends who can't speak will not be saved.

Talk to these tyrants at the ballot box, in correspondence and everywhere else. If you can get media coverage, go for it. Present the rational viewpoint to the public.

Anon, the 'pet overpopulation' meme has been disproven many times.

It is not 'breeders' who are letting their dogs end up in care - it is unthinking people who get dogs without considering the commitment. They assume you just take him out of the box, wind him up and he becomes Rin Tin Tin, Lassie or Eddie. In other words, they believe in magic.

Blame a materialistic, disposable social attitude that doesn't preserve things, doesn't fix things, doesn't know the difference between the real deal and a knockoff. If it doesn't work, just throw it away and get a new one and make sure it's the cheapest you can find.

That's why most dogs in shelters are not puppies. They are usually 8 - 10-month-old large mixed-breed males or seniors needing veterinary care. And that's a fact.

I understand some BS is being spread about '25% of dogs in shelters being purebred'. Uh, no. They may look it to the novices at the shelters, but they are not purebred dogs with registrations, tattoos or chips going back to a recognized registry.

Actually, if I need a laugh I like to cruise shelter sites to see the wacky breed descriptions they attach to the inmates. Always hilarious.