Sigh, I just can’t believe all the controversy over our gonads. I’m gonna sleep it off…but before I do I just want humans to know a couple of things:
1. Gonads are for FAR more than just reproduction. When you mess with those, we become gender-normed. This messes up the hormones in our brains, and messes up our structures and temperaments, etc. I’m not advocating irresponsibility either, Lord knows there is plenty of that to go around BUT cutting off or out our gonads isn’t the solution. Education is the real answer. Besides, having a pet is a privilege not a right so if people can’t be responsible, then why the heck are they getting pets in the first place? The REAL AR agenda behind mandatory gonadectomy (ie castration) is to have a pet-less society. Yep, the AR claims to love us so much they want a pet-LESS society. Hmmm.
2. Money is what talks, bottom line. Politics is all about money, nothing else.
On that note I’m gonna go take a nap and you all can read the rest of the news here:
***UPDATE*** The California Veterinary Medical Association has withdrawn its support of AB1634. They will be officially neutral. Originally the CVMA served as a major legitimizer of this bill. They have taken down their support page and will be releasing a press release TODAY, July 5 2007.
Claims that a law to force the sterilization of dogs and cats in California “will save millions of taxpayer dollars” are being discounted after government documents show that animal control expenses have nearly doubled in the county that serves as the model for the proposed statewide measure.
In arguably the most contentious bill before the California Legislature this yea r, AB 1634 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) will require nearly all pet owners to spay or neuter their animals or face a $500 fine.
Claiming taxpayer savings as the basis for the bill, proponents point to a 1995 mandatory spay/neuter law in Santa Cruz County that serves as the blueprint for AB 1634. In a recent interview, Assemblyman Levine said that based on the Santa Cruz ordinance, he assumes that California taxpayers can expect to “save $200 million or more a year.”
But records obtained by PetPAC from the California State Controller’s Office paint a very different picture: A nimal control expenses in Santa Cruz County have skyrocketed since the law took effect, from $635,296 in 1995 to more than $1.1 million in 2005 – an increase of 93%.
In contrast, animal control expenses statewide decreased more than 10% during the same 10-year period, according to government figures supplied by Judie Mancuso, the bill’s own sponsor.
Ignoring clear evidence to the contrary, proponents of AB 1634 contend that local governments will save money despite being saddled with a new law that is expensive to implement, a burden to administer, and impossible to enforce.
“I am no longer surprised by the stunning erroneous claims that supporters of AB 1634 are making,” said Bill Hemby, Chairman of PetPAC, an organization dedicated to the rights of pets and their owners.
“What concerns me is that backers of the bill have no problem giving state lawmakers flat-out false information on which to base their vote. That takes a lot of nerve, I’ll give them that.”
AB 1634 will be heard in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on July 9. If passed, it will be heard next in the Senate Local Government Committee on July 11. ###