Insanity in Santa Paula

The Neuter Nannies are at it again. Santa Paula is the next city in California poised to mandate that owners and their veterinarians inflict unnecessary and harmful surgery on pets in the community. Up on the agenda for the next city council meeting is a delayed vote on a mandatory spay-neuter-microchip ordinance.

At the hearing two days ago, not just one but TWO local veterinarians (they are the experts, right?) testified against mandated neutering of pets. Despite the evidence presented that spay/neuter has adverse effects on health, the city plans to amend and pass their proposal. As long as they toss a few “exemptions” into the pot to remove some objections, they have no qualms about squelching the right of an owner in consultation with his veterinarian to decide what is best for his dog's health.

Kiss nice dogs like this goodbye when the neuter nannies sink their talons into your community

The local shelter, “Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center” boasts of being the nation's first open-admission no-kill shelter. According to the claim on their Facebook page, 99% of the animals who enter their shelter, LIVE. Yet representatives from this group are still not satisfied. Like most animal rights fanatics, they want to spay-neuter pets into oblivion. The SPARC is backing the new ordinance and their representatives spoke in favor of it at Monday night's City Council meeting.

The rescue brigade will continue to cry “overpopulation” until there is not one single animal entering a shelter, anyplace. I hate to break the news to everybody, but that can only happen when there are no more pets left PERIOD. 

And this group also had the temerity to contradict the testimony of the two local veterinarians, who were concerned about the adverse health effects of spay and neuter. Here's a quote from a local newspaper article:

Representatives from the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center, meanwhile, urged council to approve the ordinance. Health problems, such as musculoskeletal injuries and cancers, occur in many animals whether they are spayed and neutered or not, they said.

Brilliant! Whoever was quoted here probably has his GED. I'm sure he knows better than two local veterinarians about the health effects of spay-neuter.

This person is so ignorant that he can't discern the difference between INJURIES and DEVELOPMENTAL problems resulting from lack of hormones. He is unaware of (or just plain doesn't care about) the many, many studies in multiple breeds that prove that cancer risks are many times higher for spayed/neutered animals than those who are intact. And, he isn't going to be paying the veterinary bills for the owners whose dogs become lame, hypothyroid, or aflicted with bone cancer or hemangiosarcoma. When the dog becomes more aggressive towards humans (as studies have found to be the effect of spay/neuter) will he be able to rehome the dog or will it have to be killed?

Here's the viewpoint of Santa Paula's esteemed mayor:

Mayor Martin Hernandez said he supported the ordinance, noting that those speaking against it were not from Santa Paula. He said requiring animals to be fixed is good for the community, and regulations are necessary."If laws were for the responsible people we wouldn't have people getting DUI's daily," he said. "Do you think that people are tending to their animals more than they take responsibility for driving under the influence of alcohol? I don't think so."

Well, that settles the debate, then. Ignore your two local veterinarians and the reams of knowledgable dog people from the Ventura County-based Kennel Clubs, who will have to deal with your stupid ordinance. Or maybe, their dog breeders could simply refuse to sell puppies to anyone who lives in Santa Paula. There's a great benefit for your community. No pets.

Good for the community? In which universe, exactly? Where is the evidence? Mandatory spay-neuter has NEVER been proven beneficial to ANY community where it has been enacted. In fact, licensing and rabies vaccination compliance DECREASES. Shelter intakes INCREASE. And FEWER dogs are reclaimed from shelters! Low-income people and seniors will be disproportionately hit with the higher costs. It's expensive to have the unnecessary surgery done, and even more costly when the dog gets cancer and dies an early, expensive death.

And “tending to their animals” is equated with foisting unnecessary, life-sucking surgery on them? How stupid is that? Well, we can't expect genius from someone who draws a parallel between animal ownership and drinking alcohol.

As if all this wasn't ridiculous enough, the ordinance also requires the Animal Services Coordinator, who more than likely has ZERO expertise in dog breeding, to administer a written test on humane breeding practices. If you fail the written test, no breeding permit for you.

Microchips are fine but they can rarely travel in the body, and the insertion process is not without risk. Again, the owner should have the right to decide if he wants to use a chip or if he prefers a collar with tag or a tattoo for ID purposes.

Santa Paula, the latest in the string of Neuter Nanny cities here in our state.

The article is here:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/local/santa-paula/santa-paula-delays-vote-on-spay-and-neuter-ordinance-276d0d30-ddb4-4e55-e053-0100007f47ef-363296281.html

Ranger's Proposal

The City of Chula Vista, California, recently established a task force to attempt to develop ways to reduce shelter intakes. (See “Senseless in San Diego” on this blog to be brought up to speed on the situation in Chula Vista). The task force is composed of rescuers, breeders and city employees.


Sharon Hamolsky, a self-proclaimed “animal advocate”, recently brought a powerpoint presentation to the City, called “Ranger’s Proposal.” The proposal is named after her dog “Ranger.” Ms. Hamolsky holds a B.A. in religion (biblical studies) and she is a licensed pilot. No credentials in animal husbandry, however. Imagine that!

“We have to weed out unscrupulous breeders who put profit before humane care for pets. We have to put unscrupulous breeders out-of-business….All prospective pet owners want a healthy animal”, the presentation begins.


OK, so far so good. We are all for humane care for pets, most of us agree that the unscrupulous should be put out of business. And, a healthy animal is always a good thing, particularly when looking for a pet.


"Ranger's Proposal will ensure prospective pet owners will be buying a quality puppy or kitten that meets very high standards.” Hamolsky states. Great! Maybe they are coming up with a plan to reduce the numbers of puppies smuggled in from Mexico?


Shelter workers favor adopting a pet from a shelter, or a rescue, Hamolsky continues. “But, if you absolutely must have a purebred puppy or kitten, ‘Ranger's Proposal’ will ensure the health and well-being of the pet.”


Fabulous! We can have guarantees for health and well-being! Let’s see the rest of the proposal to know how this miraculous feat will be accomplished.


First, we are told that breeders must pay for a special breeder’s license, and pay to be listed on a special Licensed Breeder website, and pay to be included in a 1-800 U-verify phone line for breeders. OK, so far I’m not seeing how this proposal will ensure health and well-being of the pet. It looks like the money is going to go to city bureaucrats, not for veterinary care, or to buy food or new toys. Hmmm.


Next, Hamolsky explains that breeder licensing is a requirement in the City of Los Angeles. However, she neglects to mention that LA’s breeder licensing and mandatory spay-neuter laws have been an abject failure. The cost for a breeder’s permit is $235 per year, and must be paid for any intact dog, whether or not the dog is ever bred. There is a four-page application for said permit, and I’d be surprised if any have applications have been submitted to date. Shelter numbers and deaths have risen sharply in Los Angeles under the brunt of these new fees, rules and regulations.


Still not seeing how any of this promotes health and well-being of our pets. It’s all about extorting money.


Next, Ms. Hamolsky presents a list of “approved breeder criteria” which she claims is approved by Bill Bruce, the very successful director of Calgary, Alberta’s animal control department. Mr. Bruce is a strong proponent of licensing for both dogs and cats.


However, the purpose of the licensing is to facilitate returning lost pets to their owners. Licensed pets are even given a free ride home. Mr. Bruce has stated in public seminars that as long as the owner licenses, he doesn’t care how many pets they have or what they do with them. So I am rather skeptical of Ms. Hamolsky’s claim that Bill Bruce approved her list of criteria for inclusion on the licensed breeder website. That would be rather out of character for him.


The requirements include:


• Must purchase a breeder’s license


• Annual physical exams for the breeding animals


• Owner must follow the veterinary recommendations for preventive health care


• Veterinary recommendations must be entered into a log book, with dates of compliance, and this book must be available for inspection 24/7.


• Unannounced inspections at any time, with a minimum charge of $100 per inspection. You must pay in advance or lose your breeder’s license, and lose your animals (how does one pay in advance for an unscheduled inspection?)


• Limit of one litter per year, and four per lifetime of the animal


• Must pay city business license fees, state and local taxes and state sales taxes.


• (Insert here a drone-like comment about how breeders contribute to “overpopulation”, a condition which does not exist in San Diego County.)


• Prohibition of pet sales in pet stores unless the animal is a “rescue”


• Recommendation to require microchip or tattoo



Whether or not any of this promotes health and well-being of the pet is highly debatable. It definitely would serve to bloat the government coffers, and beef up the veterinarians' paychecks. Hey, City Councilmember Rudy Ramirez’s sister is a veterinarian! Now I think we can understand the impetus for these ideas.


Lastly, Ms. Hamolsky suggests launching an ad campaign featuring male stars and athletes to promote sterilization of male dogs. WAIT a minute! What does neutering have to do with promoting health and well-being of pets? There are few genuine medical conditions that require neutering, and many health problems that can occur as a result of neutering. And what does a public ad campaign for neutering have to do with breeder licensing?


All in all, this is a very schizophrenic proposal, and will only serve to eliminate local sources of healthy, well-bred pets. Breeding dogs is generally a money-losing proposition, and heaping more fees, permits, inspections and other hassles on those who breed an occasional litter will only cause them to give up altogether.


Ah, well, there’s always Mexico; the border is just a few short miles from Chula Vista. They’ll be happy to fill our orders for pets.

"Eternal Home Again" Microchips



"Professional" microchip insertion at a clinic

 Microchip ID has been widely touted for use in recovery of lost pets and facilitating returns to owner. Since our pets can’t give a phone number or address when they are lost, no doubt microchips can be very advantageous. I choose to have my dogs microchipped.



However, the State of California wishes to remove that choice from us. Los Angeles already has a mandatory microchip law on the books, enacted based on promises from the “Found Animals Foundation” to provide the city with millions of dollars worth of microchips. Shelters in many areas routinely microchip animals prior to adoption. And now the legislature is advancing a bill (SB 702) which mandates microchipping of all animals released from shelters. The owner or prospective owner would have no choice in the matter.

Since the cost of the microchip will be borne by the owner, this will probably result in higher adoption/impound fees. For at least some pets, this will reduce the chances of being adopted or reclaimed.


A microchip can be a wonderful tool, but they are not without pitfalls. There have been rare instances of microchip insertion resulting in illness and death. Dogs have bled to death after insertion and suffered from infecton at the insertion site. Some have had the chip inserted improperly into muscle tissue or even the spinal canal, and there are even instances of lethal cancer formation at microchip sites. (See articles linked below). Chips can migrate in the body or fail, rendering them useless. Microchips also vary considerably by manufacturer and there is no universal scanner at this time.


Other forms of identification such as tattoos or tags can be immediately read by anyone who finds a stray dog, allowing rapid return to owner and reducing the burden on local shelters. Animal welfare groups such as AKC and OFA consider tattoos to be an acceptable form of permanent ID. Freeze branding is also an option worth considering.


Information on a microchip may not always be updated upon transfer of ownership. If there is increased reliance on microchip without another form of ID, the result may be the death of a beloved pet who could have survived with the use of a more visible form of ID.

Animals who are stolen will most likely never be scanned, rendering a microchip uselss in such situations. The thief can even have the microchip surgically removed. This is another instance where a more visible form of ID like a tattoo might be more useful than a microchip.


In regard to microchipping, the American Veterinary Medical association states on their website:

"As with almost anything, it's not a foolproof system. Although it's very rare, microchips can fail and become unable to be detected by a scanner. Problems with the scanners are also not common, but can occur. Human error, such as improper scanning technique or incomplete scanning of an animal, can also lead to failure to detect a microchip. Some of the animal-related factors that can make it difficult to detect a microchip include the following: animals that won't stay still or struggle too much while being scanned; the presence of long, matted hair at or near the microchip implantation site; and a metal collar (or a collar with a lot of metal on it). All of these can interfere with the scanning and detection of the microchip."


The AVMA further states on this same page:


"It looks like a simple-enough procedure to implant a microchip – after all, it's just like giving an injection, right? Well, yes and no. Although it looks like a simple injection, it is very important that the microchip is implanted properly. Using too much force, placing the needle too deeply, or placing it in the wrong location can not only make it difficult to detect or read the microchip in the future, but it can also cause life-threatening problems. Microchips should really be implanted under supervision by a veterinarian, because veterinarians know where the microchips should be placed, know how to place them, and know how to recognize the signs of a problem and treat one if it occurs."


Yet, in Rebecca May’s bill analysis for SB 702 from July 8, there are reassuring statements made regarding microchip safety. Ms. May asserts "The material is inert and biocompatible, thereby there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip. Also, implanting the device is similar to that of a vaccination, resulting in minimal pain for the animal - and can be implanted by veterinary techs and other personnel."



The statement that "there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip" is patently false. And the AVMA seems to feel that veterinarians should be there to at least supervise the insertion, in light of the complications that may occur.


Here are two documented cases of the microchip being implanted in the spinal canal. One is dated 2009 and the other case is dated 2010.


Who is responsible if the microchip is placed in the spinal canal? Will it now be the State?

Case 1:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19151873

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2009;22(1):63-5.

Surgical removal of a microchip from a puppy's spinal canal.


"A 1.6 kg, six-week-old Tibetan Terrier was admitted with a 12-hours
history of acute onset of progressive tetraparesis following insertion of
a microchip to the dorsal cervical region. Neurological examination
indicated a lesion to the Ce(1) to Ce(5) spinal cord segments.
Radiographic examination confirmed the intra-spinal location of a
microchip foreign body at the level of the second cervical vertebra.
Microchip removal was achieved following dorsal hemi-laminectomy;
significant intra-operative haemorrhage was encountered. The puppy was
ambulatory at day seven. Follow-up telephone interview 18 months
postoperatively confirmed that the patient had made a good recovery
although it had a mild residual right- sided torticollis."



Case 2:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422127

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2010;23(3):213-7. Epub 2010 Apr 26.


Delayed spinal cord injury following microchip placement in a dog.

"A three-year-old female, entire Yorkshire Terrier dog was examined because 
it had progressive non-weight-bearing left forelimb lameness and
tetraparesis of two weeks duration. Clinical signs were first observed
following mating. Examination confirmed non-weight-bearing left forelimb
lameness and tetraparesis. Left forelimb muscle atrophy was also noticed.
Survey radiography revealed a metallic foreign body consistent with a
microchip in close proximity to the left articular facets between the
fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae. Computed tomography identified the
exact location of the foreign body encroaching on the left dorsolateral
vertebral canal, and osteolysis of the lamina of the sixth cervical
vertebra. Surgical removal of the foreign body was performed via a dorsal
approach to the caudal cervical vertebral column. Two weeks following
surgery the dog showed return of left forelimb function and resolving
tetraparesis. Microchip implantation had been performed three years
previously."

Risks from microchips are rare, but problems do occur. Microchip insertion should be a personal choice and an individual decision, based upon weighing the risk vs benefit. Such a procedure should not be mandated by the state.

For further information: 

"Implants Linked to Animal Tumors"
Todd Lewan, A.P.
September 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html


"Chipped Pets Develop Fast-Growing, Lethal Tumors
http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/chipped-pets.html


The Scientific Evidence
http://www.chipmenot.org/scientificevidence.htm


Case Histories
http://www.chipmenot.org/casehistories.htm


CASPIAN Releases Microchip Cancer Report
http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2011/05/18/caspian-releases-microchip-cancer-report/

Rescue Roulette

A stolen dog, the microchip sliced out of him; a "rescuer" who is definitely up to something fishy. And no questions, no accountability? Hi Hola!

Good lord! Another edition of "Rescues Gone Wild"!

‎Why did Brenda Barnette not demand an immediate investigation of the L.A. rescue group removing the microchip of a shelter animal (or any animal) before transporting it? AND what happens to shelter animals when they are transported into an area with plenty of dogs already looking for homes?.

There is no required accounting for the dogs after they leave Los Angeles, just lots of PR rhetoric on how each one finds a home. It has been reported that some don't arrive alive.  If they do, do they stay alive?

Are L.A.'s 'Transported' Dogs Stolen or Rescued?

http://www.opposingviews.com/

This is the story of Dexter, a non-descript German Shepherd/Chow-mix, 50-lb. dog, like thousands in shelters across the country.? In February 2011, Dexter was scheduled

__._,_.___

"How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count The Ways! - Top three Ways to Love Your Pet"

A MESSAGE FROM THE DESK OF BRENDA BARNETTE, LAAS GENERAL MANAGER WHO OVERSEES THE PROTECTION AND WELFARE OF OUR CITY'S ANIMALS  

City of Los Angeles  Department of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90012 / http://www.laanimalservices.com/

 For Immediate Release                                        

April 28, 2011                                                                

Contact: Brenda F. Barnette, General Manager

Email: Brenda.barnette@lacity.org                                                                                    Phone: (213) 482-9558

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count The Ways!

Top Three Ways to Love Your Pet

 Number 3:  Spaying/Neutering -- A Change for the Better

You get a healthier pet.  Spayed/neutered pets are less likely to get injured in fights or get lost.  They live twice as long and are less likely to develop certain cancers.  This means lower medical bills.

You get a happier family member.  Spay/neutered pets are calmer because they are more focused on being a loving member of the family; and with adequate daily exercise and a reasonable diet, they don't get fat.

Your pet and your house will be cleaner.  Spayed females will not have heat cycles that soil your rugs and furniture.  Neutered males are less likely to mark furniture and rugs with urine.  This means less special cleaning bills.

Spaying or neutering your pet is a good investment.  Once you multiply the increased food, basic supplies, veterinarian and advertising costs to find homes for the animals, you will see that the cost of altering your pet is very smart investment.

Number 2:  Microchip your pets.

A microchip is a tiny electronic transponder about the size of a grain of rice.  The chip is embedded under the pet's skin using a simple, relatively painless procedure similar to a routine vaccination.  Each chip bears a 10-digit number that can be traced to the pet's guardian.  When your lost pet is found, anyone with a scanner – animal care and control agencies, adoption centers, veterinary clinics – can quickly reunite the family.

Microchips are available from veterinarians, some vaccination clinics, and public shelters at an average cost of $15 to $75, sometimes with additional registration fees.  Los Angeles City Shelters include a microchip for all dogs adopted from City Shelters.  We also microchip non-shelter animals for $25.

And the Number 1 Way To Love Your Pet:

Get Your Dog Licensed NOW!

Make sure your dog's license is current because it protects your dog if he/she accidentally gets out and gets lost.  License tags give you the peace of mind to know that Los Angeles Animal Services will be able to reunite you with your pet if she/he is turned in by a Good Samaritan or is picked up by one of our officers.  It is not only a great safety net for your dog, it is the law.

Do not delay; get your dog a license TODAY!

·         Fees: Spayed or Neutered: $20.00 with proof of rabies vaccination and proof of spay/neuter.

·         Not Spayed or Neutered (if qualified): $100 license plus $235 breeder's permit fee.

Call the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services at 888-452-7381 (TTY Hearing impaired: 877-875-8205) or visit our website at http://www.laanimalservices.com/ to find out how you can get your dog license today.

Golly, only $335 per dog, per year, for a license! Wow, let me call right away! What a bargain. If I have three dogs, that's only a THOUSAND dollars per year. For dog licenses.  No problem, I'll just cut back on food for my children. And what's that you say? I need to beg for government permission each year, or else my dog will be forced to have unnecessary surgery? Where is the hoop? I am ready to jump! How high?

Dear, dear. Seems Ms. Barnette has been swilling some serious AR Kool Aid. Well, after all, she USED to be a breeder, just like she USED to eat meat, but not any more. Maybe her brain is fogged from lack of Vitamin B-12? Just like the rest of her vegan friends. And maybe....just MAYBE....that KoolAid is laced with some serious psychedelic stuff!

Well, first, before I can address the string of lies in this propaganda, let me pick my jaw up off the floor. Gee, a government official who lies to us? Who would have thought?....I am absolutely SHOCKED!

Ready? Here we go:

Neutered pets live twice as long and are healthier? Where is the proof of this? The scientific evidence proves the exact opposite. Many studies that show that keeping all the original parts is the appropriate course of action if you want to promote health and long life. Ovaries promote longevity. Testicles and their precious hormones protect against prostate and bladder cancer. Intact animals have significantly lower rates of hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism, diabetes, pancreatitis, and senile dementia.

Happier family members who won't get fat? Baloney! Many studies show a link between speuter and obesity. When you lose essential hormones and your metabolism slows down, you easily get fat. And really, the dog is happier? You know this how? Behavioral studies show that sterilization increases fearfulness, shyness, and studies show that dog-to-human aggression actually increases! Oops!

Your house will be cleaner? I guess Ms. Barnette forgot that 20-30% of spayed females develop urinary incontinence. They even have a special name for this problem; it's called SPAY INCONTINENCE. Your house won't smell real great with pee all over the place; but seriously, for any dog with a housebreaking problem, or the minor problem of discharge during a season, whether that pet is intact or neutered, it is a simple matter to buy bitch britches or belly bands. Get over it already.

Guess what, neutered dogs get into the mud and get skunked just the same as those who are intact. Duh!

Spaying and neutering a "good investment"? After paying hundreds for unnecessary surgery, you then get the added bonus of extra vet bills for other health problems that come along with sterilization.

 But hey, since your pet likely won't live as long as it would if it kept all its vital organs, then I guess you will save a lot of money. Dead animals don't eat or have medical bills.


Typical AR swill. Do any of them have any kids? Two-legged ones, I mean. Do they turn up their noses in disgust changing a diaper, or at the messes kids make? Would they slice out their child's organs and then lie about their reasons for doing so? Yet they think nothing about doing exactly that to these victims "family members".

Guess when Animal Rights nuts make those claims of how "pets are part of the family", it's just lip service. Who would treat a family member like that?

      Someone with a VERY dysfunctional family.