On January 27, 2014, the Pasadena, California City Council voted, 5-3, in favor of continuing with a proposed breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for “pit bulls,” opting to table the measure to be picked up again in July 2014.
According to Pasadena Now,
The vote reflected the Councils prevailing opinion that additional research will be available over the summer which could be helpful to making a more informed decision. The Pasadena Humane Society is expected to complete its city-wide canvas to license all dogs by June.
Is it the licensing information that the Pasadena City Council is waiting on, or could it perhaps be data from surrounding areas, like Riverside and Riverside County, which passed mandatory spay/neuter laws for so-called “pit bulls” several months ago, that Pasadena is waiting on? Do you get the feeling that in more than a few ways the Pasadena City Council isn’t being above board with its citizens?
Worse is, the Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA seems to be complicit with the Pasadena City Council in passing the council’s proposed breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law, since as Pasadena Now noted,
The Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA had earlier provided data showing pit bulls comprise a disproportionately high number of unwanted dogs in Pasadena with pit bull breeds accounting for 27% of dogs euthanized and only 10% of dogs adopted out by the Pasadena Humane Society.
And a mandatory spay/neuter law will just make dumpings and relinquishments and therefore euthanasia numbers for “pit bulls” increase all the more. Shouldn’t they know that?
For instance, after Riverside County, California passed a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for “pit bulls” in October of 2013, owners started dumping their dogs on what has come to be known as “dead dog alley,” a stretch of dirt road just inside the limits of the city of Indio, California in Riverside County. Its called dead dog alley because dogs are dumped there by owners who, in this case, can no longer afford to keep their dogs thanks to Riverside Countys breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, and abandon them on the desolate dirt road where they frequently get run over. You call that humane???
And I say that the Pasadena Humane Society should already know about the dismal failure rate of mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws since San Mateo County, California passed the nation’s very first mandatory spay/neuter law in 1991 which saw,
” . . . dog deaths in the areas governed by the MSN ordinance increased 126% and cats 86%, while areas of the county not covered by MSN laws decreased. Licenses declined by 35%. It was primarily pushed by the Peninsula Humane Society (PHS). The PHS assessed the San Mateo MSN law to have been ‘disappointing’ since it led to increases in shelter killing.” (From MSN a Failure Everywhere.)
Likewise, Santa Cruz County, California passed an MSN law in 1995 which saw the Animal Control budget skyrocket and licensure compliance plummet. The same happened in Los Angeles County, California when they passed an MSN law in 2000: Licensure compliance declined and the Animal Control budget almost tripled from $6.7 million to $18 million.
And yet Pasadena wants to pass a mandatory spay/neuter law for all pets??? Come on, Pasadena can’t say it doesn’t know these stats and figures just like we do. So they want to wait to see if their licensure declines, their Animal Control budget explodes, and their euthanasia rates skyrocket too?
It seems too since the radical animal rights groups, who want an end to domestic animal ownership, failed to pass AB 1634 (a measure which would’ve required all dogs and cats in California to be spayed/neutered by 6 months of age), that these same radical animal rights groups are now just going county to county and city to city in California and passing their mandatory spay/neuter laws anyway. This despite the fact that Californians were very vocal about not wanting AB 1634 and mandatory spay/neuter laws.
So when we see councilmen like Pasadena’s Councilman Steve Madison** being so dogmatic about the passage of a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law, or an overarching mandatory spay/neuter law, even though he knows full well his community doesn’t want it, you have to wonder who he’s beholden to (i.e. who wrote the biggest check for his last or his upcoming campaign).
Indeed, radical animal rights groups have very large bank accounts thanks to all those sad animals they show on their TV commercials, few of any of which do they actually help, and lobbying for unwanted, unconstitutional legislation is how radical animal rights groups tend to spend those donations. They also like to spend that money by buying legislation like Pasadena’s mandatory spay/neuter laws, and perhaps even law-makers like Councilman Steve Madison.
Think political favor-trading doesn’t go on in California? Then ask yourself why, for instance, the California director of the Humane Society of the United States — the HSUS being a radical animal rights group that is not affiliated with your local humane society and which does not run any shelters — walks California Governor Jerry Brown’s dog for free. Is it just out of the goodness of her heart, or what she calls being “neighborly,” that she walks his dog? Was it also out of the goodness of his heart that Governor Brown just so happened to have signed all six of the HSUS’s bills in California last year?
Is California corrupt? Does this kind of political favor-trading and legislation-purchasing happen beyond the purview of Californians and to their detriment? Are Californians getting fed up with the level of political corruption in their state? Well, given how Californians came out in force to oppose AB 1634 and Pasadenans came out in force to oppose Pasadena’s breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, what do you think?
The real question, however, is, Do these elected officials care that their constituents know they are corrupt or at the very least not above board?
*Photo courtesy of Pasadena Now. Wow, look at Councilman Steve Madison go. So dogmatic! (Pardon the pun.) Kind of makes you wonder who he owes a favor to, doesn’t it?
** As more evidence that Councilman Madison is, let’s just say put-upon, he used the age-old and tired argument that “pit bulls,” whatever those are, should be regulated or even banned because they’re like guns, which I guess Madison also thinks should be banned or regulated. As Madison said, “[‘pit bull’ advocates] have this notion that there is something called discrimination against particular dog breeds, but there really isnt . . . Fully automatic machine guns dont have any right to be discriminated against, they are inherently dangerous and thats why we forbid them.” First of all, there is no scientific proof that what detractors call “pit bulls” are inherently dangerous or vicious, or that any dog breed is inherently dangerous or vicious. Secondly, like guns, “pit bulls,” or any dog, require an owner that will either use them for good purposes, or use them for bad purposes. The use of these dogs, or guns for that matter, by ill-intended individuals is neither the gun’s nor the dog’s fault. And also like guns, people will always be able to illegally obtain “pit bulls” despite passing breed-specific legislation banning them or restricting them. And while there are millions upon millions of law-abiding, what are called “pit bull” owners out there, the scant few bad ones are being made out to be the norm by corrupt politicians who are pushing BSL for reasons other than stated by sickeningly using innocent children and other victims who’ve been attacked by DOGS, not “pit bulls” because you can’t use the word “pit bull” with a straight face since the definition is constantly changing. And we know these politicians are corrupt and their push for BSL, etc., is for purposes other than stated because there is no way to be a policy-maker in this day and age and NOT know that BSL, no matter what form it takes, doesn’t work. So Madison can keep using specious arguments and dog-bite victims as political pawns, but, as ever, the truth has a way of getting out.