NOTE FROM DR. R. COLE AND DISCLAIMER STATEMENT:
I strongly oppose AB 1634 and any future effort to mandate neutering and spaying of dogs and cats statewide.  I strongly opposed SB 861 and all breed specific legislation. While I share these beliefs with the builders of this site, neither I, nor any of the organizations with which I have been affiliated, in any way, shape or form, would support or endorse a Referendum, Initiative, or Model Ordinance.   I have had almost twenty years of experience in fighting averse dog and cat ordinances. Those of us who have been in this fight for all these years know that this is not the correct path to take.  To continue down this path would be to put a serious rift in the group that opposes AB 1634, where continued unity and togetherness is so important to ultimate victory.  Therefore, I cannot advise you strongly enough to drop the referendum idea.

OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION AB 1634

Several years ago I came across the following definition in an old (1980) edition of William Safire’s Political Dictionary, subtitled the New Language of Politics:

BIG LIE:  a  falsehood of such magnitude and audacity that it is bound to have an effect on public opinion even if it is not given credence by a majority; a propaganda technique identified with Adolph Hitler.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:  “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.  The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.

Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most impudent lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned with the art of lying in this world know only too well, and hence they stop at nothing to achieve this end.”

The discussion went on to cover the McCarthy era hearings and the lies perpetrated by them.  What does all of that have to do with AB 1634?   The rationale for this misguided proposal is based on false and misleading figures.   Can I provide you with correct figures?  No.   No one can, but, the proponents of this bill are making false and misleading claims because reporting on euthanasia and shelter surrenders is neither accurate nor complete in this state where there is no standardized or uniform reporting from each shelter in the state.  Those of us who have been observing these figures over time see, even with the inaccurate and incomplete data, a steady downward drop in euthanasia and in shelter surrender, even though the human population has risen precipitously over the past three decades.   We also know that several districts, beginning with San Francisco, which paved the way, have achieved a no kill goal without any adverse dog and cat legislation, whatsoever.  

Richard Avanzino, whose innovative and marvelous ideas led to this breakthrough, has since left and moved on to administer the Duffield Foundation’s Maddie’s Fund, which helps poorer districts replicate this by providing advice and funds with the qualifying proviso that there must be no adverse dog /cat legislation in that district.   Passage of AB 1634 would effectively cut off those funds.  The secret to Avanzino’s success lay in free and reduced cost neutering and spaying for dogs, cats and feral cats as well as lots of public education.   He was neither judgmental nor confrontational, and this attitude and willingness to work with all factions (animal welfare and animal rights) of the pet world set the tone at the SF SPCA, resulting in record amounts of donations in both volunteer hours and in monetary contributions.  He formed a partnership with the public, rather than setting up an adversarial role, as most adverse dog and cat legislation is apt to do.  His example, not that of Santa Cruz, the single district that passed a mandatory s/n law, is the one we should all be emulating.

The Big Lie is that there is no statewide pet overpopulation problem in this state. 

There are some districts that have not yet reached no kill that have local pet population problems, and in all of them the numbers of adoptable dogs and cats that are euthanized are going down without adverse legislation.   Notice, I said “adoptable dogs and cats,” because those are really the only ones we should be counting.   There will always be euthanasia because there will always be animals too old, too sick or too vicious to be placed in a family home environment, and there will always be owner surrendered animals.

The exaggerated, inflated, and fabricated numbers of animals put to sleep is not something new.   It has been going on for many years, now – in fact, since 1990. The original San Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous attempt at change with its complete moratorium on breeding to be followed by mandatory neutering and spaying of each and every dog and cat (with no exceptions), as well as to make it illegal to transport animals for the purposes of breeding.  This  1990 proposal was made in San Mateo County, and the County Supervisor, Tom Nolan, and Peninsula Humane Society (PHS) Director, Kim Sturla, posed for T.V. cameras in front of barrels of dead dogs and cats with paws and tails grotesquely hanging over the barrels.  They claimed that 10,000 animals were being euthanized yearly.   Fortunately, no action was taken, and two task forces were formed that met regularly.   I monitored one of them.   “Where did that figure of 10,000 come from,” we asked?  After getting the requested breakdown of the 10,000 figure, we discovered that when the unadoptable animals were eliminated, 650 adoptable dogs had been euthanized.   Today that figure has been reduced to zero in San Mateo County, and without mandatory n/s laws. 

So, what about the claims of the proponents of AB 1634?   First of all, this is not a statewide problem and is not in need of statewide solution because one size does not fit all.   The Big Lie is being used to try to convince law makers that it is a problem, and we can prove this unequivocally, and without playing our opponents’ “numbers game.”

Fact:  Shelter euthanasia has been going down statewide, even in the worst areas. 

Testimonial Truth:  In the City of Los Angeles at a recent public meeting (May 2, 2007) the following was revealed in a report to the Public Safety Committee: 

“Since 2000, ASD has reduced the euthanasia rate by 20 percent using licensing incentives, promoting adoption programs and strengthening alliances with the animal rescue community. In addition, ASD has reduced the number of impounds by a similar percentage through aggressive voluntary spay/neuter programs.”

From Assemblywoman Shirley Horton from San Diego County:  The primary reason I opposed AB 1634 is because it is overreaching.  For example, about 7 years ago, San Diego County adopted a voluntary spay/neuter program with education as a centerpiece.  They had the chance to adopt the Los Angeles model, which was very similar to what AB 1634 does, but they chose to take the less forceful, voluntary route.  This has, in fact, reduced the euthanasia of adoptable pets by 100% and is one of the most effective programs in the state.

Supply and Demand Proof:  The numbers of adoptable dogs, especially the medium, small and toy sized dogs, in many district shelters have been reduced so much that the demand far exceeds the supply, forcing shelters like Animal Care & Control in San Francisco to send employees to the Central Valley shelters to find and bring back adoptable dogs.  Some shelters and some prospective owners have even gone so far as to import these dogs off the streets of Mexico and Asian countries, all without health inspections.  Sickly dogs have been reported imported from Eastern European countries, too.   

Yet, the hobby breeder, who will be most adversely affected by this bill, is the least responsible for dogs and cats winding up in shelters.  A responsible breeder checks out the home of the prospective buyer before selling a dog and always is willing to take the dog back if things don’t work out.  The irresponsible breeder probably is one who does not license a dog (less than 20% of dog owners buy licenses) and undoubtedly won’t follow this law, either.   The tariff on each intact dog will not only raise the cost of these dogs to the average buyer, but will make it impossible for many breeders to keep extra intact dogs to preserve the gene pool.  It will result in more breeding of closely related specimens with more genetic diseases as a result.   Some of the rarer breeds will probably disappear.  Epidemiological studies in 4 major universities, including U.C. Davis, have shown that hobby breeders are the least likely source of shelter surrenders.  They also provide a setting where a buyer can inspect the source (sire, dam and breeder) of a prospective puppy and check on its genetic background and its early socialization.

AB 1634 does not begin to address the feral cat problem, which in San Francisco was much improved by a policy of aiding the feral cat caretakers by providing free cat fixes to ferals that were brought in to the shelter.   These cats are then placed back in the colony, which keeps other ferals from moving in, and which stabilizes and eventually reduces the size of the colony.  In all probability (without complete data), feral cats are the single largest number of animals being euthanized, and these are all without owners.

So, even without accurate reporting figures, we can accurately state that the proponents of AB 1634 have been perpetuating the Big Lie that has been part of their propaganda since 1990.  We know that the ultimate aim of the Animal Rights groups is the complete elimination of purebred dogs and pedigree cats through the elimination of breeding of these species.  This bill goes a long way towards that goal. I still remember the chilling sight of a young man in his twenties sitting in the front row at one of the hearings in San Mateo in 1990 wearing a tee shirt with the letters “ALF” emblazoned on it.

AB 1634 is also draconian and outrageously manipulative, as was the similar proposal in San Mateo in 1990 which frightened hobbyists and breeders into seeking compromise.  Social scientists in the mass communications field have found that the size of a requested opinion or behavior change is important to the degree of change effected.  Herbert Adelson, of Opinion Research Corporation observes:  “The more extreme the opinion change that the communicator asks for, the more actual change he is likely to get…”  In other words if you want to produce a change, the more outrageous or extreme the requested change, the more likely you are to get it.  The original San Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous attempt at change because some who opposed the mandatory n/s proposal thought that compromise of a lesser sort would help prevent the original proposal from being adopted.  And, so the unincorporated part of San Mateo County got an ordinance that included breeders licensing, something that would have had little or no chance of passing had it been the original proposal.

John Hamil, DVM, a past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter, is undoubtedly the leading authority on this subject.   The following quotes are made with his permission and should effectively debunk the proponents’ propaganda, adding considerable weight to the list of proofs cited above. He has stated that “The number of animals being euthanized in California shelters has dropped steadily for more than two decades despite the continuous population increase in families with pets.  Importantly, the numbers continue to drop faster in shelters that are in jurisdictions that do not have mandatory spay/neuter.”

He further states:  “The  majority of dogs euthanized are medium to large mixed breed individuals …… belonging to irresponsible owners who are hard to identify and who will never comply with this law and are noncompliant with  many other community laws. The number of young, healthy, well socialized, adoptable animals euthanized is much smaller than the humane and sheltering community has claimed.

The number of animals euthanized continues to decline each year and varies greatly from area to area within the state.

Why do we need a coercive, punitive and intrusive "broad brush" state law, when this is clearly a local issue?”

And the answer to that last question is a resounding   We do not need such a law.   It is totally unnecessary.

One of the more preposterous claims is that it will reduce the costs of shelters and to the public throughout the state.  Dr. Hamil effectively debunks this spurious argument:

“Even if it was possible to ‘turn off the faucet’, as Assemblyman Levine likes to say; there would be little reduction in the cost of shelter operation.

As hospital owners know, most costs are fixed (facilities, administration, trucks, equipment, etc.) The shelter can't even reduce staff as we can in private business. Unfortunately, a reduction in the numbers of animals entering the shelter will only effect a small reduction in the overall cost to the taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the steady increase in animal control budgets over the last two decades despite the number of animals entering the shelters and the number of animals euthanized decreasing significantly.

The method of accounting, linking the overall cost of animal control to the number of animals euthanized, exploited by the sponsors of this bill is very misleading. Using this method, the cost of each euthanasia goes up as the number of euthanized animals goes down. The use of this tactic is dishonest, disingenuous or, at best, misinformed.”

They would also have us believe that this would save the state millions of dollars because of reduced euthanasia.   Not so.  The animal control shelters and pounds would not close their doors.   Euthanasia is a miniscule cost in the overall picture of animal rescues, rabies checks, animal abuse, dog fighting, reuniting pets with owners, etc. that animal control officers engage in every day.

It is time to set the record straight and to tell the truth .The truth is that there is a pet population problem in some parts of this state, but not statewide.  The truth is that those areas having problems should emulate the techniques and efforts made in the successful areas, and perhaps the state should contribute money to assist with more public education and more low cost and free spay and neuter clinics in those areas having problems.  

A special aside to Democrats, many of whom seem to support this bill:  The truth is that the public is tired of big lies, whether they be about mushroom clouds, W.M.D.’s and other false reasons for going to war, or about a supposed pet overpopulation problem and use of propaganda, based upon inflated, incomplete and inaccurate data.   Dog and cat owners come in all sizes and belong to all political parties.  We are united in our desire to see the truth prevail.  We are tired of propaganda and spin, and we will cross party lines, if needs be to vote against those who propagate it.  Every poll I have seen shows that the public overwhelmingly opposes this overly intrusive bill.   If it were brought to a vote in this state, it would most certainly go down to defeat.  We should be able to count on our elected representatives not to perpetuate the Big Lie and not to enact such an unpopular and unjust law.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ronald E. Cole

Member Board of Directors San Francisco Dog Training Club

Member Board of Directors The Animal Council (TAC)

Member and former Vice President & Chair of Legislative and Legal Affairs Committee of the American Dog Owners Association

Past President of THE ASSOCIATED OBEDIENCE CLUBS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA