Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz; Pets 'Aren't Disappearing'
Opponents argued then, as they do today, that regulating pets is a violation of their property rights. Others said the law wouldn't control the pet population and reduce euthanasia. There was concern that so few animals would be allowed to breed that people would have to compete for pets, and mutts would disappear altogether.
"None of it turned out to be true"
"None of it turned out to be true"
Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz
Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Tiki the Chihuahua waits to be adopted at a shelter in Sc... Peggy and Luke Reiner check out adoptable dogs in Scotts ...
(06-09) 04:00 PDT Scotts Valley -- There are fewer dogs on death row inside the Santa Cruz County animal shelter these days, a dozen years after the county became one of the first in California to mandate that pet owners fix their Fidos.
This seaside hamlet of wave riders and organic-food lovers is being touted as a model in contentious debates in Sacramento over a bill to require that most California dogs and cats be spayed or neutered.
"There was a time when we would euthanize for space -- we'd pick five or six animals that had to be killed to make room for incoming strays," said Tricia Geisreiter, the county's animal services coordinator.
Before 1995, the shelter warehoused 14,000 animals a year. Today, it takes in about 5,500. Euthanasia has dropped from 30 percent to 17 percent of sheltered dogs and from 60 to 50 percent of sheltered cats.
Lake, Los Angeles and Stanislaus counties followed Santa Cruz's lead, as did the cities of Sacramento and San Bernardino.
In Santa Cruz today, more of the sheltered animals get adopted because they can stay longer in their cages. They can stay longer because there's more room -- spaying and neutering laws have resulted in fewer unwanted litters and fewer strays roaming the beaches and streets, officials say.
Proponents of the proposed Healthy Pets Act, which won approval in the state Assembly this week and will go to the Senate next month, hope the same thing will happen statewide. California taxpayers spend $250 million a year to put down half a million unwanted animals.
Mandatory spay-neuter in Santa Cruz "changed morale in the shelters," said Jody Cramer, the Santa Cruz SPCA director from 1991 to 1998.
"There was less depression and hopelessness and more of a feeling that we were doing something to help the animals. Killing dogs and cats is a difficult thing to ask good people to do," Cramer said.
As does the proposed state law, Santa Cruz grants exceptions for breeders and dog show enthusiasts.
...
Getting the Santa Cruz law passed wasn't easy, Cramer said. The community was divided and emotional, especially after the local SPCA magazine in 1995 ran a photograph of a euthanized dog on the cover to make its point.
Opponents argued then, as they do today, that regulating pets is a violation of their property rights. Others said the law wouldn't control the pet population and reduce euthanasia. There was concern that so few animals would be allowed to breed that people would have to compete for pets, and mutts would disappear altogether.
"None of it turned out to be true," Cramer said.
more
Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Tiki the Chihuahua waits to be adopted at a shelter in Sc... Peggy and Luke Reiner check out adoptable dogs in Scotts ...
(06-09) 04:00 PDT Scotts Valley -- There are fewer dogs on death row inside the Santa Cruz County animal shelter these days, a dozen years after the county became one of the first in California to mandate that pet owners fix their Fidos.
This seaside hamlet of wave riders and organic-food lovers is being touted as a model in contentious debates in Sacramento over a bill to require that most California dogs and cats be spayed or neutered.
"There was a time when we would euthanize for space -- we'd pick five or six animals that had to be killed to make room for incoming strays," said Tricia Geisreiter, the county's animal services coordinator.
Before 1995, the shelter warehoused 14,000 animals a year. Today, it takes in about 5,500. Euthanasia has dropped from 30 percent to 17 percent of sheltered dogs and from 60 to 50 percent of sheltered cats.
Lake, Los Angeles and Stanislaus counties followed Santa Cruz's lead, as did the cities of Sacramento and San Bernardino.
In Santa Cruz today, more of the sheltered animals get adopted because they can stay longer in their cages. They can stay longer because there's more room -- spaying and neutering laws have resulted in fewer unwanted litters and fewer strays roaming the beaches and streets, officials say.
Proponents of the proposed Healthy Pets Act, which won approval in the state Assembly this week and will go to the Senate next month, hope the same thing will happen statewide. California taxpayers spend $250 million a year to put down half a million unwanted animals.
Mandatory spay-neuter in Santa Cruz "changed morale in the shelters," said Jody Cramer, the Santa Cruz SPCA director from 1991 to 1998.
"There was less depression and hopelessness and more of a feeling that we were doing something to help the animals. Killing dogs and cats is a difficult thing to ask good people to do," Cramer said.
As does the proposed state law, Santa Cruz grants exceptions for breeders and dog show enthusiasts.
...
Getting the Santa Cruz law passed wasn't easy, Cramer said. The community was divided and emotional, especially after the local SPCA magazine in 1995 ran a photograph of a euthanized dog on the cover to make its point.
Opponents argued then, as they do today, that regulating pets is a violation of their property rights. Others said the law wouldn't control the pet population and reduce euthanasia. There was concern that so few animals would be allowed to breed that people would have to compete for pets, and mutts would disappear altogether.
"None of it turned out to be true," Cramer said.
more
For more information:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
The official source for California animal shelter data is the California Department of Health Services, Veterinary Public Health Section (VPH). Like all other counties, Santa Cruz Co. is required by state law to submit their shelter stats to the VPH. This is what Santa Cruz Co. reported to the VPH for dog impounds:
1990 2475
1991 3132
1992 3585
1993 2995
1994 2928
1995 2725
1996 2965
1997 4418
1998 2086
1999 2785
2000 2970
2001 2805
2002 2661
There is NO significant improvement since the mandatory s/n ordinance passed in 1995. There are some ups and downs year to year, but the long term trend is NO improvement.
There's also NO significant improvement over time for cat impounds either (no cat data prior to 1995 reported by SC Co.)
1995 3899
1996 3566
1997 3327
1998 1710
1999 3670
2000 3576
2001 3720
2002 3185
Mandatory spay/neuter DOESN'T WORK.
Shame on this reporter for not checking the FACTS.
Are you saying that Tricia Geisreiter is lieing and you are right? Prove it!
"There was a time when we would euthanize for space -- we'd pick five or six animals that had to be killed to make room for incoming strays," said Tricia Geisreiter, the county's animal services coordinator.
Before 1995, the shelter warehoused 14,000 animals a year. Today, it takes in about 5,500. Euthanasia has dropped from 30 percent to 17 percent of sheltered dogs and from 60 to 50 percent of sheltered cats.
Sounds like it's working to me.
As a sidenote, all of you who protest in defense of your dog's balls, what is your solution to overpopulation? Or do you not even care that hundreds of thousands of animals are put down every year in California? Does your dog keeping his balls make it all worth it?
If there were ever 14,000 dogs & cats impounded annually in Santa Cruz County, that was MANY years before the 1995 spay/neuter ordinance went into effect. There were fewer than 7000 a year being impounded immediately prior to the ordinance going into effect.
As far as what the solutions are to the surplus dog & cat problem, I suggest you look at the proven solutions from the No Kill movement. The things that actually work have nothing to do with mandatory spay/neuter laws or other restrictions. Read what the leader of the No Kill movement, Nathan Winograd, has to say in his article here http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/Big%20Lie%20Graphs2.pdf
of course people will great graphs to "prove" it is otherwise for those with no direct shelter experience
For example, changes in dog euthanasia rates:
- El Dorado Co, 90% reduction since 1980
- Mendocino Co , 92% reduction since 1980
- Monterey Co, 84% reduction since 1980
- Nevada Co., 99% reduction since 1980
- Placer Co., 90% reduction since 1980
- Sacramento Co., 81% reduction since 1980
- San Diego Co, 75% reduction since 1980
- San Luis Obispo Co., 93% reduction since 1980
- Santa Clara Co, 79% reduction since 1980
- Ventura Co, 84% reduction since 1980
as for Santa Cruz's success, see this, as it shows why AVKT's numbers are skewed:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/06/18433646.php
Neuter laws ..
Would it not be better to require all dog owners to be licensed by the state?
More like a drivers license with a test and a required amount of classes for owners .
Work dogs; like Rottweilers, German Shepard’s, Pit bulls ,their owners would be required to have the most amount of hours of training and would have a written test and a photo I.D. license.
A.K.C. along with the A.S.P.C.A. could set the standard for each class of dogs and the amount of hours needed for each breed, all requiring a written test and some sort of photo I.D.
The same thing can apply to cats.
We are licensed for anything and everything else that is of a health concern for the state and it citizenry.
Of course these things cost money but Motor vehicle operators , food handlers , even Tattoo artist are all required to be licensed , and it is at the expense of the license holder to provide the funds.
If the state has it's citizens health and well being at heart not to mentions the animals this only seams like the logical direction to go in.
This is already set up for exotic animals.
If the would be, or the existing owner does not have the time for the classes, license, testing or funds ,then how could they have the time or money to care for said animals in question?
The state could even make a profit with tickets for non compliance, improper care, laws etc. when a Pet owner is not licensed and he or she is ticked for several violations that would be outlined in the written test just like car owners. when animals have to be taken into custody the owner would be responsible Neuter laws ..
Would it not be better to require all dog owners to be licensed by the state?
More like a drivers license with a test and a required amount of classes for owners .
Work dogs; like Rottweilers, German Shepard’s, Pit bulls ,their owners would be required to have the most amount of hours of training and would have a written test and a photo I.D. license.
A.K.C. along with the A.S.P.C.A. could set the standard for each class of dogs and the amount of hours needed for each breed, all requiring a written test and some sort of photo I.D.
The same thing can apply to cats.
We are licensed for anything and everything else that is of a health concern for the state and it citizenry.
Of course these things cost money but Motor vehicle operators , food handlers , even Tattoo artist are all required to be licensed , and it is at the expense of the license holder to provide the funds.
If the state has it's citizens health and well being at heart not to mentions the animals this only seams like the logical direction to go in.
This is already set up for exotic animals.
If the would be, or the existing owner does not have the time for the classes, license, testing or funds ,then how could they have the time or money to care for said animals in question?
The state could even make a profit with tickets for non compliance, improper care, laws etc. when a Pet owner is not licensed and he or she is ticked for several violations that would be outlined in the written test just like car owners. when animals have to be taken into custody the owner would be responsible financially. Beloved pets would be Lost at the owners expense, not the states!
The state could gain far more in revenues following a more responsible course of action as appose to the quick fix.
Thank you ,
T Mon