As we've been saying . . . .
Gets scary when you know the real agendas:
Recently there has been a rash of Mandatory Spay Neuter laws proposed
and in some cases passed across the country. In CA, they are trying
to take out the entire state. In Texas and Florida, they are doing it
city by city. Several people have written to me asking how this could
be happening. Below is an excellent article that explains quite well
exactly what is going on......
Permission to crosspost, but please note submission to the Alaskan
Malamute Club of America Newsletter._ _
A thousand snakes in the grass.
By Margaret Anne Cleek
"Better the dragon you see than a thousand snakes in the grass." This
Chinese Proverb should be recognized and heeded by pet owners and
fanciers.
Currently anyone who breeds animals is the target of animal rights
activists who wish to abolish the purpose breeding of pets, and in
some cases pet ownership in general. While we are made aware of
federal and state legislation threatening our ownership of our
animals, for example PAWs and the Animal Welfare Act at the federal
level and CA's AB 1634, mandatory S/N bill, and broad-based
opposition is launched, I believe that the greatest threat is from
local legislation enacted as quietly as possible. The threat is
greatest at the local level because a small special-interest group of
animal right activists is following a quiet plan to rob us of control
over our pets and their reproductive capacity and enacting this plan
community by community.
Programs on how to enact legislation have been developed by special
interest animal rights organizations. Action steps are outlined on
websites with literature, sample wording, canned letters, and a plan
showing how to proceed. They are told not to reveal that a new
ordinance is the objective, but rather to form a taskforce to address
animal welfare or to decrease shelter euthanasia. Also the advice is
given to remain informal as this keeps you from being subject
to "sunshine laws" which may exist to assure open and public process
and to lay the groundwork and assure support from staff before going
public.
Thus the public is not aware that behind closed doors special
interest groups are drafting an ordinance to suit their agenda. A
group is formed and under the guise of being a coalition which
includes all "stakeholders" participants further their plan. Some
participants are well-meaning, some know precisely what the real
agenda is. In any case, the MSN or `pay or spay" ordinance is drafted
with city or county staff co-opted as a participating member. Senior
staff, legal, and council or board members are now inundated with
information in private one-on-one sessions. The perception of a
crisis is cultivated and the only solution is to enact legislation
forcing people to pay huge fees to own intact animals or criminalize
the ownership of intact animals. Data is provided which is either
false or misleading about the success of mandatory S/N legislation.
They may show a decline in euthanasia, but fail to note that greater
declines were achieved in communities without such an ordinance. They
may show an increase in licensing with coercive legislation, but fail
to mention that enforcement costs exceed revenue. In my municipality
I found that success was even claimed in a community that had no such
legislation.
(For a comprehensive article on MSN legislation's results please see
Do mandatory spay/neuter laws reduce shelter intake and euthanasia?
by Laura Allen http://www.ab1634.com/Files/ARE_MSN.pdfhttp://www.ab1634.-com/Files/-ARE_M SN.pdf )
Breeders are vilified as being responsible for the deaths in shelters
under the simply appealing but logically false premise that the birth
of a wanted pet causes the death of a shelter animal. Breeders are
pimps, heartlessly exploiting animals for money, causing the death of
wonderful shelter animals and costing the municipality tremendously
in animal control costs. A huge number is manufactured and becomes
the lost revenue to the county because all breeders are tax evaders
making tens of thousands of dollars and costing the community in
animal control costs for the surplus animals they produce.
Apparently someone failed Econ 101 as there can either be a crisis of
surplus desirable animals OR breeders selling pets for thousands of
dollars. You cannot have both. There is rampant emotional
manipulation. Pictures will be shown of darling puppies. Then the
numbers of animals killed in the shelter will be given. This leads
the targets of the message to believe that these darling puppies are
killed. In fact, the number presented includes wildlife injured and
brought in, small animals, reptiles, owner surrender for euthanasia
because of age or illness, feral cats and unweaned kittens, and
dangerous dogs. They present as if the community is killing huge
numbers of adoptable animals, but when the data is examined, the
numbers of adoptable animals is revealed to be very low. Many
shelters cannot meet the demand for puppies and smaller dogs and only
have large mixed breed, often pit type available in any numbers for
adoption.
Recently there has been a rash of Mandatory Spay Neuter laws proposed
and in some cases passed across the country. In CA, they are trying
to take out the entire state. In Texas and Florida, they are doing it
city by city. Several people have written to me asking how this could
be happening. Below is an excellent article that explains quite well
exactly what is going on......
Permission to crosspost, but please note submission to the Alaskan
Malamute Club of America Newsletter._ _
A thousand snakes in the grass.
By Margaret Anne Cleek
"Better the dragon you see than a thousand snakes in the grass." This
Chinese Proverb should be recognized and heeded by pet owners and
fanciers.
Currently anyone who breeds animals is the target of animal rights
activists who wish to abolish the purpose breeding of pets, and in
some cases pet ownership in general. While we are made aware of
federal and state legislation threatening our ownership of our
animals, for example PAWs and the Animal Welfare Act at the federal
level and CA's AB 1634, mandatory S/N bill, and broad-based
opposition is launched, I believe that the greatest threat is from
local legislation enacted as quietly as possible. The threat is
greatest at the local level because a small special-interest group of
animal right activists is following a quiet plan to rob us of control
over our pets and their reproductive capacity and enacting this plan
community by community.
Programs on how to enact legislation have been developed by special
interest animal rights organizations. Action steps are outlined on
websites with literature, sample wording, canned letters, and a plan
showing how to proceed. They are told not to reveal that a new
ordinance is the objective, but rather to form a taskforce to address
animal welfare or to decrease shelter euthanasia. Also the advice is
given to remain informal as this keeps you from being subject
to "sunshine laws" which may exist to assure open and public process
and to lay the groundwork and assure support from staff before going
public.
Thus the public is not aware that behind closed doors special
interest groups are drafting an ordinance to suit their agenda. A
group is formed and under the guise of being a coalition which
includes all "stakeholders" participants further their plan. Some
participants are well-meaning, some know precisely what the real
agenda is. In any case, the MSN or `pay or spay" ordinance is drafted
with city or county staff co-opted as a participating member. Senior
staff, legal, and council or board members are now inundated with
information in private one-on-one sessions. The perception of a
crisis is cultivated and the only solution is to enact legislation
forcing people to pay huge fees to own intact animals or criminalize
the ownership of intact animals. Data is provided which is either
false or misleading about the success of mandatory S/N legislation.
They may show a decline in euthanasia, but fail to note that greater
declines were achieved in communities without such an ordinance. They
may show an increase in licensing with coercive legislation, but fail
to mention that enforcement costs exceed revenue. In my municipality
I found that success was even claimed in a community that had no such
legislation.
(For a comprehensive article on MSN legislation's results please see
Do mandatory spay/neuter laws reduce shelter intake and euthanasia?
by Laura Allen http://www.ab1634.com/Files/ARE_MSN.pdfhttp://www.ab1634.-com/Files/-ARE_M SN.pdf )
Breeders are vilified as being responsible for the deaths in shelters
under the simply appealing but logically false premise that the birth
of a wanted pet causes the death of a shelter animal. Breeders are
pimps, heartlessly exploiting animals for money, causing the death of
wonderful shelter animals and costing the municipality tremendously
in animal control costs. A huge number is manufactured and becomes
the lost revenue to the county because all breeders are tax evaders
making tens of thousands of dollars and costing the community in
animal control costs for the surplus animals they produce.
Apparently someone failed Econ 101 as there can either be a crisis of
surplus desirable animals OR breeders selling pets for thousands of
dollars. You cannot have both. There is rampant emotional
manipulation. Pictures will be shown of darling puppies. Then the
numbers of animals killed in the shelter will be given. This leads
the targets of the message to believe that these darling puppies are
killed. In fact, the number presented includes wildlife injured and
brought in, small animals, reptiles, owner surrender for euthanasia
because of age or illness, feral cats and unweaned kittens, and
dangerous dogs. They present as if the community is killing huge
numbers of adoptable animals, but when the data is examined, the
numbers of adoptable animals is revealed to be very low. Many
shelters cannot meet the demand for puppies and smaller dogs and only
have large mixed breed, often pit type available in any numbers for
adoption.
