« Home | AB1634 Supporters take heed » | Missing Dog Turns Up For Sale on Web Site » | Banned Motorcycle Fuel on Raw Almonds » | District Files Appeal Against Deaf Student » | Right Wags are All Right » | Speaking of Collars! » | All That's Left! » | Bully Whippet Genetics » | No on AB1634 » | China To Execute Chief Food Inspector »

Sunday, July 01, 2007

No on AB1634 - check out the LIES


No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"

Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Lloyd Levine, Judie Mancuso, Ed Boks, other AB1634 supporters and journalists that like a hot story and simply cannot be bothered with facts, have all been doing their part to propagate misinformation. I think they hope to turn it into fact if they say it long enough. Levine goes on paper and on the air saying the same things over and over. Pretty pathetic.

Levine's lectures unceasingly of how mandatory sexual mutilation of animals spay and neuter can save the state money. The graph above shows that costs skyrocket when Santa Cruz (Levine's favorite topic for "MSN that works") is examined in reality. But these are not the same things he says when Santa Cruz is rolling off of his twisted tongue. I don't suppose he wants the same to happen all over California - he'll probably already be infamous for this sorry bill as it is? Sure hope our Governator doesn't want this.

I also have some preliminary data showing that Ed Boks' area (L.A. another gung ho socialist animal control haven) has also had abrupt increase in costs with the attempt to 'make' MSN work since MSN was adopted last year in his region. They are also implementing increase enforcement in their area since apparently the major sources of their problems are still under the radar, while they punish everyone else. They are piling on the new animal control ordinances there, rather than waking up to the fact that they are screwing themselves and their constituents.

You can see more about these numbers at the links below. These numbers were obtained from the State of California data.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/BigLieGraphs.pdf
http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/California_graphs.htm
https://petpac.net/PetPAC_Truth_Graph.pdf


Check out the red line!
From the above, you can see how Levine's darling, Santa Cruz (red), compares to local counties with respect to dog impounds. Full sized graphs won't fit on the blog so check out the links above and get clarity.

Cats, cats and more cats!
Check out the Cat impounds of Santa Cruz (red) compared to other counties.
Santa Clara County (green) has quite a story here. Take note of the years on the graph if you check out the story.

Many counties in California do NOT have near enough numbers of discount spay and neuters. This means that many singles, young folk, new couples, elderly, who have an unneutered pet will have to pay a fine of $500 if their pet isn't neutered. What's this about exemptions? Ah if they can qualify they just have to pay their vet (35 bucks to walk in the door, before anything else?) the visit fee and then pay the mandated intact fees and permits. Total probably costing up to $400 or so. Chances are, people won't have money. Pets are going to be turned loose if there is a fine for dropping them off at the shelter. Neutering a medium to large dog can cost $200 to $300 bucks. Some people may have multiple pets.

Check out this entry from PetPAC Blog:
"Senator Simitian's Town Hall meeting in Palo Alto was an overwhelming turnout of his constituents who were opposed to this measure. The issue of the Santa Cruz 'model' has now been brought into the light. And when you expose the truth about Santa Cruz their whole argument falls apart. Santa Cruz since their mandatory spay/neuter went into effect have done WORSE on reducing shelter intakes than the rest of the state. Their shelter expenses INCREASED by 93%, while the state average went down 10%. The buzz in the State Capitol is how Judie Mancuso, the Campaign Director on the Yes side has misled legislators on this critical foundation for AB 1634 and they are not happy about it. Also at the Town Hall meeting, Judie Mancuso approached Bill Hemby and pleaded with him not to mention PETA was supporting the bill. Judie swears PETA isn't giving her any money. Well PETA is supporting the bill and spending a lot of money trying to get this bill passed. Judie is particularly upset that Bill made a reference to PETA extremists throwing animal blood on people in the past."
Further on down in the article, there is this bit too...
Two hours after I started my 11 minute interview the program ended with Judie Mancuso agreeing to meet with me on Monday at 2pm across the street from the Capitol so I can show her the Santa Cruz study conducted by PetPAC which exposes the truth about AB 1634 and how inaccurate, irrational and misleading her claims have been. I told her I'm bringing my dog Kobe, I don't get to spend enough time with my dogs (although my cat loves how much time I'm spending in the office) since I've been working overtime to defeat this bill. She said she wouldn't mind if I brought my german shepherd dog as long as he didn't "attack" her. I couldn't believe her words and it really shows her disdain for our pets.


Cat Dog

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/01/2007 05:20:00 AM | Permanent link | (2) Comments

Blogger jan sent us a woof // July 01, 2007

This is yet another "feel good" bill that some legislators think will help them win re-election. But little is done to research the ramifications of the bill when it becomes law. I live in California and I'm making a total pest of myself to my state legislators...who seem quite surprised when i deal with facts.   

Anonymous Anonymous sent us a woof // July 03, 2007

Actually, my favorite comments have originated with Assemblyman George Plescia who announced that if this bill were passed, the next bill would conceivably introduce the concept of spaying and neutering all legislators and that it would most likely pass :-)   

Puppy Boone says: Let's chat!

<< Back to Main Blog