Comments regarding opposition to
AB 1634
To: Patricia J. Ungar DVM, CVA
Kensington Veterinary Hospital, past-President SDCVMA
Calif lic 8755; CVMA member
Dear Patricia,
I am disappointed, to say the least, that you oppose AB1634. Rescues and shelters have tried education and have offered and do offer free and low cost spay/neuter to most communities and often with out the support of the local vets. The proof is in the pudding, we still euthanize almost half a million pets a year and those are the ones we can count. I have done rescue in a rural community. The shelters are extremely over run, poorly run and barely manageable because of the large numbers of pets impounded or turned in. The TRASH truck comes 2 or 3 times a week!
Have you read the bill text? Pet owners may receive a letter from their vet stating that the animal should not yet be altered if the vet feels the pet is at risk! I see you are worried about the extra paperwork involved. I see you are worried about pets being smuggled in - well you yourself admit they already are.
Non-profits have to get state approved and jump through many hoops to clean up this mess yet breeders say they don't want the trouble. You owe it to the animals to take a little walk through a shelter outside of your neighborhood where kill rates may be lower than average and does that say much with the average being 50%! When was the last time you had to euthanize a happy, healthy tail wagging dog and throw it in a trash can? This happens tens of thousands of times a week and shelters all over the country. People need to be held accountable!
You say vets should start offering to help more with low cost and free spay/neuter. Will they start offering now that they fear this bill? How sad is that. I guess we have your attention to the problem now don't we? If people truly are responsible then they should have nothing to fear. As far as this imposing on personal rights- I could agree with that if the result of the actions were not death. People who support AB1634 have NO AGENDA. Clearly the opposition does. Most of us supporting are volunteers and often contribute money we can't always afford out of our own pockets, not to mention the hours of volunteer time put in. When was the last time you volunteered your services? Perhaps you do. Do you know many vets DO NOT- period. Many vets actually oppose low/cost clinics in their area. Many vets bad mouth local shelters to their clients because the animals are always sick. What do you do to "educate" your colleagues?
The fact that "educated" people such as yourself oppose is only more reason that we need this to be a law. The general public does not understand the gravity and moral tragedy of this problem. You, as a vet, should not be considered general public on this issue but apparently you are. I will never step foot into your practice and will be sure to spread the word that you oppose AB1634 to every pet adopter and pet guardian that I know. Do you know how many pets are adopted in San Diego, how many are mutts? At events and dog parks it appears to be the majority. You can't talk to hardly anyone that hasn't rescued a pet here, adopted or made room for just one more. Again more people cleaning up the mess that didn't start it.
Had this bill not come about would you actively be seeking a solution? No, you would be carrying on out of sight out of mind. I urge you to reconsider your position and your actions against this bill. I urge you to step outside of your community and see the reality and stop being fooled that we don't have a problem right here in San Diego. If you can walk one of these high kill shelters and sit in the euthanasia room for one full day I may listen to what you have to say after that. Clearly you need to expose yourselves to really get it.
I will be copying this letter to every vet on your list. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. This problem of killing hundreds of thousands wasn't a problem to any of you until AB1634. Now you are all activists. I will gladly have a civilized conversation with anyone of you that wish to discuss this matter on the level. I have been doing rescue for 15 years and have seen the numbers, taken the phone calls, dealt with the public, dealt with vets, left pets behind to die because nobody wants them and the person "responsible" for them doesn't care and is nowhere to be found. And let me tell you they aren't all Pit Bulls either. I'm sick and tired of people talking about shelter pets like they are below standard or deserve to be there. It is arrogant and ignorant.
I was at the Capital Wednesday with my 8 year old daughter for the vote. I stood next to the opposition and sat next to them. They are not interested in developing win/win relationships. They are interested in getting their way all the way. They use scare tactics like pet extinction and saying every pet food company, groomer and vet will go out of business. With good results it may take 10 years to cut this problem in half. That's how big it is. When your side starts talking facts and REAL numbers not absurdly projected exaggerated numbers maybe someone might listen up. If you were interested in developing win/win relationships you yourself would have tried to set a mediation meeting with the author of the bill. Do you know that we tried to do this already? The opposition will not respond. Did you leave your practice for a day to go to Sacramento? Ask yourself what is your real agenda and do you really have all the facts. Again if you have questions or concerns I will gladly speak with you however I am sure neither of us has time to debate and I certainly will not be changing my mind. I feel this bill is fair and square. The exemptions are there. More paperwork maybe so but you have no idea what the paperwork looks like to process almost a million animals a year, not counting the paperwork involved if they go to rescue.
Sincerely,
Gina Downey
Central San Diego Regional Coordinator for AB1634
www.cahealthypets.com
Founder North Star Pet Assistance
www.localrescue.org
619-204-8084
|
Response from Veterinarian
May 29, 2007
Dear Ms. Downey,
Clearly you feel deeply about this issue, as we all do. While you may find this difficult to believe, we have more in common than you may appreciate or realize. I am sorry that you seem to feel that as the opposition to AB1634 we are either heartless or unaware of the animal overpopulation problem. As veterinarians, we are neither. We just do not believe that this bill will do what is needed to stop the problem. In fact we believe that the passage of this bill will detract from increasingly successful efforts made by communities to reduce the unwanted pet population.
You say that only now, out of fear of this bill, is the veterinary community offering to help solve the problem. You fail to recognize how many of us have volunteered countless hours of our time to work in community spay/neuter clinics, Feral Cat Coalition spay/neuter clinics, free clinics for the pets of homeless, Rabies clinics, spay/neuter clinics south of the border, and Humane Societies, and The Sara Ford Foundation, just to name a few. We volunteer our time to serve on the boards of local rescue organizations. We have traveled to places like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, risking our own health and safety to help save animals. We do these things because we care so deeply, and have such a deep commitment to animal welfare. We do these things because we care, not because there is any personal gain in it. We would rather continue these efforts instead of spending time filling out waivers. I am proud to be a veterinarian, and proud of my peers, as we ‘give back’ to our community generously. So, please don't paint us with such a wide brush. We are not, as you say, 'carrying on, out of sight, out of mind.'
If you could prove to me that this bill would stop the overpopulation problem and not interfere with responsible citizens’ rights, all of us would support it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, it will be just another inappropriate law that is largely unenforceable and ineffective. Even many of the supporters of the bill say it is unenforceable. THAT is why my colleagues and I oppose it. In several communities where similar legislation has been enacted, such coercive laws have been counterproductive. For example, a similar ordinance to AB1634 was passed in San Mateo in 1991---after which dog deaths in shelter increased 126% and cat deaths 86%, while licensing fell 35%. Other communities around the country have had similar results with even larger decreases in licensing, often over 150%. These are not the numbers we would like to see imposed on the entire state of California.
I do have one hope that you may agree with...that maybe the publicity surrounding this bill will help to solve this problem, in the manner that we believe will work- education of the public. That, in addition to the continued cooperation of shelters with rescue organizations, veterinarians and spay/neuter organizations, will solve this problem. Not legislation. I think you will find that veterinarians that have worked in shelters AND have taken the time to become educated about this bill voice some of the strongest opposition. . Efforts would be much better spent continuing to reach and educate irresponsible owners’ behavior- not through legislation.
As you read in our initial letter, we do object to the specifics of the bill---we do not agree with the mandatory age for spay/neuter, as that is not the age we feel is medically appropriate, and see no reason why the State of California should interfere in the doctor/client relationship regarding that decision. Our clients who bring their animals in are the responsible ones who DO spay and neuter- the target population that this bill should be affecting are the irresponsible ones. Efforts would be much better spent to reach and educate THOSE owners. The ability to request a waiver is of minimal help—why should we have to request a waiver for something we believe is medically inappropriate to begin with? The discrimination in the bill against non-purebred dogs is also repugnant, as these animals make wonderful companions and are often healthier than their purebred counterparts.
From what you say in your letter, I think you have a few assumptions that are incorrect:
- Basic Philosophy: None of us who care about this issue support overpopulation or needless euthanasias. Not a single one of us. As veterinarians, we dedicate ourselves to the preservation of life every day and every minute of our lives. We all agree that the goal of ending overpopulation and unnecessary euthanasias is a fantastic goal; however, those of us in opposition to AB1634 do not feel that THIS bill can reasonably achieve it. The goal is great; the bill is not and may be counterproductive.
- Altruism: As veterinarians, we do contribute significantly to the resolution of the problem. We each volunteer thousands of hours in our careers toward this goal. The feral cat problem, which makes up a large part of the shelter animals in many communities, is not even addressed in this bill, and it is one of the biggest contributors to overpopulation and shelter euthanasias. According to some studies, ~86% of owned cats are sterilized. I’m sure you are familiar with the Feral Cat Coalition. This organization was conceived and implemented by a few very dedicated San Diego veterinarians who saw the problem and came up with a solution, on a LOCAL level. The program has been a wonderful success locally, supported by a dedicated cadre of volunteer lay people and veterinarians. Statistics from the San Diego Department of Animal Control as of 6/30/97 show that while the number of cats adopted or claimed by owners has remained fairly constant over the years, there has been a decrease of almost 50% in the number of cats impounded and killed as compared to 1992 (when the FCC clinics started). Before the FCC was formed, the number of cats impounded and killed had been going up 15% per year. During the last five years, the overall number of dogs euthanized at San Diego shelters has decreased 46%, and cats, 26% during the same period; this is a direct result of our LOCAL alliances, without any need for state legislation or mandate. At my own practice, we have voluntarily sterilized thousands of animals for this organization.
- Legislative: The issues we are talking about, and which AB1634 claims to address, are local, municipal issues. The causes of animal overpopulation vary by locale. They should be addressed on a local, municipal level, not a statewide level. California is a large and diverse state. Programs are currently in place in several municipalities that have been successful at reducing shelter euthanasias and overpopulation, programs developed and implemented on a local level, without any need for a state mandate. A quick look at the failure of mandated programs (including precipitous drops in licensing rates) in numerous areas (Los Angeles 2000,Capitola CA, Maryland, Texas, New Jersey, Washington, Colorado) and the success of current local, voluntary programs in San Diego and San Francisco verifies this. Legislating this on a STATEWIDE basis would be punitive to the responsible residents of the State of California.
- Morality: Much of this issue, and the debates it engenders, have to do with morality—how we each view the value of life. I would like to believe that all people value it equally - life experience tells me that is not always so, sadly. It is not possible to legislate morality- it must be educated. I cannot state frequently enough that there must be a focus on educating pet owners and pet lovers.
You seem to want to make this ‘personal’ as you say in your letter “I will never step foot into your practice and will be sure to spread the word that you oppose AB1634 to every pet adopter and pet guardian that I know.” That is certainly your prerogative, but in my practice, we welcome all compassionate animal lovers.
Respectfully,
P. Ungar DVM, CVA |
