A registry for pet abusers?

Animal welfare sites and newspapers across the country have been all atwitter this week about Senator Dean Florez’ latest legislative proposal: SB1277, A pet abuser registry in California. In a nutshell (in case you were out to sea and missed it), Sen. Florez wants individuals convicted of felony animal abuse to have to register, much as sex offenders currently do, and to create a website where shelters and other pet sellers can check before adopting/selling/giving away companion animals. The registry and its upkeep would be funded by adding a tax to the sales of pet food.

To say that I’m conflicted would be an understatement. For all of the usual (and usually well-deserved) scorn politicians, including Sen. Florez, receive, let me go on the record as saying that when it comes to animal welfare I believe that Dean Florez is completely sincere in his desire to make California a better state for animals and a leader in animal protection in the country. I further believe that in my voting lifetime there has not been a politician in California who has tried to do more for animals --- both companion and livestock --- than Sen. Florez. Would that I could live long enough to find dedication like his on animal welfare issues to be more the rule than the exception.

I love the idea of a registry. I love that other people love the idea and would love to see it come to fruition. But I can’t, in all honesty, say that I’m for it.

First off, there’s the tax issue. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with paying more taxes for services, especially animal welfare services, but given where California is financially as a state, if there’s going to be a new tax created I’m not sure that tax should apply to one specific program --- even a program I like. Or if we are going to create a specific tax for an animal welfare program, how about creating a tax to provide funds for low-cost spay/neuter programs, something that California --- particularly the Central Valley --- has needed for decades? Paying an extra few cents for a bag of food in exchange for getting something as desperately needed as better subsidized spay/neuter is something I’d more than willingly do. At least I’d know that my money was going towards something that would truly have an impact.

Which brings me to point number two. In my heart of hearts, as much as I wish it weren’t so, I do not think that a registry will be an effective tool for preventing animal abuse. Registering an offender certainly won’t stop them from having a spouse, cousin, child or friend acquire animals for them, if they truly wish to get one. It won’t stop them from trolling the “free to good home” ads that populate Internet sites and newspapers, where the folks giving away pets aren’t as picky about prescreening adoptive homes as are local shelters. And it won’t stop anyone from picking up strays on the side of the road, of which there are many.

The needs of companion animals, especially in the Central Valley, are so great, yet gravely underfunded. If we are to create a new tax base for a companion animal cause, let’s make it one where the animals truly win and fund a program for low-cost spay/neuter instead.

Reflections on Spay Day

Spay and neuter, spay and neuter, spay and neuter --- we who are big supporters of animal welfare feel like we use that phrase so much that surely there can't be a person left who hasn't heard all of the reasons that spaying and neutering are the right, moral and responsible thing to do if you choose to bring a pet into your home. Yet, reflecting on the numbers we put up here in Kern County, there are clearly a number of people who have yet to get the memo.

18,811. That's how many pets were euthanized at our county shelters in 2009. That's nearly 52 dogs and cats for every day of the calendar year meeting their early death at the end of a needle. Over two per hour. Can you even begin to conceptualize a world where a little more frequently than twice an hour you had to walk through rows of cats and dogs --- some withdrawn, some angry, but most either afraid or, maybe even worse, happy --- and pick the individual lives that you were ending? And know that you'd have to it over, and over, and over, knowing that the next day, the next week, the next month there was only more of the same? 52 a day.

There's only one way out. For the pets and for the people who work to stem to tsunami-like waves of the unwanted, unloved, unhomed. We have got to reduce the number of pets born here. The fastest road to avoid euthanizing homeless pets is to start by creating a whole lot fewer of them.

Spay and neuter. Spay and neuter. Spay and neuter. Support the people who do it and the groups who help subsidize it. Shop at businesses who contribute to the solution and proudly show their support for companion animals. Lives depend on it.

Of factory farms & puppy mills

One truth about animal welfare causes is that there are a whole lot of passionate, dedicated people who are truly interested in doing the right thing for companion animals. So why does it seem that many stop there?

How can people who are so horrified by puppy mills seem to be so complacent about factory farms? From my vantage point, pretty much everything your average puppy miller learned was from adopting the practices factory farms put into place years ago.

Take an animal --- one that, in and of itself, is merely a production unit acquired to provide a product. Place it in an environment that uses the smallest amount of time, effort or space necessary to maintain productivity. Preferably the environment will be out of the way of the general public and hard for the curious to access. Deny it the ability to engage in the barest physical pleasures; fresh air, sunlight, grass, the ability to comfortably stretch or lie down. Feed it the smallest amount of food possible to sustain its purpose. Deny it basic health care; choose instead to factor in a loss-to-market percentage. And when the production unit is no longer turning a profit, dispose of it in favor of a new one.

Am I describing puppy mills or factory farms?

Is a puppy mill really any different than a mega dairy? Or one of those gigantic egg production facilities? And if it really isn't all that different, how can a person stand so staunchly against one but not the other?

If we're to call ourselves (or our movement) humane, shouldn't that humanity extend to animals beyond those who curl up on our bed at night? Shouldn't we fight at least half as hard for the mega-dairy cow as we do the dalmatian?

Almost like it never happened

I happened upon a press release from Menu Foods Income Fund which stated that in 2009 they showed a net income increase of $20.5 million, making it the third most profitable year since the company went public in 2002.

Well, how ducky for them. A mere year after reaching a $24 million settlement with the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey for the role Menu Foods played in manufacturing and distributing pet food that, by the most conservative of estimates, killed over 4,000 dogs and cats in 2007, they're now triumphantly touting their gains. I guess the wheels of commerce continue to turn.

And why wouldn't they? Just a handful of years have passed since the recall, yet for so many pet owners life went back to normal. They continue to grab the handiest bag of food that sits on the shelf (bonus points if it's on sale) and feed treats that are manufactured in China, of which there are so many that trying to go to your average big box store for meat-based treats could well turn into an afternoon of label reading, climaxing in either the rationalization that what's there must be safe because, well, it's there, or walking out empty-handed, having found nothing that satisfies their desire for safety while simultaneously alleviating their pet's junk food habit.

I don't even know why I'm surprised. In a world where companies openly sell ground beef containing ammonia to school lunch programs and fast food companies (not to mention grocery stores) and people continue to line up around the edges of the local drive-thru for their $1 menu meal, it should be obvious that food safety is not uppermost in the minds of most. Not for ourselves and our children, most certainly not for our pets.

Companies like Menu Foods count on our special form of short-term memory, our willingness to get back to "normal" as soon as possible, our horror over unintentionally potentially poisoning our four-legged friends slowly sliding into impatience that we might have to drive further, read more, pay more for that which infuses every cell of our companion animal's being with energy and life and health. They count on us to settle back into our mantra of fast-cheap-and-easy, all the while hoping that the food safety dice game doesn't come with snake eyes during our roll.

Judging from their latest earnings statement, it looks like the house won again.

Will 2010 be the year of the cat?

They are the ghosts of our community, winding around the edges of our neighborhoods and businesses, seen but not quite seen. A source of annoyance for some, of pity for others, and their numbers, despite strong efforts from several fronts, are not dropping nearly as much as anyone would like.

We are failing the cats in our community. There’s no other way to say it.

While we continue to euthanize far too many dogs, the number of dogs entering the shelter and being reunited with their owner, released to rescues or adopted out is increasing. It is a far different story for the cats where, in 2009 of the 13,852 cats who entered the shelter 11,042 were euthanized. Eighty percent. By any standard applicable, those numbers are dismal.

We bring kittens into our homes because we love their fluffy goodness, then turn them out --- for shedding, for scratching on furniture, for not using the litter box, for allergy issues…the list goes on. We move and leave them behind on the streets because we “can’t bear to take them to the shelter”, or we drive them to the outskirts of town and dump them.

We buy into the myths about their lack of trainability, their independence, their safety around babies and about how spaying or neutering cats make them bad hunters. Or maybe we don’t really buy into it at all, but choose the excuse that makes it easiest for us to believe that it’s O.K. to care for a creature one day and abandon it the next. After all, there’s always another kitten out there when we want to give it another go. Right?

One day, maybe not. There’s a coalition forming this year, made up of representatives of just about every agency, nonprofit, rescue group and feral cat colony caretaker in the greater Bakersfield area who wish to work towards a solution. No one group has the power to tackle of this problem alone, and they all know it. They’ve tried. The Bakersfield SPCA went through $275,000 in 2008-2009 in Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) funds. In 2009 the BSPCA offered 500 vouchers TNR. They were gone in three weeks. Our failure is that large.

Maybe this new joining of forces will finally begin to accomplish what individual groups have thus far been able to do. Perhaps as a unified coalition their collective voices will be heard loudly enough that we as a community will hear them clearly and help do our part to do better by creatures who were once revered as gods in the ancient world who, through no fault of their own, have fallen so very far from grace.