LA becomes Slaughterhouse after mandaory spay/neuter passed

All of the statistics quoted below come from California Department of Public Health.

* 96,630 animals were admitted to the Los Angeles County sheltering system in 2008, which is a 55,178 increase from 2007. This is a 133-percent increase in the year after a spay/neuter mandate was passed into law.

* If compared to the state, Los Angeles County alone exceeded the entire statewide increase in shelter admissions, and is 11 times higher than the state average.

* In 2008, the entire state of California saw a 16.4-percent increase in euthanasia, to 153,793 (an increase of 21,677).

*HOWEVER, ALMOST ALL OF THE ENTIRE STATEWIDE INCREASE IN SHELTER EUTHANAIS IN CALIFORNIA CAME FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER! The Los Angeles County shelter system euthanasia rate rose by an incredible 178-percent in the year following the ordinance. In 2007, 12,118 dogs had to be killed in the county. In 2008, this soared to 33,601 dogs.

* The official state data shows that following the spay/neuter ordinance, LA County experienced a 107-percent increase in animal control captures of abandoned dogs, a 163-percent increase in owner surrenders by people who cannot afford to keep their pets and comply with the law, and a 153-percent increase in abandoned dogs brought to the shelters by good Samaritans.

If you think that statistics like these are unique to LA County, here's a link to an article about Dallas' experience with mandatory spay/neuter.

http://www.thedogplace.org/PROJECTS/State/0907-Spay-Neuter-Dallas_Yates.asp

And of course you can read about Santa Cruz's "success" in the blog below this one.

Santa Cruz County Proves Mandatory Spay/Neuter Doesn't Work

* Santa Cruz County, California passed mandatory spay/neuter in 1995 and is often held up as a model of how that "works." So, let's take a look at how it actually works and compare Santa Cruz with other Counties that don't have mandatory spay/neuter.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are higher than those in nearby counties such as Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin — none of which have mandatory spay/neuter laws.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 44% higher than San Diego County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are more than 4 times higher than Nevada County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 16 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America, where they also do not have mandatory spay/neuter.

In addition to soaring euthanasia rates, costs for animal control in Santa Clara have also soared. Costs for Santa Cruz County as a whole have doubled - from approximately $650,000 a year to over $1,300,000. For example, the city of Watson's contribution to the Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority has spiked $100,000 to more than $490,000.

In Capitola, the decision to drop out of the agency June 30, the end of the fiscal year, was based on the bottom line, said City Manager Richard Hill. That city has seen its costs triple in recent years. Capitola was expected to pay in excess of $70,000 in the coming year. Since the agency serves little more than 100 animals from Capitola each year, the price tag was too high, he said.

Even this data does not seem to have proved to Californians and others that mandatory spay/neuter laws do not work. For example, California's SB250 threatens to take this law statewide. Can California afford the increased costs?

Increased costs are not the only impact the passage of SB250 will have on California. Decreased revenue is another. Each year over 1100 AKC events are held in that state with each bringing $300,000 to $1,000,000 into the local economy coffers. How many of these events will be eliminated once SB250 passes? Can Californians afford to lose this revenue?

Istari Blanc De Blanc

Athena had her baby by C-section last week. We had one girl puppy. It was touch and go for a few days as we tube fed her. But, now she's out of the woods & demanding mom's attention 24/7. We've named this baby after our favorite sparkling wine _ Blanc De Blanc. Her call name is Chardonnay.

Is HSUS fulfilling its non-profit charter?

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit organization by the Internal Revenue Service. But, is the HSUS in compliance with requirements to maintain its 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt status? According to Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for the HSUS, activist and lobbying efforts form the bulk of her activities. According to IRS 501 (c) 3 regulations:

“In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying ). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status. An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”

The Humane Society of the Unites States dedicates a vast amount of resources toward introducing and influencing legislation. You only need to look at its website tracking to see HSUS legislative efforts at the state and federal levels as well as through ballot initiatives.

Only 4% percentage of donations made to the Humane Society of the United States are granted to local shelters and Humane Societies. In 2007, less than 6 million dollars were handed out as US grants out of the 152 million taken in. In addition, large percentage of the grants were handed out to organizations that did not provide direct care to animals in need.

So, if the HSUS is not fulfilling its 501(c)3 non-profit charter, then all of its income should be taxable. And, the US and state governments are losing out on millions of dollars of badly needed revenue.

We urge our readers to take the following actions:

1. Cease donating any money to HSUS. Instead, send your donations to your local animal shelter.

2. Contact your state senators and representatives asking for an investigation into the HSUS policies and practices as they relate to their non-profit status. Let them know that there may be monies due the state if they are not following the non-profit guidelines.

3. Contact your local news organizations asking for a similar investigation.

4. And most importantly, contact the Internal Revenue Service at Internal Revenue Service
Criminal Investigations
Fresno, CA 93888

Getting the Nursery Ready

AKC/UKC Champion Sierra's Athena (pictured below) has been bred to Sierra's The West Wing (pictured above). While we never count puppies before they're born, it looks like the breeding took. Puppies are expected mid-June. This will be Athena's last litter and our only Eskie litter for 2009. We can't wait to see these little bundles of white fluff.

Animal Rights Activist on FBI most wanted list

In other animal rights news, the FBI today placed Daniel Andreas San Diego on its list of most-wanted terrorists. He is wanted in connection with summer 2003 explosions at a California biotechnology research laboratory, Chiron Life Sciences Centre and another facility. The FBI has offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to his arrest.

"Animal rights and environmental extremism pose a significant domestic terror threat," the FBI said in a press statement. It said that animal-rights extremists have caused more than $110m in damages.

Helmsley Trust Grants

Most of you know that billionaire Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her Maltese and directed the majority of her estate be directed towards "purposes related to the provision of care for dogs," along with other charities. However, in February judge, Troy K. Webber of Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan decided that he knew better what should be done with Mrs. Helmsley's estate. He reduced the Maltese's share to $2 million, gave $6 million to each of the two grandchildren she explicitly excluded and told the trustees they weren't limited to dog related charities and could divy up her monies as THEY saw fit.

So, out of the $136 million in grants today, only $1 million went to the dogs. The monies went to service dog organizations, seeing eye dog organizations and dogs for the deaf. The only good thing is that none of it went to the animal rights groups, PETA and HSUS.