There were eight rows of 14 seats. At the high point almost all seats were filled and there were about 20+ people standing room only, for a high point attendance of about 130 people, but with people coming and going, maybe a total of 150 or more attended. I left after about 90% of the speakers had spoken. Two were negative. Phyllis Daugherty even criticized Barnette for not having enough shelter--and I think she meant "dog catching" shelter experience. P.D. even talked about being in the trenches, and we didn't know how difficult that was. A few speakers set her straight.
All in all a great first meeting. I desperately hope we can keep this up for the Public Safety meeting and for Council. I was lucky to have been able to convince my wife to go so I had transportation. This is unlikely in the future unless Brenda sends a City car for me.
I mentioned in my talk that opponents, such as Phyllis, make up these worst case scenarios to scare Public Safety members and Council and don't fly in reality. She had stated the increased limits in LA would result in it being called the barking city. I countered that neither Santa Monica or San Diego, with either no dog limits or a limit of six, are known as barking cities.
3 comments:
I thought it was a terrific meeting! Sorry I missed you, Ed.
Lori Golden
The Pet Press
Philadelphia permits 11 animals per household. And they are still terribly overcrowded in their shelters. Of course Barnette would be in favor of expanding limits she has to push those animals out the door. No kill works for the first 18 months on pure community saturation. Every house, every rescue, and every hoarder is filled to capacity. Once the first layer is filled up that starts to get a little sticky. That's when you begin to see the cracks in the plan and the animals become free items special marketing plans. Anything to get the beast out the door. How pathetic and sad that Los Angeles, that was one such a great city has sunken to such a stupid level. Decent people, by that I mean employed people who can take care of their animals, paying their veterinarian bills and providing medical care; don't want 10 dog's. It is only the neurotic who has to interact with a pack of animals because they have no human friends. I hope this gets you in the bud quickly.
Didn't see you Ed, sorry. I would have liked to meet you in person. I was too busy deflecting the glares of of former "friends."
Ironically, I spent the last several weeks in Seattle Humane territory and learned a ton of what it means when they say "unincorporated King County." The ignorance we experience here in L.A. which results in so many "unwanted" pets is quite commonplace up there outside the Seattle City limits where it turns to "county" and "boonies" very quickly. The nearest animal shelter or Humane Society is often 20 or more miles away and dogs roam the semi-rural and residential streets all the time with the consent of their owners. It's a bit of a mess.
I also thought it was a great meeting, but I wish that we in the "animal community" could learn some basic manners like respecting the right of others to express their opinions whether we despise them or not. I am always concerned when animal people say that they "hate people."
I don't know the origin of Rosendahl's motion to increase the number of animals allowed, but I 'd like to know. I can name at least 4 Councilmembers who will oppose this adamantly and I'm not sure whether a simple majority is required or whether more "yea" votes are required for an ordinance.
Post a Comment