Rebuttal of P. Daugherty's 2nd Protest to Increasing the Pet Limit

Edward Muzika, Ph.D.

Eric Garcetti

Paul Koretz

Robert Rosendahl

Ed Smith

%John White

Dear Sirs:

Re: Proposal to increased number of animals owned. Please insert in Council File #10-0982

On August 11, 2010, Phyllis Daugherty submitted a second protest of the proposed legislation to raise the pet limit from 3 dogs and 3 cats, to 5 dogs and 5 cats.

Her second protest has been submitted, and this letter is a rebuttal of that second protest.

Much of her second protest is a list of LA County municipalities wherein she alleges what the pet limits are. She stated she got the information via the municipalities’ websites or by phone call. She also lists false information for Santa Monica which I will discuss below. The Assistant City Attorney for Santa Monica states there is absolutely no limits on cat and dogs in Santa Monica as alleged by Phyllis, wherein she states there is a kennel permit and business license needed for residents who have "an above average number of animals."

I have not been able to duplicate much of Phyllis Daugherty’s information as available from websites or phone calls at this time, leading me to question her figures credibility. However, she is totally in error in her report regarding the situation in Santa Monica, and has provided you with misinformation regarding that city’s pet limits, this undermining the credibility of any of her assertions as to fact. I will leave this to a bolded discussion at the end of this letter.

I will note that once again, her arguments are neither reasonable nor rational, in the sense she creates multiple worst-case scenarios to support her objections to raising the pet limits, while also stating over and over, that there is no guarantee that raising the limits will have good effect for the animals. There is no guarantee on anything in life, including the effects of legislation, so this is not a rational or credible argument against this legislation. Had she provided true statistics that raising the pet limits has led to increase dog bites, hoarding, parasitic infections, and increased shelter killing, that would be something else altogther.

Daugherty Protest #2:

(Comment by Ed M.: This is pure speculation on Phyllis’s part, with no proof other than specious arguments with no evidence to back them.)

• Animal safety will be endangered by "pack" behavior by dogs, which commonly develops when they are in large multiples.

(Comment by Ed M.: Again, pure, unproven speculation. She also has not shown how a 5 dog "pack" behavior would be any more violent than a 3 dog “pack.”)

• Barking/noise will be increased, not only within each residence which increases the number of pets, but throughout the community, because barking is "contagious." (One of the most frequent causes of dog barking is the presence of cats or squirrels in their sight.)

• Cats may be allowed to roam and create a nuisance on surrounding properties (including health/waste issues.)

(Comment by Ed: This is already the case and is a separate issue. However, implicit in her argument is the idea that many or most people will increase the number of cats and dogs owned just because the limit is raised. Santa Monica has no indoor pet limit, but there is no evidence this has led to a huge number of households having large numbers of cats or dogs.)

• Emergency services and public-service personnel will be impaired from entering properties.

(Comment: Is this a rational argument? Three dogs do not present an entrance impairment, but five do?)

• Law-enforcement officers may face increased danger from aggressive-breed dogs maintained to protect criminal activity locations,

(Comment: “may face” is a hypothetical. They already may face similar problems now with a 3 dog limit.)

• It is reasonable to assume attacks by escaping dogs will increase.

(Comment: It may be a reasonable assumption, but only if you can prove that it is currently a large problem that will be made “Much” worse because “everybody” has now increased the number of dogs they have to 5.)

• Sanitation/odor problems can be created by this large number of animals.

(Comment by Ed M.: Again, a hypothetical problem. “Can be created.” Again, this already “can be the case with a 3 cat limit or even 1 cat.” This is a separate issue.)

• Parasite/disease control (including airborne/contagious diseases) will increase.

(Comment: Wow!! Let me see her proof for this one. Here she does not say “Can be,” she says “Will be.”)

• There will be increased risk for children, adults and motorists from unconfined dogs in the community and streets because of the difficulty of properly controlling/confining this number of animals. (We do not have fencing requirements specific to dogs.)

(Comment: This is another bogus, hypothetical issue. If the problem will exist for 5 dogs and cats, it will exist for 3. Unconfined dogs are already illegal. This is an enforcement issue.)

• Most pets in Los Angeles are not altered (spay/neuter ordinance is enforced only on complaint) and this could create increased accidental/intentional breeding in many backyards—creating, in essence, numerous "kennels" in residential zones.

(Ed M. Comment. I do not believe "most pets in Los Angeles are not altered. In any event, we now have a mandatory S/N law on adult cats and dogs.)

• There is no guarantee that dogs/cats in these large numbers can live together without serious injury to each other.

(Ed M. This is nonsense. The proof is in the pudding, as I know many people with more than 5 cats or dogs. Sometimes precautions need to be taken. And of course, there is no "guarantee." Nothing is guaranteed, but to assume the worst is not logical, but shows a profound bias.)

It is an unnecessary and unwise proposal to place this large number of pets per residence and per block throughout the City, where many lots are less than 4,000 sq/ft. Some pet owners exceed the three dog/three cat limit already and there is no problem and no complaint; thus, no action is taken by the City, so there is really no compelling reason to increase the allowance for ALL pet owners to five dogs (or ten total dogs and cats) per resident.

(Ed's Comment: The compelling reason is that such an increase will allow people with 2-3 cats or dogs to adopt more from the shelters, which they cannot do now without violating the law, whether enforced or not.)

There is no guarantee that this will increase adoption of shelter animals as indicated in the motion; and, because the majority of those who relinquish animals to city shelters report it is because they cannot afford care, there is no reason to assume that having more animals will guarantee greater quality care and longer retention.

(Ed's Comment: Of course there is no guarantee. Phyllis uses this argument a lot, but there is no "guarantee" either that people with 3 dogs or cats will not adopt an extra animal or two.

The current G.M. of animal services, Brenda Barnette has stated on facebook, that:

"In communities where pet limits have increased, shelter deaths have decreased and there has been no increase in hoarding or dog bites that I can find. On the surface it looks like more lives saved and more licensing revenue and both seem like the right answers.")

DOG & CAT LIMITS (Cities surrounding Los Angeles.) A few jurisdictions allow more animals with a kennel permit; however, the City of Los Angeles requires kennels to be 500 feet from any residence) Note: Information obtained by phone calls to AC or Code Enforcement or by visiting websites (August 2010).

(Ed's Comment: I have not been able to duplicate any of Phyllis' findings on pet limits in surrounding cities by searching on the Internet the M.C. or animal control sites of each except for West LA. I will begin a phone search Monday.)

TOTAL NO. OF DOGS/CATS ALLOWED PER PROPERTY

(COMMENT BY ED M. Phyllis then provides a chart with the city name on the left and pet limits on the right. However, I could not cut the list of cities to put it next to the limits. However, she supplies a long list of cities in the County with very small combined pet limits. I could not duplicate her findings by looking at websites of any of the locations she cites, although, so far, I have checked only 4. However, she specifically cites Santa Monica, a community where I lived for 23 years, and she says regarding that city:

Phyllis:

SANTA MONICA - Although they have no limit in their MC, their City Attorney advises them they can implement the LA County limits automatically: Three (3) dogs/three (3) cats.. (Santa Monica requires a kennel permit and city business license for anyone having above the "average" number of pets.)

(Ed's Comment: I have called animal Control there twice. Currently they have no director. I talked to Officer Stan Hernaki who has worked at the shelter there for over 20 years. He states currently Santa Monica HAS NO LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF INDOOR CATS OR DOGS.

THERE IS NO KENNEL LAW FOR PEOPLE WITH AN “ABOVE AVERAGE” NUMBER OF ANIMALS. The term “kennel” refers only to those who keep dogs as part of a business, such as a breeder, veterinarian, retail store, boarding home, etc. There are no kennel requirements or business license for residents regarding their own animals. Phyllis just made this up, which decreases the credibility of all the information she has supplied.

I then talked to the Assistant City Attorney, who said Santa Monica has absolutely no cat or dog limit, nor is there a kennel requirement for residents for any number of cats or dogs.)

However, I have just emailed my good friend Kevin Mckeown, a councilmember of 12 years who I recently talked to, as well as Marsha Moutrie, the City Attorney who I have known since 1997, to see if anything Phyllis Daugherty wrote about Santa Monica's limits is true.

COUNTY OF L.A. Three (3) dogs and three (3) cats. (In unincorporated areas, county owners can have up to five cats if they're all spayed or neutered and live inside." (This requires a vet examination or sterilization certificate for each cat, plus they must have rabies shots.)

ORANGE COUNTY Animal permits required

You are allowed no more than 3 dogs and 3 cats over 4 months of age per residence. If you have more than that you need to apply for an animal permit.

(Ed's comment: which seems to mean that more than 3 each are allowed with a permit.)

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-0982

John White at (213) 978-1079.

Austaralian Study Finds Cat Predation Not Significant

Dr Lilith found no evidence that pet cats had slashed the population of small mammals. Species diversity and abundance was virtually identical from subdivision to subdivision.

Cat among conservationist pigeons

Posted on 22 August 2010. Tags: Environment

CHRIS THOMSON

Armadale city staff plan to do nothing to protect wildlife from cats after a PhD study they funded found habitat destruction had more impact than moggies on native mammals.

A thesis by Murdoch University researcher Maggie Lilith will be tabled at Monday night’s council meeting to support a do nothing approach.

Dr Lilith’s 2007 thesis was completed with the help of a grant from the council.

It notes that cat ownership in Australia is declining compared to increasing cat ownership in the United Kingdom, United States and Europe. Dr Lilith believes the decline in Australia may be linked to perceptions of cat predation.

She investigated the abundance and diversity of small mammals in four areas of remnant bushland around Armadale in eastern Perth.

Two areas were beside subdivisions where cat ownership was unrestricted, one next to a housing estate where cat ownership was banned and one beside a subdivision where a compulsory night curfew and bells on pet cats were enforced.

Dr Lilith found no evidence that pet cats had slashed the population of small mammals. Species diversity and abundance was virtually identical from subdivision to subdivision.

She found that the structure and species composition of vegetation differed between most sites. It was this factor, not cats, that appeared to be the main determinant of the richness, diversity and number of small native mammals.

In Armadale, development covenants controlling cats are in place at Waterwheel Estate and Churchmans Brook Estate.

Based on Dr Lilith’s findings, city staff have recommended that nothing more be done until a state-wide cat Bill being drafted by Liberal MP Joe Francis enters Parliament.

Daugherty Submits Another Protest; I am currently checking on the veracity of her claimed limits

ANIMAL ISSUES MOVEMENT (213) 413-6428/413-SPA Y(PH/FAX) aninialissu@aol.corn

August 11, 2010

Honorable Councilmembers:

C F #10-0982 — OPPOSITION to Increased Animal Limits (doosicats) in the City of Los Angeles

Attached is a chart showing the animal limits of cities/jurisdictions in the immediate Los Angeles area and is submitted as a part of this file, which has been referred to LA Animal Services, the CAO and CIA. (Updated on 8/11/10 to add West Hollywood.)

Increasing the legal limit of dogs, in particular, to this number would have a serious impact on the quality of life for both animals and humans in the community and also a negative impact on property values throughout the City, and we believe it should be opposed. It must be remembered that most pets are unaltered. Here are some of the concerns that have been expressed to Council and committees and in opposition by members of the public through the media:

• Animal safety will be endangered by "pack" behavior by dogs, which commonly develops when they are in large multiples.

• Barking/noise will be increased, not only within each residence which increases the number of pets, but throughout the community, because barking is "contagious." (One of the most frequent causes of dog barking is the presence of cats or squirrels in their sight.)

• Cats may be allowed to roam and create a nuisance on surrounding properties (including health/waste issues.)

• Emergency services and public-service personnel will be impaired from entering properties.

• Law-enforcement officers may face increased danger from aggressive-breed dogs maintained to protect criminal activity locations,

• It is reasonable to assume attacks by escaping dogs will increase.

• Sanitation/odor problems can be created by this large number of animals.

• Parasite/disease control (including airborne/contagious diseases) will increase.

• There will be increased risk for children, adults and motorists from unconfined dogs in the community and streets because of the difficulty of properly controlling/confining this number of animals. (We do not have fencing requirements specific to dogs.)

• Most pets in Los Angeles are not altered (spay/neuter ordinance is enforced only on complaint) and this could create increased accidental/intentional breeding in many backyards—creating, in essence, numerous "kennels" in residential zones.

(Ed M. Comment. I do not believe "most pets in Los Angeles are not altered.)

• There is no guarantee that dogs/cats in these large numbers can live together without serious injury to each other.

(Ed M. This is nonsense. The proof is in the pudding, as I know many people with more than 5 cats or dogs. Sometimes precautions need to be taken. And of course, there is no "guarantee." Nothing is guaranteed, but to assume the worst is not logical, but shows a profound bias.)

It is an unnecessary and unwise proposal to place this large number of pets per residence and per block throughout the City, where many lots are less than 4,000 sq/ft. Some pet owners exceed the three dog/three cat limit already and there is no problem and no complaint; thus, no action is taken by the City, so there is really no compelling reason to increase the allowance for ALL pet owners to five dogs (or ten total dogs and cats) per resident.

(Ed's Comment: Yes, there is no problem, but if there is a complaint, whether justified or not, it leads to inspections and orders to comply which can lead to the deaths of some animals as happened to Kianna and many others.)

There is no guarantee that this will increase adoption of shelter animals as indicated in the motion; and, because the majority of those who relinquish animals to city shelters report it is because they cannot afford care, there is no reason to assume that having more animals will guarantee greater quality care and longer retention.

(Ed's Comment: Of course there is no guarantee. Phyllis uses this argument a lot, but there is no "guarantee" either that people with 3 dogs or cats will not adopt an extra animal or two. The current G.M. of animal services, Brenda Barnette has stated on facebook, that:

"In communities where pet limits have increased, shelter deaths have decreased and there has been no increase in hoarding or dog bites that I can find. On the surface it looks like more lives saved and more licensing revenue and both seem like the right answers.")

DOG & CAT LIMITS (Cities surrounding Los Angeles.) A few jurisdictions allow more animals with a kennel permit; however, the City of Los Angeles requires kennels to be 500 feet from any residence) Note: Information obtained by phone calls to AC or Code Enforcement or by visiting websites (August 2010).

(Ed's Comment: I have not been able to duplicate any of Phyllis' findings on pet limits in surrounding cities by searching on the Internet the M.C. or animal control sites of each. I will begin a phone search Monday.)

TOTAL NO. OF DOGS/CATS ALLOWED PER PROPERTY

(COMMENT BY ED M. Phyllis then provides a chart with the city name on the left and pet limits on the right. However, I could not cut the list of cities to put it next to the limits. However, she supplies a long list of cities in the County with very small combined pet limits. I could not duplicate her findings by looking at websites of any of the locations she cites, although, so far, I have checked only 4. However, she specifically cites Santa Monica, a community where I lived for 23 years, and she says regarding that city:

SANTA MONICA - Although they have no limit in their MC, their City Attorney advises them they can implement the LA County limits automatically: Three (3) dogs/three (3) cats.. (Santa Monica requires a kennel permit and city business license for anyone having above the "average" number of pets.)

(Ed's Comment: I have no idea what she means. Does she mean that Marsha Moutrie, the City attorney said "they" (the city or Council) and implement the County limit automatically? Does this mean she said the city attorney told her that this can be done without any legislative process or public input? I doubt Marsha said or meant that.

In any event, that would regard some future action by the city of Santa Monica. Currently there is no restriction on cats. AND, S.M. DOES NOT require a kennel permit and city business license for "anyone" having the "above average" number of pets as of six months ago, when I was talking to Stan Hernacki, Acting director of Santa Monica's animal control, and almost 30 year employee there.

She plain made this up--I believe. However, I have just emailed my good friend Kevin Mckeown, a councilmember of 12 years who I recently talked to, as well as Marsha Moutrie, the City Attorney who I have known since 1997, to see if anything Phyllis Daugherty wrote about Santa Monica's limits is true.

I think we will find she just made it up. If that is true, we can reasonably believe other "facts" she states may also be made up.)

COUNTY OF L.A. Three (3) dogs and three (3) cats. (In unincorporated areas, county owners can have up to five cats if they're all spayed or neutered and live inside." (This requires a vet examination or sterilization certificate for each cat, plus they must have rabies shots.)

ORANGE COUNTY Animal permits required

You are allowed no more than 3 dogs and 3 cats over 4 months of age per residence. If you have more than that you need to apply for an animal permit.

(Ed's comment: which seems to mean that more than 3 each are allowed with a permit.)

SB 250 Does Appear to Impact Feral Colony Managers

Actually reading the latest version of SB 250 leads me to the conclusion that SB 250 can be used punatively against feral caretakers and feeders due to its definition of "custodian," as below. A custodian is defined as someone who "means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person’s property for any period exceeding 30 days.

"Care of a cat" clearly covers care of ferals by feeders and colony managers. The second half of the sentence applies to "non-owners," meaning, I guess, people who declare cats living on their property are not theirs, who take care of the cat for 30 days.

The penalty for not S/N such a cat and providing the licensing agency with proof of sterility is $100/day.

Based on this interpretation, I would have to conclude the legislation can be, and likely will be used against feral colony caretakers.

31751.4. (a) (1) It is unlawful for any person who owns, keeps,
or harbors any unsterilized cat six months of age or older to allow

or permit that unsterilized cat to roam at large.

THIS TOO SEEMS TO REFER TO FERAL CARE TAKERS WHO "KEEP" CATS.

(2) An owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat who permits that cat to roam at large shall have the animal sterilized, or obtain a certificate of sterility.

(c), the owner or custodian shall provide the licensing agency written verification from a licensed veterinarian that the subject cat has been sterilized. The licensing
agency may impose a penalty pursuant to Section 30804.7 not to
exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per day, in addition to any other
existing penalty which may be imposed consistent with this chapter,
against the owner or custodian if the owner or custodian fails to
provide the required sterilization information.

(1) “Custodian” means any person who undertakes the personal
care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides
care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person’s property for
any period exceeding 30 days. “Custodian” does not include a
licensing agency.

I WOULD SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION IF IT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED PERSONS WHO MAINTAIN FERAL COLONIES.

How can I make a Stand One Way or Another? The real truth is unknown without a link to the proposal

Will somebody provide a link to the legislation rather than just commentary on what it means? Let us read for ourselves and decide without the propaganda. The latest official link by the state to the ballow measure is dated in May, 2009, and that was already heavily amended. We have no idea what the current bill looks like. All that I see are websites pro and con giving their interpretations.

From Judie Mancuso:

Feral cats - what does SB 250 mean?

Dear Cat friends:

There has been some confusion for my fellow cat loving friends who care for feral cats. I’d like to address some misinformation that is out there:

1) Misinformation: “The bill targets people who care for stray and feral cats. If a caregiver were unable to trap and neuter a cat, the bill would label her a lawbreaker. Cat caregivers should be encouraged, not threatened with violating the law.”

The truth is: First of all, under the CA Penal code 597.1 (current law) someone who is taking care of stray or feral cats can ALREADY be cited. Animal Control, if they wanted to, can ALREADY round up the cats and take them in and euthanize them. But please note, we do not want to see cats rounded up and euthanized ever! SB 250 does NOT allow seizure of animals because they are not spayed and neutered. SB 250 simply requires that roaming cats be spayed and neutered by their owner/guardian.

More importantly, SB 250 affects ONLY CATS THAT YOU OWN. And the only way that you “OWN” a cat under California law is if the cat lives on your property and you feed it on your property for more than 30 days in a row.

SB 250 says that in this case, you should be spaying and neutering cats you care for, or keeping them indoors. This is entirely reasonable and if someone is feeding a colony of stray cats on their property, then as a responsible feral cat caregiver they should be attempting to get the cats altered so they stop reproducing and enlarging the colony. But in no way does SB 250 provide the ability for animal control to come on to your property. If animal control gets a complaint that you have “nuisance” animals on your property, they can ALREADY cite you under California law, and can ALREADY remove the animals if you claim they are not yours.

Here are some heartbreaking statistics about unwanted cats for you from the California State Dept of Public Health. These numbers are only the reported numbers for the state, and are conservative since some jurisdictions only partially reported and some jurisdictions did not report at all:

- Year 2008, cats entering shelters: 409,317

- Year 2008, cats euthanized in shelters: 270,756

- Other dead cats collected: 56,898

This brings the total of dead cats for 2008 to 327,654.

People feeding stray cats on their own property, and not attempting to sterilize the animals, actually contributes to the problem by causing more and more cats to be born? SB 250 does not in any way affect the vast majority of responsible feral cat caregivers, who take care of animals that are NOT on their own property.

We need all the tools in the tool chest to reverse this horrific situation. We must ask cat owners or their guardians to take responsibility for the cats in their care on their property – this is common sense. Spay and neuter is just as important as food for these animals.

2) Misinformation: “Because it discourages feral cat care, the bill could actually send more feral cats to pounds and shelters. Feral cats are not adoption candidates, so being sent to a shelter is a death sentence.”

The truth is: The first sentence in the statement is just flat-out false. SB 250 pertains to an owner or guardian. A guardian is legally defined as someone feeding a cat on their own property for over 30 days. So if you have a feral colony in YOUR BACKYARD, yes it will pertain to you, and you should ALREADY by trying to sterilize those cats so that the colony does not grow. But if you are a feral cat caretaker of a colony on private property or public property (a park, a harbor, etc.), it does NOT pertain to you at all… no way. And if someone tells you it does they are lying to you.

Part two of the statement is misleading. Tragically, the vast majority of cats that end up in a shelter are killed, not just feral cats. The number of unwanted cats is astronomical, resulting in 327,654 "official" cats deaths last year, with many more unreported. SB 250 will finally start reducing (not increasing) the number of unwanted cats entering shelters, just as similar laws have done everywhere they are implemented. How can a bill that does not apply to feral cat caregivers, does not allow animal control to seize an animal and requires roaming cats to be spayed and neutered to prevent litters of unwanted cats ever cause more cats to go into shelters? The answer - it doesn't.

3) Misinformation: “The burden of the bill falls heavily on lower-income cat owners. A recent peer-reviewed study found that among lower-income owners of intact pet cats, cost was one of the main obstacles to spaying and neutering. But the bill does nothing to lower the cost or expand the availability of spay/neuter services.”

The truth is: Low-income cat owners will never be financially burdened by SB 250 because if their cats are unaltered, they simply must be kept indoors to prevent litters of unwanted cats. This costs nothing to the owner. For those who understand the importance of spaying and neutering for their cats’ health and to reduce the population of unwanted cats but cannot afford to do so, please visit the Social Compassion website for a list of low-cost and no-cost spay and neuter services.

4) Misinformation: “According to the California Department of Finance, the bill would cause more owners to surrender their animals, increasing spending costs to state and local governments for the impoundment, care, and killing of more animals.”

This statement is really disturbing and an untrue manipulation of data. Here, some group is citing part of an analysis that was based on data from only one source: NAIA, a fur farmer / puppy mill support group. This is untrue breeder propaganda that we have been fighting against for months in Sacramento; this is misleading information that could harm the welfare of cats. Our website homepage has links to several quotes and letters from areas where these laws are successfully in effect, and they all say the same thing – these laws DO NOT IN ANY WAY result in more people surrendering animals, or higher costs.

SB 250 will reduce the number of cats killed in California, period. Everyone has to make their own informed decision about which side of this issue truly protects the health and welfare of California’s enormous unwanted cat population.

If you feed and care for feral cats, and want to see the numbers of cats euthanized in our shelters reduced, SB 250 is the best chance in years to help accomplish that goal.

For the cats,
Judie

Alley Cat Allies Action Alert Opposing CA Measure Attacking Feral Caretakers

I have not read the law itself. This is posted as is.

ACTION ALERT

CA bill targets outdoor cats and pets of low-income families

Dear Edward,

We need your help today! As early as tomorrow, the California Assembly will vote on S.B. 250, a bill harmful to cats. Thanks to your calls and emails, we successfully urged the Assembly to vote this bill down last summer. But the bill is back up for consideration, and it is just as bad now as it was last year. We need you to urge the California Assembly to stop this bill once again.

Please act now and urge your Assemblymembers to oppose S.B. 250.

S.B. 250 is bad for cats:

The bill targets people who care for stray and feral cats. Any caregiver unable to trap and neuter a cat would be labeled a lawbreaker under the bill. Cat caregivers should be encouraged, not threatened with violating the law. By discouraging feral cat care, the bill could actually send more feral cats to pounds and shelters. Feral cats are not adoption candidates, so being sent to a shelter is a death sentence.
The bill also targets low-income families and their pets. A recent peer-reviewed study by Alley Cat Allies found that among low-income owners of intact pet cats, cost was one of the main obstacles to spaying and neutering. But the bill does nothing to lower the cost or expand the availability of spay/neuter services.
According to the California Department of Finance, the bill would cause more owners to surrender their animals. This would increase spending costs to state and local governments for the impoundment, care, and killing of more animals.

Take action today! Tell the California Assembly that this bill would hurt cats, harm caregivers and owners, and unnecessarily cost California money.

Help us stop this bill: urge your Assemblymembers to oppose S.B. 250 today.

Sincerely,

Alley Cat Allies

P.S. Learn more about the neuter status of the U.S. cat population.

Rosendahl Reverses Reversal; Five Dog Limit Increase is Back

The following was sent to me by ADL. I cannot attest to the truth of any of their statements of alleged facts except Daughtery's public record stating the increase could or would have a strong negative impact on a neighborhood, including property values. Again, I must be careful about what I post because of threats of a lawsuit by Phyllis Daugherty. I have edited their post to remove a few words. I will take any further legal action against me as an attempt to suppress my own First Amendment rights.

BECAUSE OF THIS IMPORTANT UPDATE, PART II OF THE [ IMPORTANCE OF INCREASING DOG AND CAT LIMITS FROM THREE TO FIVE IN OUR CITY OF ANGELS ] WILL BE SENT OUT ON MONDAY INCLUDING SOME NEW CONTACTS YOU MUST E-MAIL!

UPDATE: Councilmember Rosendahl heard YOUR calls!! This just proves what a UNITED andINVOLVED humane community can do to help save the lives of our shelter animals' imprisoned inside LAAS. Those of you who called should give yourselves a PAT ON THE BACK FOR A JOB WELL DONE!

Rosendahl sent a revised letter to the LAAS Commissioners (cc'd to Councilmember Greig Smith head of the Public Safety Committee) going back to his ORIGINAL proposal file number 10-0982 of increasing the number of cats and dogs in the city of LA from three to five. We have asked for the PDF link to Rosendahl's most recent letter from Rosendahl's office and we hope to get it by tomorrow so we can forward it on to you.

Councilmember Paul Koretz (who was the one to 'second' this proposal by the 'Mover'- Councilmember Rosendahl) has NEVER wavered from the original proposal! Councilmember Koretz wants to keep the proposal as ONE SINGLE proposal including BOTH cats and dogs. This is the moral and ethical thing to do and this is what YOU MUST DEMAND.

If the proposal is split into two separate proposals the DOGS will surely lose. This is because Phyllis has scared some councilmembers into believing that [as one of our readers posted to ADL-LA] "I'm really pissed the city is listening to Phyllis. Yeah, dogs are conspiring to form Gangs to attack & rape kids when school is out if the animal limit is increased."

We have heard that because of Phyllis's fear of dogs bringing her property value down, there are more council members right now who would be willing to vote for cats to be increased, leaving the poor doggies stuck inside the shelters and then killed against their will because of Councils reluctance to save the lives of dogs by TWO per household! This is LUDICROUS!

From Phyllis' Protest:

Property owners who might have neighbors with a large amount of animals that create a nuisance or health/safety risk and negatively impact the quality of live and property values in the community.

One of the reasons Rosendahl's office claimed to ADL-LA that he wrote the amended letter to Public Safety asking them to keep the dog limit the same as it is nowhttp://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2010/10-0982_MISC_07-13-2010.pdf was because he believed that the proposal for a cat increase would move through the city council more quickly.

OUR response was that ADL-LA and the humane community would rather have BOTH dog AND cat limits raised in one simple uncomplicated proposal; even if it is more of a challenge for it to pass. As a UNITED FRONT the humane community will demand what is fair and just for BOTH cats and dogs and WE WILL WIN! We added that Rosendahl cannot choose to help cats while at the same time 'selling out' our homeless and stray dogs because of the unfounded fear induced by some crazy lady.

We leave you AND Councilmember Rosendahl with this quote regarding his reasoning of the 'cat proposal' moving through Council faster-which we believe is the old 'expedience' excuse with this quote from Dr. King:

“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.”

In this case however the ORIGINAL proposal file number 10-0982 IS POPULAR with the humane community and the public of the City of Angels. The City must see this by YOUR calls and e-mails that the ORIGINAL proposal file number 10-0982 should be passed as is, and that it's a NO BRAINER for anyone who cares about saving the lives of our shelter animals!

We will let you know who to call and/or e-mail and when in our Action Alerts regarding this proposal.

REMEMBER: If you want your support of the increase in BOTH cat and dog limits from three to five to be part of the public record, you MUST FAX or E-MAIL John White asking him to attach what you write to the record. Mr. White's Fax number is 213 978-1079 and his e-mail is John.White@LaCity.org . The file number is 10-0982. You don't have to Fax AND E-mail, just one or the other. Mr. White will then make YOUR communication part of the record. It's as easy at that! Then you can go to http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-0982 and you'll see on your upper right, a link to letters of communications (and in Phyllis's case PROTESTS) and the like.

Phyllis Threatens to Sue

Phyllis Daugherty through her lawyer, Jeffrey Zander, has sent me a 4 page Cease and Desist letter demanding I take down all posts about Phyllis that are negative unless I can prove the allegations. That goes for any anonymous comment regarding her or her organization which I cannot personally prove, which he also demands to be removed.

He also wants all emails I have sent to anybody about her, I guess forever.

Right now my scanner software is not working, otherwise I would scan and post his demand letter.

He also demands I apologize to her.

Here is my take. In my opinion her proposed programs, legislation and opposition have led to the unnecessary death of many animals, and her protest on the issue of increasing the pet limits should be exposed and opposed, which I have done and are public record. Indeed, due to Phyllis's deep political involvement over many years, as well as writer of frequent op ed pieces in the Daily News and I assume elsewhere, as well appearing at every LAAS Committee meeting, I believe she would fall into the category of a public figure, and thus exempt from many of the libel protections given someone not so publicly involved in the public process.

However, I have never met her, and some say she generally is an amicable lady who often proposes good legislation too, and who has an enormous knowledge of LAAS.

I will be more circumspect, not only out of fear of lawsuits, but because I recognize I should be more tactful. I do not know the law regarding posting of anonymous comments, but I do believe the mere posting of them does not mean I agree with them at all, but that appears to be what her lawyer implies; I am equally guilty. He may be right, I am no lawyer.

As to her organization, I know nothing, including what information she has filed with what agency, but any such information is easy to find in a few minutes on the Internet, but I do not plan to search out any such information, as I have many better things to do.

I have received one comment that appears to be from Phyllis, and I do have the IP it was mailed from, but I cannot prove it was from her and I did assume at the time it was from her because the comment supported her position in language similar to her own. I rebutted that comment too. If I knew the IP of her computer, I could exclude her as the author. Her attorney stated she made no such comment.

I should not have been so hostile in my comments.

Phyllis, I apologize.

I have removed the stuff your lawyer wanted me to remove. I don't intend to seek out any proof of negative allegations about you. I don't have the energy or time, nor do I see a need.

LA Animal Watch