Today the City just endorsed ab1634. It was a long City Council session but it passed 12 for, none against. Marie Atake, Ed Boks, Teri Austin, Mary Catalano, Daniel Guss, Judie Mancuso, Cheri Shankar and others were there to support the bill. It was a wonderful positive discussion.
Alarcon said "why don't we just make this mandatory in LA City? Why do we have to wait for the State?" They promised to write a motion to do it in the City immediately. Rosendahl said he's not a breeder though he did let his dog have three litters. He gave the puppies to friends. He said the City must enforce licensing. There is revenue there.
Garcetti was upset because he didn't know that the canvassing program was no longer active. Cardenas said we need more money for more vouchers.Boks stated that LA leads the country in spayneuter. He said 1,000 neonates a month come into the shelter. He said $18 million of the $25 million budget goes to euthanize unwanted animals. He said they did 39,000 vouchers in 2006 and will do 44,000 in 2007. Previously he said he'd do 59,000, another time he ME 20,000 a month in 2008. He said all the spay neuter clinics will be open early next year. He said two will be open in a month. I really doubt that. 35 speakers for it, 4 against. The ones against had very weak arguments.
I'm shocked about Rosendahl but know that info comes from a good source. Also shocked by Alarcon. These two politicians had no problem trying to round up the animal vote and now they aren't voting for the animals. Rosendahl campaigned on a pro-animal, pro-environment platform. Alarcon wrote an animal platform and spoke at the CHULA animal convention. Maybe they just need some education.
Rosendahl is not a breeder. Where did you get that idea?????
And Rosendahl did not court the animal community either late or weakly. He has been consistent and strong in his support.
Why do you insist on spreading lies?
He opposes this bill because he thinks is cruel to cut an animal's nuts off.
CA Healthy Pets group wrote that post. They spoke with him. Rosendahl doesn't mention animals in his campaign site here http://www.billrosendahl.com/issues.html but I do know that he went after the animal and environment groups. My groups were contacted by his campaign committee. As for the last comment, you obviously must be one of those nutty people.
Good luck on this. I am seeing that not only are the breeders against this, but feral cat and no kill people are as well. Please don't jump on me for that statement. I have seen these posts on Craigs list and have been to another council meeting where the followers of these two movements voiced opposition to mandatory spay/neuter. I would have to agree that initially there might be more animals in the shelters and euthanasia rates would go up. But expect that to go down dramatically probably within the first year. Just an opinion. In trying to work with the Board of Equalization on enforcing their policies concerning breeding, I found that Bill Leonard, Board Member, has a sister who breeds, therefore he refuses to help. BOE policy says that any sale of individual puppies and kittens from the third one one must have a temporary resale permit. But BOE does not enforce this thus a lost of taxes. So when these politicians come out saying they are animal friendly, look at their relatives and background more closely. I didn't know this info on Bill Leonard and voted for him. I know now and didn't vote for him last election. He claimed to be animal friendly but not when it comes to certain issues that would affect his sister.
Just saw city council today. Rosendahl is not a professional breeder but he did breed his female dog three times. He gave away the puppies. Legally, that's still a breeder, a backyard breeder. They voted for the legislation 12 to 0. Thanks to everyone
Someone needs to confront Rosendahl as to whether he did indeed "give" them to friends or if he sold them and whether he had a temporary resale permit when he did so. I doubt seriously that he "gave" three litters to "friends". It would be interesting to see if he violated the law with his three litters.
Post a Comment