Supes Pass Spay/Neuter Ball Back to Staff

Two of the biggest elephants in the room in this debate are;

A: The ongoing, worsening housing crisis.

B:The right of pet owners to choose whether or not to subject (and pay for) what is essentially an elective, yet major, surgery.

Elephant A:

The mortgage meltdown's effects are being felt globally. Speaking to local issues, Santa Barbara has historically been a very polarized society and housing market. We have the very rich on one end, and the continually struggling majority on the other. Approximately 62% of the population of the City of SB are renters, and it's getting worse.

Renting housing while owning pets is nearly impossible here, and increasingly, in other locations as well. The norm is "no pets" in rentals.

Rarely, pets are allowed in very expensive rentals, with hefty deposits required up-front, a spotless credit record, and the pet may only be one animal, and that animal may only weigh less than 15 pounds.

There is a misconception among landlords that small pets don't bark, bite, or poop on the carpets.

When pet owners lose their homes, they are forced back onto the rental rollercoaster, and the first thing that has to go is the family pet.

And that family pet goes right to the local shelter...if he's lucky.

Wondering why the shelters are filling up? Check the housing market and the economy in general. Also, find out how many of those animals are actually from your own area.

I know, because I have been active in animal rescue for 35 years and I know how shelters are supplied.

Now to elephant B:

Desexing is surgery. The unsuspecting public has been lulled into a false sense of security for decades by the for-profit veterinary industry into believing that spay/neuters are "simple routine procedures".

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing "simple" or "routine" about surgery. That's why people have to go to school for years to be allowed to do it.

There is general anesthesia involved, and the procedure itself involves an invasive procedure to remove healthy body parts.

It is a decision that should be carefully considered and taken seriously every time.

I am not anti spay/neuter; I own altered pets. Desexing pets is not a bad thing. However, it is surgery and the procedure must be treated with respect and full disclosure.

I AM in favor of full disclosure and informed choice.

The government is not qualified to make this decision for me.

Neither is the for-profit veterinary industry, which has a vested interest in legislated coercion of pet owners to subject their animals to a surgical procedure which also just so happens to cost hundreds of dollars in our area.

Any time you fool with hormones, there will be a cascade of potentially unwelcome results; that's the trade-off for absolute birth control. Some things are easy to live with, others are not.

Pediatric (under a year of age) desexing has been proven to have myriad deleterious effects ranging from orthopedic to endocrine. When the animal's body is not allowed to develop normally, a whole range of problems often occur.

Which is bad for the dog.

However...it's great news to the for-profit veterinary industry selling the thyroid pills, the steroids to cover up the skin problems, the urinary incontinence, the special shampoos and pricey prescription foods, and the surgeries to fix the broken bones courtesy of growth plates left open too long as a result of a pediatric spay or neuter, just to name a few sources of guaranteed ongoing income.

Does this happen every time? No. But it does happen most of the time. And people aren't told about any of it; they're just sold this bill of goods by PETA, H$U$, and their spokesmouths in the veterinary and celebrity industry.

No, I'm not anti-veterinarian; I love my vets and give thanks daily that they are not on this particular or any other gravy train. They treat their patients and clients with respect and I trust them to help me in my health care decisions regarding my animals.

I also know there are those, one in particular right in Santa Barbara, who are the exact opposite.

In summary:

Address the housing and economic crises.

Find realistic, fair and humane solutions to the rental housing anti-pet restrictions.

Stop importing animals to shelters from other areas to supply the demand and make a case for shelter overpopulation.

Don't allow the government and special vested interests to make medical decisions for you.

Do your homework.

Think.

Its my Dog its my Right to choose.. Keep the Government esp. the Local out of Towner City Councils out of my Personal decisions.. Go fix the Streets and the Gangs.. Not my Dog or Cat!!! .

Yet there are millions of abandoned pets - many from people who let their unneutered pets run loose or who let their animals have babies so their own children can witness the "miracle of birth". (Those same folks should take their children to the shelters' euthansia rooms to witness the "miracle of death".) I am against intrusive government at every turn (CA government, BTW is perhaps the most intrusive in the country - this opinion based on my residency in 5 other states), but people have demonstrated that they will not take responsibility for the pet problem. And BTW, trying to tie the pet problem to the mortgage meltdown just defies logic - the problem has existed for many years, just been ignored by many.

R.C. While I agree with the rest of your post, I disagree with the part about the mortgage meltdown. The meltdown is part of the problem of the housing crisis, which in turn is part of the problem of pets being in shelters--especially in this area.

I have a friend who was recently evicted from the house she was renting and tried and tried and tried to find anyplace that would rent to someone with pets and all she got was a closed door. Luckily, she was able to relocate back to the trailer park where she had lived previously and had she sold her camper there would now be two cats and a dog looking for a home.

I know of many veterinarians who don't believe in neutering dogs or cats until they have finished growing because neutering or spaying too early can cause various health problems. I also know of dog owners who adopted dogs from dog shelters and they were neutered or spayed very early. They had health problems. Some had to be on hypothyroid medications the rest of their life.

I don't support this ordinance at all. I am a responsible dog owner and my dog doesn't get loose and he is in control at all times. He isn't out wondering around. I don't want to get my dog fixed until he has finished growing. I think that he is too young to get fixed yet. It is not in his best interest to have this procedure done. I love my dog very much and I want what is best for him. I don't want him to suffer from poor health and for him to suffer. I love him too much. Six months is too young.

It is the irresponsible dog owners that they have to go after , not the responsible ones. They can't punish the majority for what a minority of people do, that is to allow their pets to reproduce uncontrollably.

re: the mortgage meltdown, there was stories about that in the la times and how many people had to give up their pets when they couldn't keep their house anymore and the same thing happened with people who were renting and were kicked out because of default on the mortages by the owners. They also couldn't keep their pets. So into the shelters they went.

RC, you make some very valid points, and my tenure in active rescue backs up what you say about people, their kids and the "miracle of birth". That is true, as are the irresponsible twits who let their pets roam and reproduce.

However, punishing me, or you, for owning a pet fails to address these issues or indeed, the housing crisis contributing to them.

I know it's hard to believe that the current economy has created serious problems which have contributed heavily to the homeless pet issue, but the hard data does back me up.

My own rescue group has seen our owner-surrender numbers soar as a direct result of this issue, and yet it is not being addressed at all, and is even being denied as fact.

This IS fact, and we have to face it and stop pretending that the veterinary and animal rights industry are friends to the animals. They aren't; they are friends to their own bank accounts, plain and simple.

Just for one example; Wayne Pacelle, the President and CEO of the Humane $ociety of the United States, is paid $203,231.00 annually. He isn't running to be seen every time a camera is rolling because he loves animals and wants to help them. He does it to justify his big fat salary.

H$uS doesn't run, own or administer a single shelter or rescue. Not one. They are not to be confused with your local Humane Society Shelter. H$us raised a LOT of money on the backs of Katrina victims, then grabbed the cash and ran.

Don't believe that? Ask any rescue group or shelter in New Orleans how much help they got from this and other animal rights groups who showed up for the disaster and the cameras to promote their organizations and bum money off an unsuspecting public.

This situation runs far deeper than you can ever imagine. MSN and BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) are just the tip of the iceberg, and once they get that stuff passed and in place, they are coming for YOUR pets next.

Their mantra is "Better off dead than captive" and that means YOUR dog, cat, goldfish, bird, etc.

Sound like people whose agenda you want to help succeed?

No?

Then do the research and learn the truth. It's out there.

And don't let these people, including the radical local veterinarian who now counts himself as a proud member of H$uS, con you into believing their line of garbage.

Go hug your pets and do what you can NOW to protect them and your right to make their medical decisions yourself.

And don't let these zealots get their laws passed in your town.

Why is no one pointing out one other "industry" bound to make a huge profit with this? THE PUREBRED BREEDERS!!! I have NEVER owned a purebred dog. I LOVE mutts. I am not so naive that I would assume that because of this law, all mixed breed puppies would suddenly disappear, but I am seriously pissed about the possibility of having to get my next puppy from someone who clearly broke the law just by allowing that puppy to be born. And all the responsible dog lovers out there who DO happily choose mixed breeds - whether out of love for mutts or the fact that they are actually AFFORDABLE - are much more likely to end up with genetically messed up, "registered and therefore holier than thou" purebreds which will no doubt be that much more overpriced. Hip issues, epilepsy, genetically modified everything. Woopee. Can't wait. So grateful the state of CA supports ethnic cleansing in animal form.

The disgusting display of greed by the OUT OF TOWN BREEDING INDUSTRY who derailed this reasonable public health proposal was a sight to behold. Thanks to good old NORTH COUNTY SUPERVISORS, reason was hijacked. My God, this county should have SPLIT when we had the chance.