Conference misery::feline_v1

    
    Jo, thanks for the sanity check.  I thought that I was hearing things!
    On both KQED radio and the local news, they gave one-liner blurbs
    on the ordinance.  I understand their motivation for doing something
    about the over population, but I certainly don't agree with the
    way they are going about it.  Because I live in SF county, at this
    point there is probably not a whole lot that I could do, but let's
    face it, one county votes it in and others follow suit.  Let me
    know what you find out from the meeting.
    
    m
    

      I think this sort of thing is a little bit ridiculous, and definitely
    a great example of mindless over-reaction. However,the appaling figures
    related to the euthanizing of discarded pets by irresponsible
    individuals sometimes CAUSES this sort of mindless over-reaction.
    Witness the ignorant reaction to the so-called "Pit Bull"
    situation...some cities are and have tried to ban certain dog breeds,
    instead of taking the irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to roam
    and destroy things and put them away where they belong. 
    
      Too bad we don't have aptitude tests for politicians....
    
    
    J

    Is everybody out today or do they just not have any opinion on
    this? :^)  Does anyone know if an ordinance like this has been
    successfully passed in any other community?  Do you feel that this
    ordinance will do what it is intended to do?  Can anyone think of
    any other ways to help control the pet population?  I need input,
    especially if I have any plans to go to the hearing and express
    an opinion.
    
    Jo

      This sounds quite ridiculous to me!  Who proposed this ordinance?
    A citizen? Politician? Vet? SPCA member?  What did they base this idea
    on?  Is the county having such a problem with overpopulation, more than
    anyone else?  I didn't hear this news - out here in N.E.   I'd be real
    interested to find out more myself as to why such an idea even got as
    far as having a meeting about it!  What ever made anyone think such a
    plan is going to control the pet population?  Why not get the vets
    together and appropriate some kind of funds/program for free
    spay/neuters?  There is no way to just stop all reproduction.  How is
    this ordinance going to stop the homeless pets roaming the city?
    What is going to happen to them?  And why should this affect
    responsible breeders?
                                 geezzzz

Could you tell us a few cities that are in San Mateo county?  I probably 
know someone directly affected; and I'd like to talk to them.

Ray_who's_geography_ain't_all_*that*_good

    What occurred to me is that this type of ordinance will just
    encourage abandonment.  Joe Dummy lets his cat get pregnant and
    knowing that he'll be fined if he admits to this, he dumps the
    kittens rather than taking them to the pound.  
    
    Now that doesn't make sense.
    

    
    Nancy makes a very good point.  Abandonment will become more "popular"
    than ever!!!  How about talking to a lawyer and getting some input on
    restraint of trade for professional breeders?  Is this just for dogs
    and cats or for ALL pets including horses, goats, mice, gerbils,
    rabbits etc.?  
    
    Maybe a lawyer can give you some insight on how to fight this.  Also
    call the county commissioners office and ask for a written proposal of
    this bill.  You and all breeders in the county need to know exactly
    what is in this proposed ordinance, so that you can mount an effective
    defence.  
    
    I wish you all luck.  It really figures that the politicians would go
    and punish responsible breeders, when the irresponsible pet owner who
    refuses to spay or neuter will keep on evading his/her responsibility.
    
    Feline Angry for the good people in San Mateo County,
    (Please keep us posted)
    
    Sue & Panther & Spot       
    
    

    Not just bad for breeders...
    
    Can you imagine what some irresponsible owners would do if their 
    cat got pregnant???  Disown them.  Put them to sleep.  Kitty abortion?
    
    Scarey what the side effects could be...
    

    Okay, San Mateo county includes... (I *think*)...
    
    Brisbane
    Foster City
    San Mateo
    Belmont
    Half Moon Bay
    Moss Beach
    Redwood City
               
    I can't really think of what other cities, and I may be wrong on
    some of these.  I can think of many friends who are breeders that
    will be affected.  A couple of them are also CFA judges.  I think
    that CFA and the AKC should be notified.
    
    Thanks for the thoughts and ideas.  I really hadn't considered the
    fact that this may increase the abandonment of pregnant cats and
    dogs.  Also, the ordinance *only* attacks dog and cat breeding.
    San Mateo county Humane Society puts to sleep about 8,000 dogs and
    cats a year.  For comparison, Santa Clara county puts to sleep about
    30,000 dogs and cats a year.  I live in Santa Clara county.  (these
    figures were given on the news last night).  Santa Clara county
    Humane workers are declining comment on this ordinance.  San Mateo
    county feels that this ordinance will help achieve their goal of
    zero population growth for dogs and cats.
    
    Jo

    Jo, I would definately contact some of the judges in your area and also
    the different cat associations.  They must be able to have some input,
    otherwise what will happen to the shows in your area?  If they want to
    go ahead with this ordinance then there should be some exceptions made.
    Even if that would mean having to obtain a license to breed.  The
    "bigger" people should know what is happening.  I should think that all
    the national clubs would have some kind of fire power to override this.
    Perhaps getting some local vets involved would help too.
    Karen, Ruby, Stinky, Wing and Arthur
    

    I'm here, just very busy with re-organization.
    
    I think this is a very hasty, unthought about, crazy bill to try to
    pass??  What happens to the breeders who already live in that county??
    What happens to the kittys of the owners.
    
    Also,  this is liking telling humans    * we will tell you who will be
    able to bear children*.
    
    Another thought - all of us (me included) love kittys but just
    can't afford a pedigree kitten/cat from a breeder.  All four of mine
    are non-pedigree foundlings (except for Lightning even though she was
    free).
    
    I'm interested in what the results will be.  Next it will be dogs, than
    humans.  How about fish too.
    
    Sandi
    

    Sandy, this ordinance includes dogs.  No one in San Mateo county
    will be allowed to breed any dog or cat, for any reason.  The first
    offense will bring you a fine of about $75.  They haven't said what
    the second offense will cost, or whether they are talking about
    jailing offenders.
    
    In addition to the cities I mentioned, Woodside is also affected.
    These areas are mostly affluent, and a lot of dog breeders live
    in those areas.  Traditionally, dog breeding is a sport that attracts
    folks with more financial resources than cat breeding.  I have spoken
    with a few fellow cat breeders, and they are organizing to fight
    this.  The first order of business is to contact the dog people
    and get them involved.  The next is to find out which council members
    are animal lovers, and if any of them are involved in breeding or
    showing any animals, horses included.  And of course, we cat breeders
    will show up at the hearing en masse.
    
    Jo

    PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY AND SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERVISOR TOM NOLAN
    ARE PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD PUT A MORATORIUM ON BREEDING
    CATS AND DOGS.
    
                                ORDINANCE
    
    
    1.	Any person who allows their dog or cat to breed in San Mateo county
    	is guilty of an infraction.
    
    2.	Any person residing in San Mateo County who transports a dog or cat
    	within San Mateo County for the purpose of breeding is guilty of an
    	infraction.
    
    3.	This ordinance shall be in effect until such time as the population	
    	of dogs and cats in San Mateo County reaches zero growth, as
    	determined by the Board of Supervisors.
    
    4.	This ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 1991, provided,
    	however:
    			
    	(a) During 1991, Peninsula Humane Society will undertake an
    	    informational campaign, and violations of this ordinance will
    			not be prosecuted.
    
    	(b)	During 1992, violaters will be given the option of paying the
    			fine for the infraction or showing proof of having the female
    			animal spayed within 90 days after giving birth or the male
    			animal neutered within 30 days.  If the violator is not able to 
    			pay for the operation, Peninsula Humane Society will provide
    			that service free of charge.
    
    	(c)	During the third year and thereafter, the ordinance will be in
    			full force and effect, requiring violators to pay the fine or
    			show proof of spaying the female animal within 90 days after
    			giving birth or the male animal neutered within 30 days.
    
    Definitions
    
    Zero pet overpopulation growth: When PHS is only killing animals who
    are physically unable to survive.
    
    			

    re .13:
    
    That is the actual text of the proposed ban.  I have learned that the
    hearing on this ban is scheduled for Tuesday, November 13th at 2:00 pm
    at the Redwood City Council Hall.  I encourage all animal lovers to
    attend.
    
    I have been told that item number 1 would carry a fine of $70 but that
    item #2 would carry a fine of $500.  I haven't been able to confirm
    this.  Item #2 covers the transporting of animals within the county for
    the purpose of breeding.  San Francisco airport is within San Mateo
    county so this poses serious repercussions for breeders, who very often
    have to ship through SFO in order to get their animals on direct
    non-stop flights.  Most of the pet owners who allow their cats to have
    a litter do not ship them to accomplish this.  They just let them
    outside whole.  Item #2 is aimed at professional dog and cat breeders.
    
    If anyone would like more information about this, please let me know.
    I can be reached at DTN 521-4246.
    
    Jo

    Jo,
    
    Have you contacted the ACLU about this? Maybe they could help take up
    tha cause.
    
    Deb

    
    
    Re: .15 - GREAT idea, Deb!!!!!!
    

    I'll say it again - this is assinine!  Its aimed at people who are not
    contributing to the problem.  Professional breeders are not the people
    who are providing the cats and dogs that are being put to sleep in
    shelters.  Perhaps if you get some statistics about the kinds of
    animals that are put to sleep you can support that claim. 
    
    All this is going to do is encourage people to abandon kittens and
    puppies!!!!!!!!!!!  They are NOT going to turn them into shelters if
    they will be prosecuted for it.  
    
    And what about people who breed other types of animals - rabbits,
    for example.  Are they also subject to this law?  If not, perhaps
    its discriminatory.
      
    Good luck Jo.
    

    
    	This topic actually made the Worcester Telegram last night.
    	It was a small article, basically telling about the ordinance
    	and how they hope to prevent euthanasia of puppies and kittens.
    	I haven't read this whole string, but I was impressed by the
    	fact that people would be fined $100-500 (if they can't afford
    	to nueter, how can they afford that??) but that it would be 
    	waived upon proof of nuetering. 
    

    The hearing has been moved to the Humane Society building this
    afternoon for any of you that plan to attend.  I think that the shelter
    is probably planning some more public executions to drive their point
    home.  They are expected a large media coverage, so plan to get their
    point across one way or another.
    
    A supervisor, Tom Nolan was quoted as saying that the affect that this
    will have on the dozen or so breeders in the county is worth it since
    they will be saving 10,000 dogs and cats each year.  
    
    The ordinance also states that during the first year the Humane Society
    will expand in the area of educating people about the problem, but it
    doesn't outline exactly how they are going to go about that.  Also, one
    year's worth of educational programs isn't going to change the public's
    awareness for very long.
    
    Lots of problems with this ordinance, many of which we have covered
    here.  I plan to be there, will be leaving in a half hour or so.  Wish
    us luck.
    
    Jo

    "the dozen or so breeders" - Can this guy count??
    
    E.T.

>>>>>    "the dozen or so breeders" - Can this guy count??
    
obviously, he isn't counting the dogs/cats that fly thru the S.F. airport.

I saw a short story on the proposed ban/hearing last night on the national
news (CBS).  It was the last segment (usually something of "human interest").

They showed a puppy being euthanized on the air!  I was sitting there crying
with Tigger in my lap, which made it hard to pay attention to content.  There
were also various pictures of dogs and cats at shelters, and they pointed out
that a pink tag on the cage meant the animal was basically on "death row".
On the other side, they had a few short clips of a dog show and some comments
from dog breeders.  The most memorable thing I heard was from a dog breeder
who said "if breeding dogs is outlawed, only outlaws will breed dogs".  I
took this comment to be along the same lines as previous comments here: the
professional (responsible) breeders are not the ones causing the problem.

I am also short on alternatives.  The only thing I thought of, besides the
much-needed education, was licensing breeders, but that only solves part
of the problem caused by the ban (if it even does that much).  It may exempt
breeders from the ban, but it wouldn't solve the problem of abandoning animals
rather than facing a fine, which I didn't even hear mentioned on the tube.

Thanks for keeping us informed on this issue, Jo.

Jill

    Well, the hearing was something else.  It went on until almost 7:00pm.
    The board of supervisors introduced the Ban, which means that even
    though they had very good arguements against it from the floor, they
    still set the wheels in motion.  There will be another hearing on the
    18th of December at 6:00pm.  I urge you all to attend.  At the end of
    the next hearing, the ordinance could become law.  It is as simple as
    that.
    
    A good 90% of the folks present at the hearing were against the ban and
    were offering solutions to the present problem.  The ban was introduced
    with a four month exemption for breeders, but that will be rescinded if
    the breeders don't come up with some solutions that would have an
    immediate effect on the number of animals euthanized during that
    period.  It feels like a threat.
    
    The Ban was designed to affect the legitimate breeders.  It is written
    to cover only the unincorporated portions of the county, which is where
    most of the breeders have their kennels and catteries.  It does not
    cover the cities.  It also covers the transportation of cats and dogs
    to, from, and within the county for the purpose of breeding.  San
    Francisco Airport is within San Mateo county, and many breeders use San
    Francisco Airport due to the availability of direct non-stop flights
    from there.
    
    Peninsula Humane Society admitted that a very small percentage of the
    animals that are euthanized each year are purebreds.  The numbers where
    higher for dogs than for cats.  Suggestions were made that the PHS
    start utilizing the breed rescue groups that are available, which they
    allegedly haven't been doing.
    
    The good things that came out of the meeting were:
    
    *PHS agreed to start using the breed rescue societies.
    
    *The council agreed to draft an ordinance that would prohibit pet
    dealers and stores from importing animals from out of state puppy and
    kitten mills for the purpose of retail sales.
    
    *The council agreed to look into licensing cats in the county.
    
    *The council agreed to check into the status of enforcement of the
    leash law in the county.
    
    *The council also proposed licensing all breeders, charging them fairly
    high licensing fees and then using that money to fund a free
    spay/neuter clinic for the public.
    
    I still think that the area in which they need to work is the area that
    they won't be reaching with this ban.  That is the 98% of cats, and 87%
    of dogs that are not purebreds that they are euthanizing.  This ban and 
    these ideas don't solve that problem.  It is clear that unless the
    breeders come up with some solutions to that problem, then we will feel
    the brunt of this ban.  I urge all of you to help me come up with some
    solutions to this problem.  If we can come back to them with some good
    solid ideas, then maybe they will vote down this ban.
    
    Jo

    Sounds to me like they're trying to make the legitimate breeders
    responsible for the whole problem!  You're being required to solve
    a problem that you didn't cause, and over which you have no control,
    if you wish to exercise your right choose this "hobby".
    
    Seems that they're going after the most convenient target and that's
    the breeders!
    
    Have you informed CFA yet?  I mentioned this to Beverly Hardacre today
    and she couldn't believe it.  I intend to make CFF aware of this
    without bringing any names (including Digital's) into it.  I'm
    sure most organizations in the cat (and dog) fancy would be VERY
    interested to  hear what's going on.
      Nancy DC
    

    Joan Wastlhuber, CFA judge, breeder, and President of the Robert H.
    Winn Foundation was present at the hearing and spoke against the
    ordinance.  The council only allowed her one minute to speak.  After
    the hearing, I met up with her and suggested that the cat people get
    themselves better organized before the next hearing.  We decided on
    holding a meeting on November 25th.  I am also inviting members of the
    dog club that I train Annie with, and Joan invited the spokesman from
    the AKC that was at the hearing.  We are getting it together.  The
    biggest criticism that I have right now is that the county board of
    supervisors didnt' make the actual ordinance available to us until the
    meeting (the note that I entered with the ordinance text turned out to
    be a publicity type thing and not the actual ordinance).  That didnt'
    give us any time to prepare arguments against the ban.  
    
    The AKC, CFA, TICA, and all the other cat fancies need to band together
    to fight this.  Also, it was brought up last night on a radio talk
    program that Kim Sturla, the author of this bill, has resigned from the
    PHS.  She was asked if she was intending to run for public office, and
    she answered "no comment".  That fact, together with all the cries to
    "put San Mateo on the map" makes me very suspicious that this may be a
    political platform for either her, Tom Nolan, or both.
    
    Jo

    Jo,
    
    Before the next hearing, might be a good idea to stop by
    the "office" and have them put each of you on the AGENDA
    so you each will get equal time up front.  They should not
    have the right to refuse to hear you  and you should have
    longer than one minute.  Ask just how much time they will
    allow you to speak, and each of you write a prepared speach
    maybe each of you covering different items.  I know that it's
    easier said than done.  THis is just a suggestion - sounds like
    you are in for a very nasty time!  GOOD LUCK
    
    E.T.

    Jo-
    
    I think this proposed ban is crazy, and misdirected, however if
    somehow one could reduce the unwanted pet population through some
    sort of regulation....I think that would be great!
    
    I'm not sure what your plan of attack is or will be but I hope you'll
    not only educate these folks, but educate them as to how they can
    really help the unwanted pet problem.  There were a few good
    suggestions in here somewhere and the one which comes to mind is
    lisencing cats.
    
    In MA an organization tried to regulate farming with a ban that was
    outrageous.  It was targeted atthe few farmers who didn't take care
    of their livestock, and if it passed, the impact on the people who do
    care for their animals would put everybody out of it but quick! 
    Granted the idea was good, but the methodology stunk.
    
    I hope you can defeat this ordinance because it's impact, as we
    all know, will not achieve the desired result.
    
    Good luck and keep us posted!
    
    Michele & Nippa
                   

Jo,

I second the idea of licensing cats, but I also think there should be a lot
higher fine for the license if the animal is unneutered.  I think if the 
license was as much as an inexpensive spay (say $30) for an unneutered animal,
people who think it's too much to spay may change their thinking to it's too
much not to spay.

This along with education(of course) might make a significant difference without
putting the breeders out of business.

Becky, Tsunami, and unnamed(on the way)

Maybe some of the local vets might be able to help out. What I'm thinking of
is something along the line of the spay-neuter certificates, or spay/neuter 
'clinics', where the services might be offered at a discount for a period of 
time on a moderately regular basis.  Maybe a couple times a year (just before
whatever the normal 'peak' times would be for impregnation for both dogs and 
cats.  This combined with the lower priced licensing for neutered animals might
be a thought.

One risk would be places turning into real mills trying to 'process' as many 
animals as possible, which is why you might want to limit the time period this 
is offered in.

I agree with everyone else in that they seem to be going after the wrong target.
Unfortunately, they're probably going after the only target they might be able 
to hit.  The big question is how to educate the general public, and then make
the offer enticing enough that they want to do it.

How is the rest of the county supposed to find out about this new law-to-be?
I'm sure there are loads of people who don't read the newspapers. 

    The Palo Alto shelter, which is nearby, offers low cost spay and neuter
    services, including to animals whose owners are not residents of Palo
    Alto.  In fact the city of Palo Alto wanted to close it down because
    it was losing money, and it had a big campaign to get more 
    "business" and squeeked by by the skin of its teeth a few months
    ago, so any people directed to it would be helpful.  I'm sure they
    will go thru this every year.
    
    I suspect the Peninsula Humane Society itself might offer low cost
    spay and neuter....
    

Offering services to the public IF THEY WANT THEM, just isn't working around
here.  I believe we have to start forcing the public to learn what needs to
be learned - by tying the KNOWING of what goes on to acquiring some service
or license they HAVE TO HAVE.  Or by making the education a REQUIRED subject
in schools.  Like I said, the little "anti-smoking police" the schools
produced have driven many a parent into quitting smoking just to get some
peace and quiet.  Besides, it doesn't take long to teach/learn:

	1) kittens and puppies become sexually active, and reproductive,
	   at different ages, depending on the animal and the environmental
	   influences.  The only way to prevent the early pregnancies that
	   produce so MANY litters is to restrict/protect the animal
	   until AFTER the animal is spayed/neutered.  That means even if
	   you intend to allow your kitten outside in his/her life, only
	   allow the kitten outside AFTER the kitten is spayed/neutered.
	   That means that you should not allow a female pup over the age
	   of 4 months to stay in her yard along for any length of time
	   until she is spayed.  That means don't trust male pups over
	   the age of 4 months to stay outside for any length of time
	   alone unless you KNOW the fence is sturdy and the pup cannot
	   dig out.

	   I would bet the majority of feral cats come from kittens
	   that are let outside making litters or getting lost, getting 
	   pregnant and having litters...in fact, I know that is where 
	   they come from - there aren't any OLD feral cats - they all die 
	   before they get old and a feral cat gives birth to very few kittens
	   that live once she has been feral for a year or two.  That means 
	   the majority of the feral baby kittens out there are the offspring
	   of cats that were very recently in their lives at least nominally
	   "owned" by a human. 

	2) males don't get weird if you neuter them.  They get better.
	   They live longer with fewer diseases.  They behave more
	   consistently.  They smell much better.

	3) females don't need to have one litter to be fulfilled.  They
	   don't care the same way humans do -- it is biological and
	   instinctive.  If a cat never has a litter, she just doesn't
	   care.  She doesn't care about her kittens once they are weaned,
	   in fact.  Sometimes, she really hates them.  Same for dogs.
	   I know of female dogs that have injured their female offspring when
	   the pups are weaned.

	4) Cats and dogs are NOT JUST FOUR-LEGGED, FURRY PEOPLE.  They
	   have different needs, different physiology and psychology than
	   humans.  If we do not imbue our pets with "human" characteristics,
	   we will, in the end, take better care of THEIR needs -- and not
	   force them to live our fantasies.

    Just heard a blurb on the radio that Marin county is getting into this
    act, but their approach sounds better.  They are going to start
    requiring the licensing of all cats.  I will let you know when I hear
    more.  Marin county is north of San Francisco.
    
    Jo

   About two weeks ago I gave a copy of the breeding ban to the director of
   the Lowell Humane Society.  He is opposed to such a ban and volunteered
   to forward copies of it to two national humane societies, who he was sure
   would also oppose the ban.  He feels that if the national organizations
   assume such a position (that is, opposing the ban), then the local humane
   societies would be likely to disagree with the ban as well.  Thus, one
   would hope that there would be less of an inclination for such bans to be
   proposed in the first place.  (FYI -- Lowell is located in Massachusetts.)

   Re: -.1 
   Jo, I'll follow up on that with my two friends in Marin county.  They are
   not breeders, but they have cats, horses, and a dog, and are active with
   their local humane society.

   Cindy

    The next hearing on the breeding ban is on December 11th in San Mateo
    county at the Hall of Justice.  Anyone who wants to voice their
    opinion, as I have done, on this matter can do so by writing directly 
    to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors (even if you don't live in San 
    Mateo).  You could also write to your own local government and let them 
    know how you feel about this.  
    
    It looks like this thing is going to pass here, and don't think that 
    your own county won't be affected.  If this passes here, it will probably 
    be passing in counties all over the country.  
    
    I have also written letters to the editor of our local newspapers, and 
    to the Humane Society.  In the letter to the paper I included the 
    addresses of our local government so that those who read my letter could 
    write and share their opinions too.
    
    The San Mateo Board of Supervisors addresses are at the same place:
    
    
	
    <name>
    Hall of Justice and Records
    401 Marshall
    Redwood City, CA 94063

The names are:

Tom Huening (President of the board, also undecided as to how he will vote.
	     We consider him willing to work with us to come up with
    	     alternate solutions to the problem)
    
Mary Griffin (She owns four purebred dogs, two altered and two whole.  Her
              son shows the whole dogs in AKC shows.  She pledged her support
              to us early in the hearing, but then left the meeting early 
    	      allowing the ordinance to be introduced with a unanimous
              vote)
    
Anna G. Eshoo (she is ready to pass this thing now.  Wants to set up a licensing
               program for breeders, charge a very high license fee and use
               the annual proceeds to fund a new *free* spay/neuter clinic
               for non-breeder owned pets)
     
Tom Nolan (He is sponsoring this ordinance so we know how he feels)
    
William J. Schumacher (he is undecided)

    Our CFA statistician has come up with some interesting stats from our 
    local county.  She has been watching the local papers for the last two 
    years, and has kept stats on who is selling pets in our county (Santa 
    Clara County). Her findings are that 85% of those that advertise only 
    do so for one litter, and then are never heard from again.  85%!!!  These 
    are the folks that decide to let their purebred pet have one litter (to 
    make back their money, or let their kids see the miracle of birth, so on 
    and so on).  
    
    
    The Board in San Mateo doesn't understand that those are the folks that 
    they should be trying to control.  Those folks are generally not interested
    or involved in the fancy, and do not require spaying/neutering of their 
    kittens.

    Jo

The ordanance has, at last word, been modified to allow breeding for licensed
breeders.  Breeders are still unhappy about it, but it is assumed the ordanance
will pass this way.  Santa Clara County is looking into something like this.
I wonder how they plan to find the breeders who don't show - or the "breeders"
who simply don't spay and neuter?

    That is exactly why I am against the ban.  I don't care if they exempt
    breeders or not, the law is not a good one.  I am a bit upset that the
    breeders are willing to accept this "compromise" just cause it lets
    them off the hook.  I am a legitimate breeder, but I still feel that
    this is a bad law, whether they exempt me or not.  I am sure that Santa
    Clara county and other surrounding counties will see the effects of
    this law as increased numbers of cats and kittens (and dogs and puppies
    for that matter) are dumped in their counties by "owners" who aren't
    willing to accept the fine or the responsibility for spaying their
    animals.
    
    I would support a licensing and leash law for cats.  That would make
    more of a difference in the numbers of cats that the humane societies
    are euthanizing each year.  It makes better sense to me.
    
    Since the bulk of the problem with the cats seems to be strays and
    ferals that are propagating, this breeding ban won't be effective.  The
    authors of the bill have conveniently forgotten that more than half
    of the animals that they put down don't have any owners (hence no one
    to threaten with a fine or to force to spay/neuter the cats in
    question).
    
    If they could increase the number of cats that are returned to their
    rightful owners rather than being euthanized, then they would be
    getting somewhere.  Owners need to know that if they are going to allow
    their cat to roam outside unattended, the very least they should do is
    to have some form of identification on the cat so that if it is picked
    up by the humane societies it can be returned to them instead of being
    euthanized when it is unclaimed.
    
    It is because of licensing and the leash law that the number of dogs
    that the humane society puts down is three times smaller than the
    number of cats that they put down.
    
    Jo

    Yesterday on the radio, I heard that the town of Danvers (MA) passed an
    ordinance limiting its residents to no more than 10 cats.  Breeders are
    allowed a higher number during breeding periods.  Such an ordinance would
    certainly restrict the efforts of anyone doing rescue work.  Apparently
    all this stemmed from complaints about a resident who owned 40 cats.  I
    don't know how they plan to enforce the ordinance, but there is a fine
    for exceeding the maximum.

    E.T. -- I guess this means you won't ever think of moving to Danvers! ;-)

    Are you kidding, I would move there in a second!  Our town has an
    ordinance that only allows 2 pets per household.  Period.  At least I
    would be semi legal in Danvers. ;^)
    
    The thing about these limit ordinances is that they usually only count
    adult cats.  Kittens are exempted from them.  At least this is the case
    out here.  That is why I always say that I don't count kittens. :^)
    
    The biggest thing with these limit ordinances is that they don't
    police them.  I have been living in a town that only allows 2 pets for
    about ten years.  No one has ever come looking for me (I hope I didn't
    just jinx myself) .
    
    Jo

    Palo Alto only allows 3 pets.  <generic bad words>  They outlawed
    ducks also and my neighbor used to have the nicest ducks;  you should
    have seen S, H, and LB when the ducks came wandering over to our
    yard looking for snails;  good thing S, H, and LB are inside cats.
                                            

    The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors passed the ban on breeding
    today by a 3-1 vote.  The ban will require a 6 month ban on breeding in
    the county beginning on June 1, 1991.  I will give more information as
    I learn it.  Just heard this on the news a few minutes ago.
    
    The current law, as revised last week, will exclude breeders that have
    a breeding license.  As yet, the requirements and fees for this license
    have not been disclosed to the breeders.   The Board has included in
    the new law a requirement for a Task Force to be created that would
    decide those things.  The Task Force will be made up of Board members,
    Peninsula Humane Society Directors, local veterinarians, and dog and
    cat breeders.  No news on how they will choose the breeders that will
    sit on the Task Force either.
    
    San Mateo County has now set a precedent, so other counties are bound
    to try and follow in their footsteps.  If you have an opinion, you
    might want to let your local politicians know what it is.
    
    Jo

    I was at my husband's new company's Christmas party last night and of
    course, got chatting about animals and cats in particular.  A couple
    of folks mentioned that they'd seen news of the breeding ban on TV.
    We discussed why I was opposed to it for a few minutes and I was
    surprized that these folks favored the ban.  What came across tho,
    is that like myself, they are sick over the number of cats and dogs
    that are euthanized in this country and agree that its time people
    were forced to take responsibility for allowing their animals to
    breed.  They favor the ban for lack of a better solution.
    
    I think we need to start brainstorming some ideas to replace this
    ban or we're going to see it popping up in alot more places and 
    breeders are going to take the brunt of it because we're a
    convenient target.  
    
    Personally, I think the only thing that makes sense is a low/no cost
    spay/neuter program with LOTS of outreach and education.  Where the
    money for this is supposed to come from, I don't know.  That's a
    glitch that'll have to be worked out.
    
    Nancy DC 

    I guess that I am confused.
    
    I see the ban as a good thing because so many people just let their 
    animals breed indiscimintately and in Maine recently two horrible
    conditions were brought to light where dozens of animals were being
    kept and were not taken care of properly.  
    
    If breeders can bree cats then cats will be available to those who
    really are willing to take care of their animals.
    
    Every year so MANY animals were put down and before they are, they
    often have lived through months of misery.  Animals running free in
    summer is bad enough .... but in zero and sub zero weather ... it
    breaks my heart.
    
    Any animals I have rescused have been spayed at once.
    
    Cathy

    The problem is that this law is a bad law.  The way to save the poor
    animals that are being put down each year is to control their breeding.
    The way to control their breeding is not to ban their breeding, since
    most of these poor unfortunate animals do not have responsible owners
    who will take them in and have them fixed.  The answer lies in
    educating the public about the benefits of spaying and neutering.
    It also lies in controling the free roaming of the animals.  If cats
    were leashed and licensed, that would help the problem of the number
    of cats put down each year by increasing the number of cats that are
    returned to their rightful owners when they are found running loose
    outside.  The current law in San Mateo means that a cat picked up from
    the streets is only available for adoption for three days and then 
    put down.  If those cats could be returned to their owners it would
    make a significant difference in the number of cats that are put down
    each year.  
    
    The PHS put down nearly 7,500 cats last year, of which they think 2% 
    were purebred.  Being practical, I feel that we must subtract for any 
    pointed shorthair cat that would be assumed to be purebred siamese but 
    isn't and any longhaired pointed cat that is assumed to be purebred 
    himalayan but isn't.  It is my opinion that the number of purebred 
    cat that they put down was probably more like 1%.
    
    By contrast, the PHS put down about 2,000 dogs.  The PHS has a return
    to owner rate of about 75%.  That means that 75 % of the dogs that they
    pick up are returned to their owners rather than put to sleep.  This is
    due to the licensing and leash laws that dogs must abide by.
    
    There is also a very large population of feral cats in San Mateo
    county.  These cats are neither adoptable, nor willing to take
    themselves in and have themselves spayed and neutered.  The breeding
    ban will have absolutely no affect on the number of these cats that are
    put down.
    
    This law will only be enforceable on the legitimate, professional
    breeder.  The county animal control officers could easily attend a cat
    or dog show in the county and walk up and down the aisles issueing
    citations.  How are they possibly going to enforce this law on Joe
    Public?  Have the vets turn them in when they show up for kitten or
    puppy shots for a litter?  Police the papers for free kittens and free
    puppy ads?  With the folks that have free roaming cats, it will be
    easier and less costly to deny ownership than to face the
    responsibility and pay for the spay or pay the fines.
    
    I don't care if they do plan to exempt breeders, I still think that
    this is a bad law and that it was passed as a placebo for the PHS.
    It won't solve the problem, but it will get the PHS some publicity and
    it will get the PHS off the counties back's for a while.
    
    Jo

some additional points to consider:

1)  if cats were restrained like dogs, there wouldn't be a continuous feed
of cats into the feral cat population....lets face it, a feral cat has a
very limited lifespan ...even with uncontrolled breeding of kittens, their
numbers would drop significantly in one year if we managed to STOP the "lost"
strays from becoming feral.  How many times have we seen notes about missing
cats in this conference? Yes, some of these cats were probably adopted,
and some died very quickly out there on roads, but many of them joined the
feral population -- and those that were just coming into adulthood and becoming
sexually active became HEALTHY breeders....lots of kittens.  A cat that can
stay alive for a year or so as a feral becomes a very UNHEALTHY cat and 
doesn't breed many kittens.  The idea of licensing and leash laws makes
sense in a lot of ways.  The license fees could be used by the community to
provide real low-cost spaying and neutering - maybe $20.00 a cat - with a
bias towards cats as they are the primary problem (and expense) the counties
are strugling with.

2)  The problem of stray cats is costing YOU money...and preventing the
communities you live in from providing services you want/need.  Even though
humane societies are non-profit organizations, they are PAID by
the communities to handle the stray animal population problems.  Your tax
dollars are being spent to kill these unwanted animals and if you don't
get involved, you will continue to pay to kill them.

I agree with Jo, this law is not the solution, but I'm willing to bet that
many more communities will pass similar laws in an attempt to GET OUT ATTENTION.
They are at the end of their ropes on this one.  We, as animal lovers, must
begin to volunteer to educate the community - starting with the children in
the schools - on what responsible pet ownership means.  Education is the
only real hope of an answer.

>numbers would drop significantly in one year if we managed to STOP the "lost"
>strays from becoming feral.  How many times have we seen notes about missing
    
    Excellent response. Are you available to do some volunteer work at a
    Humane Society? The Nashua shelter could use some help with the
    Education Committee!
    
>humane societies are non-profit organizations, they are PAID by
>the communities to handle the stray animal population problems.  Your tax
>dollars are being spent to kill these unwanted animals and if you don't
    
    I don't know about other counties/states, but the shelter in Nashua is
    not compensated, per se, by the community to handle strays. The Nashua 
    Police Dept.'s Animal Control Division handles dogs and pays us to rent 
    kennel space for strays. If euthanasia is performed by request, we charge 
    a set fee. If we pick up a stray, we try to obtain a donation from the 
    person reporting the stray -- there is no required fee. We subsist solely 
    on donations and sale of services. Just for the record.
    
    Mike

>    Excellent response. Are you available to do some volunteer work at a
>    Humane Society? The Nashua shelter could use some help with the
>    Education Committee!

love to, but the commute from silly cone valley is a bit too much....
    
>    I don't know about other counties/states, but the shelter in Nashua is
>    not compensated, per se, by the community to handle strays. The Nashua 
>    Police Dept.'s Animal Control Division handles dogs and pays us to rent 
>    kennel space for strays. If euthanasia is performed by request, we charge 
>    a set fee. If we pick up a stray, we try to obtain a donation from the 
>    person reporting the stray -- there is no required fee. We subsist solely 
>    on donations and sale of services. Just for the record.
    
here in California where I currently live, and in New Mexico where I used to
live, the Humane Societies manage the stray pet population for payment from
the county or city in which the service is performed....they supplement the
money paid by the local government by charging fees for adoption, but that
isn't nearly sufficient to cover the cost of humane destruction of unwanted, 
unclaimed severely injured animals, and unadoptable pet animals.  The local
animal shelter in Santa Clara County is currently undergoing transfer
from the Humane Society back to the County government and I am very much
afraid this means a bleak future for any stray animal...in the past,
before the humane Society took over the management of the shelter, the animals
were not well cared for, and WERE sold as lab animals.  They even tried a
"cheaper" method of euthanasia for awhile -- a hideous vacuum chamber type
of device so that more than one animal at a time could be "disposed of"....
it was strictly out of a nightmare!  The humane society is getting out of
this shelter because they spend so much time KILLING animals and that is not
what they feel their proper role should be.  I do not know when the transfer
will be completed, but I do know it is planned.

As I said, in most communities, local tax money is being paid to take care
of our neglegence for our animals....and as Jo said, most of the problem
is due to feral CATS - due to our own selfish and ignorant behavior.

    Gee, sorry to hear you're 3,000 miles away -- you'd be great. I hope
    you help out when you can at your local shelter.
    
    I'm really sorry to hear about Santa Clara's problems. Why is the
    shelter reverting to the gov't.? Why can't the shelter's board of
    directors put new/revised policies in place? This was the case at the
    Nashua shelter -- there was too much euthanasia, so the rules were
    changed and our number one objective now is to place as many animals as 
    we possibly can.
    
    We advertise Pet of the Week in the local newspaper as well as on a
    local cable ad channel (Warner Cable Channel 39). In addition, we take
    names and phone numbers of people interested in adopting pets other
    than what we currently have available -- when the breed becomes
    available, we call them.
    
    Mike

    I invited the Santa Clara Humane Society to participate in our show at
    the Fairgrounds this past weekend.  A representative, Cynthia Smith,
    manned the booth.  They brought no animals for adoption, but spent the
    weekend educating the public instead.  I had a long talk with Cynthia
    about the San Mateo county ordinance.  She cleared up a few points for
    me.
    
    She told me that Santa Clara County could not follow suit with the same
    ordinane since they do not handle the Animal Control for the county. 
    That is contracted out.  Their charter requires them to be a "shelter"
    and for that reason they cannot turn any animals away.  She said that
    is why their numbers for euthanasia are higher than any other county.
    The other counties humane societies can and do turn away animals, and
    those animals are then brought to our Santa Clara shelter and taken in.
    Since they have a limited amount of space, they do have to euthanize 
    animals if homes are not found within a certain amount of time.
    
    She also told me that Santa Clara County Humane Society attended all
    the meetings of the San Mateo board regarding the hearing.  She said
    that they are not in agreement with the ordinance and are worried that
    it will increase the number of animals that they put down because those
    people in San Mateo that find themselves with unwanted litters will not
    take them to PHS due to the fines and mandatory spaying.  She said that
    they are leaning more towards a leash and license law for cats.
    
    We had a very enlightening conversation and I look forward to talking
    with her about the problem again.  Perhaps we can help be part of the
    solution.
    
    Jo

with the price of land in this valley, you know there will not be any more
space available for animals in the future.  I am also sure that there will
be a lot of protest if a leash and license law is enacted...but I am 100%
in support of it...we NEED it.

During the horrible cold we had this holiday season, a cat climbed into
my back yard one night and died - with a temperature at 9 degrees farenheit
that night, I don't have to wonder why.  The saddest part of this was the
cat had tags on her collar -- her owner swore the cat always came home and
she didn't understand why she didn't that night...I think the poor thing got
lost - her home was approx. 4 miles away - and we didn't know about her until
we saw her the next morning.  At least with her tags we could contact the
owner to come get her cat.

    It's very sad that the reality of economics and rampant over-population
    lead to the senseless destruction of so many beautiful animals.
    
    Our shelter in Nashua never turns away an animal -- regardless of the
    circumstances -- that's what we're there for. However, there are many
    shelters who have limits on the numbers of animals they'll take in off
    the streets -- either because they are "no-kill" shelters and won't
    take in any more than they have space for, or because they simply
    don't have the dollars needed to handle any more animals.
    
    Humane Societies have very tough jobs but it's up to all of us to do
    our part to fix those problems -- after all, we're all to blame for the
    mess in the first place.
    
    Mike 

	I do not like the idea of a leash law at all.


	That would mean consigning my cats to a life indoors - which they don't
 	like, they have the choice at the moment, and they prefer outdoors, 
	they love climbing trees, they love chasing leaves............
	I could not confine them indoors.

	I believe that many people would let their cats take a chance of a free
	life outside, than try to keep them indoors. 
	If a leash-law came into effect, many of these owners would give their 
	cats this chance, and this would contribute vastly to the stray 
	population.

	Very few well-treated indoor/outdoor cats convert to "feral"

	All this would do is force captivity on cats which are well looked 
	after, whist doing nothing for the remainder.

	I have no problems with a registration/collar-and-tag solution, but not
	a leash law.	

	Heather - with two healthy and happy indoor-outdoor moggies.

>	I do not like the idea of a leash law at all.
>	That would mean consigning my cats to a life indoors - which they don't
    
    No, it just means that your cats would have to be leashed while
    outdoors -- much the same way dogs are leashed. I've seen many a cat
    tied to a run outdoors and they adjust to it nicely.
    
>	I believe that many people would let their cats take a chance of a free
>	life outside, than try to keep them indoors. 
>	If a leash-law came into effect, many of these owners would give their 
>	cats this chance, and this would contribute vastly to the stray 
>	population.
    
    Your're implying that a leash law would increase stray population.
    That's hardly a safe implication. A leash law, if anything, would
    decrease stray population.
    
    Dealing with stray/feral cats is not a simple or minimal job. It's such
    a huge job that most Animal Control units won't even respond to a call
    for a cat -- there are just too many of them. The Humane Society in
    Nashua took in just over 4,000 animals last year and 2,300 of them were
    cats! (The 4,000+ includes all species -- not just dogs and cats.)
    
    Stray cats is a very real and desperate problem. We have to deal with
    it somehow. Dog owners were very angry when licensing and leash laws
    for dogs went into effect, but we've learned to live within the law and
    the results have been positive. Most of the dogs that animal control
    brings into our shelter can be reclaimed by their owners thanks to
    licensing. Almost none of the cats are reclaimed. This leaves a huge
    burden on the shelter to care for 2,000+ homeless cats each year. 
    We see far, far fewer "wild" dogs than cats.
    
    While dog owners pay a fee to reclaim their dogs and thus help to
    defray the overall cost of running a shelter, most cat owners do not and 
    the cats become our financial burden. There aren't 2,300 new homes in this
    area to adopt these cats so most of them become stastistics.
    
    I support a leash and licensing law for cats.
    
    Mike
    

RE: leash law

You can still allow your cat time outdoors without giving them free run.
I have an enclosed run that my kittys use to enjoy the outdoors.  You can
also put up a fence with an overhang sufficient to keep them in the yard,
or put up a wire run(of course you have to watch them closely with
this alternative unless you have a fence also).

The thing is, something has to be done to control the number of cats that
are running around in order to control the stray polulation...
if not the leash law, what do you propose?

Becky

    I think it is important to note that the person who wrote in opposing
    the leash law is from the UK, and things are different there.  Most
    folks in the UK do not have strictly indoor cats, or enclosed outdoor
    runs.  The majority of the cats there are indoor/outdoor.  I don't
    think their stray population nears the magnitude of ours, and all of
    the UK folks who frequent this conference are strong proponents of
    spaying/neutering their pets.
    

    The UK may not have the kind of problem that we have, and that is great
    for them.  But, we have it, and we have to come up with some solutions.
    I support a license and leash law.  I have no problem with folks
    letting their cats outside (unless they got them from me :^}), but I
    think that if you let your cat outside than it should be tagged for
    identification in case it should become lost.  If the shelters could
    increase the number of cats that are returned to their owners, it would
    greatly reduce the number of cats euthanized each year.  
    
    Jo

A leash law would prevent kittens from wandering away from home and getting
lost...happens all the time when a cat or kitten gets curious about something
and gets too far from home.  The noise and stress of urban life mean the cat
cannot find his/her bearings and get home.  That's often how they turn feral...
not because they are mistreated, but because they simply get too far out to
find their way back.  It is a popular myth that a cat has some form of super
navigation capability....they don't.  If they get too far from familiar
smells they get just as lost as a dog...and we know how often they get lost.

At any rate, the problem is here and must be dealt with....the expense to
all humane societies is crippling.  I, for one, need to know that the
money I donate is being used to SAVE and HEAL, not destroy unwanted feral
cats.  Bring on the leashes.

    I also support the licensing and leashing of cats.  It certainly
    beats a breeding ban as a solution to this problem.
    
    My next door neighbor does not believe in neutering his cats.  He
    still has his female I believe and when she has kittens he "gets rid
    of the females" and keeps the males, which he does NOT neuter.  Every
    year there is a different batch of males (except for Rocko who's been
    around for several years) and it breaks my heart to think what must
    be happening to the other males from previous litters.  I'd love to
    see that guy restricted by a leash and license law!

	I do not support a leash law for cats. 
	I would support a licence and tagging system. 
	I would support paying more in community charge to police and manage 
	this system.
	I would support paying more in community charge to fund more shelters 
	and "neutering".	

	(community charge is similar to local income tax - no ratholes please).

	If a leash law were introduced here, I would never have cats, and I 
	would not support the additional costs of a law I thought unjust.

	I have looked at my garden, I can see no way that I could enclose it, 
	even if I wanted. My cats enjoy going into my neighbours gardens and 
	houses, and my neighbours like it too.

	I would have 3 choices.

	1. Never let them out without a leash.

	2. Have them put down.

	3. Let them loose to be ferral.

	I have thought long and hard about this.

	I could not possibly do 1, my concience would not let me enforce a life
	(as I see it) of imprisonment.

	I could not let them loose to fend for themselves, I believe this to
	be inhumane.

	So I would have them put down, and I would be unable to bring myslef
	to take in any more strays.


	Heather

    <<< Note 4114.59 by CRUISE::NDC "Putiput Scottish Folds DTN:297-2313" >>>
                        -< Where is Peninsula Humane?? >-

PHS is the name of the shelter that was discussed in previous replies
to this note.  The location is in San Mateo county, I believe.

The ordinance is set up so that breeders can buy a "license", I believe,
but it is probably very expensive.  I haven't heard much on this lately,
so I don't know the current status.  Jo Cordes-Brown was very active
with the group attempting to fight this and should have more info.   
    
>    "IAMS, makers of dog and cat food, are encouraging customers
>    to breed their dogs!  They are actually offering $5.00 cash
>    for 'every puppy you sell over the next several months.'
>    We must stop IAMS from encouraging breeding!"               

News to me...and I haven't seen any ads that declare this.  Perhaps,
there is a disconnect on this somewhere - maybe Iams is offering
a $5.00 certificate for puppy food to be given to new puppy owners.
This could be intended as a simple promo of their dog food by Iams
while an organization dedicated to reducing pet population might
see this as an "inducment" to breed pups....actually, I hardly think
that a $5.00 certificate for dog food would convince anyone to buy
or adopt a pup - in my opinion, if they are going to get a dog, they'll
get a dog.  This MIGHT even be seen as an encouragement to ADOPT a
pup from the local shelter, depending on who is offering the certificate.

This publication seems to have a "pipeline" to information that is not
easily available to others.  I would suggest a call to Iams to verify
the story.

NOTE:  I was asked to slightly reword this note so it appears
    out of sequence.  Reply .60 is actually a reply to this
    note.  Sorry for any confusion
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    
    This looked like a good place to post this.  I was scanning the
    Just Cats, Inc. newsletter that arrived here this morning and 
    ran across two very interesting little news items.
    
    1. " PHS Ordinance Passes
    
      The Peninsula Humane Society is to be congratulated for passage 
      of the city ordinance it initiated, which places a moratorium on
      breeding of cats and dogs and creates mandatory spaying and 
      neutering of animals after the moratorium.  This important victory
      signifies the beginning of the end of the kill shelter and pet
      overpopulation."
    
    
    2. DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT ENTERING THIS TO ENCOURAGE ANY TYPE OF
    BOYCOTT.  I am entering this note for informational purposes only.
    
    "IAMS, makers of dog and cat food, are encouraging customers
    to breed their dogs!  They are actually offering $5.00 cash
    for 'every puppy you sell over the next several months.'
    We must stop IAMS from encouraging breeding!"               
    
    The article goes on to encourage readers to boycott IAMS products.
    I am curious as to whether anyone else has any info on this.
    
    If anyone wants a copy of these articles let me know and I'll 
    be happy to send you a copy.
    

    I have to comment on the PHS situation.  The ordinance has not passed. 
    It is tabled for now.  The ordinance cannot be passed until provisions
    are in place for licensing legitimate hobby breeders of dogs, cats,
    rabbits, etc.  A task force has been formed to come up with guidelines
    for licensing requirements, fees, etc.  The task force is made up of
    two dog breeders, two cat breeders, several vets, representatives of
    PHS, a board of supervisors member, and various other folks.  They have
    not brought a licensing program back to the county board of sups yet. 
    So, in effect, there is currently no breeding ban going on it San Mateo
    county.
    
    There are breeding bans going on in other areas of the country. 
    Pennsylvania very quietly passed the stricktest one to date.  It allows
    for only one litter per year, and that litter must be registered with
    the county within 10 days of birth, then be sold and out of the
    breeders house by 12 weeks from birth.  Any animals not out of the
    house within that time will open the breeder up to legal action since
    the breeder would then be over the cat max allowed in PA. (actually, I
    am not sure if this is a county thing or statewide thing in PA).  Also,
    there is a fee for registering the litter with the county, I believe
    that it is $150.
    
    This type of ordinance is happening all over the country.  An
    organization has been formed to help fight this type of legislation, it
    is called National Pet Alliance.  Anyone interested in joining please
    contact me for more information.
    
    About the Iams thing.  I belong to the Iams breeders club.  My
    membership entitles me to certain priveledges, including discounts on
    cat food.  Another benefit is that Iams provides kitten starter kits
    that I hand out with my kittens when they are sold.  The kitten kit
    contains samples of Iams foods, and coupons that the kitten buyer can
    complete and redeem for discounts on their first purchase.  The coupon
    identifies me as the breeder who sponsored that kitten buyer.  I get a
    $3.00 rebate when one of the coupons from my cattery is redeemed by a
    kitten buyer.  It is hardly incentive to breed cats.  But, it does help
    pay the cat food bill.  I think it is a good program.  The buyer is
    started off right with a good quality food, given discounts to buy
    more, and I am rewarded for recommending Iams rather than another food.
    Basically that is how it works.  I think that the article mentioned
    took part of this program out of context and interpreted other than how
    it was intended.
    
    Jo

    The September issue of the CFA Alamanac has several interesting
    articles on the San Mateo County/Peninsula Humane Society breeding ban. 
    The articles were written by Joan Wastlhuber, Karen Johnson, James
    Dauggherty, and Gayle Hand.  Joan is a CFA allbreed judge, and
    president of the Robert H. Winn Foundation.  Joan is also acting in
    behalf of CFA as part of CFA's newly formed Legislation Committee. 
    Karen Johnson is a CFA Persian/Himmy breeder, the founder of NPA (National
    Pet Alliance) and editor of their newsletter.  James Daugherty is a CFA
    breeder, San Mateo county resident, and is on the policy committee of 
    the Task Force.  Gayle Hand is a CFA breeder, San Mateo County resident, 
    and on the Task Force's technical committee.
    
    James Daugherty's article is particularly fascinating as it brings us
    up to date on what has happened up until now, and what is happening. 
    For now, the ordinance has been tabled pending a report from the Task
    Force.  According to James' article "the task force was formed of 32
    members and divided into two 16 member groups, a technical group to
    study the issues and gather information and a policy group to reassess
    the data and write the final proposal for the Board of Supervisors. 
    The Animal Task Force was set up to be as diverse as possible with its
    members coming from PHS, Animal Control, Veterinarians, The Farm
    Bureau, dog groups, the public at large, and two CFA cat breeders."
    
    James goes on to say that the Task Force if free to reach its own
    conclusions and is scheduled to give its report to the board in late
    August.  This meeting has passed, and James reports that no progress
    has been made as of yet.
    
    Breeders and cat lovers may want to read these articles and be
    informed on what is happening in your own counties.  There are a lot of
    governing bodies waiting to see what will happen in San Mateo before
    they act in their own communities.
    
    Jo  

    Jo,
    
    My county, (Montgomery Cty, Maryland) is thinking of doing some sort of
    "ban". They are proposing that ALL cats and dogs in the county must be
    spayed or neutered. If you do not want to do this, it will be $100 per
    cat or dog. There are quite a few cat and dog breeders in this county
    who are NOT going to put up with this kind of &#*$&! I haven't gotten
    my CFA Almanac for Sept yet, so I'll be looking for this article!
    
    Thanks for the info!
    
    Cheryl
    

    Karen Johnson and Joan Wastlhuber wrote an article called "Why Not
    Coercive Legislation" that outlines some steps you can take to
    find out where a community stands now, and can help residents prepare 
    for this type of legislation.  Be sure and check it out.  This almanac
    is chock full of educational stuff this time, the complete minutes of
    the executive board meeting and the CFA annual are in there too.
    
    BTW, is Laurel, MD in Montgomery County?  If so, I used to live there
    before I became a "California Girl." :^)  We could have been neighbors!
    
    Jo

    Jo,
    
    Laurel, MD is in Prince George's County.
    
    Jan

Laurel also has a small section in Howard County as well. 
However, Prince George and Howard County's are next to
Montgomery County! 

I just got the CFA Almanac on Saturday. Boy, this is
really depressing me! However, my husband and I are
ready to fight!!! (My husband, is what you might say, a
person who will fight to the end to prove he is right! ;^)
Anyhow, we're trying to find out when the first time this
issue is going to come up. Do you think I should contact
a local cat club (we don't belong to one yet) and ask
them what we can do to help????

Cheryl

    Joining a local cat club could be a great way for you and your husband
    to help the community.  It will also provide you with lots of benefits,
    like the experience of breeders who have been doing this forever. :^) 
    My cat club associations have brought me a wealth of information.
    
    Jo

I don't know if this is true with ALL cat clubs, but I
talked with a VP of a cat club (National Capital Area
Cat Club) and they told me it was by "invitation only".
You couldn't just "ask" to join, you had to be asked.
The guy sort of made me feel like I had to prove myself
worthy of being in the club. Since a majority of the
breeders in this club live in Montgomery County, I
thought this would be good -- evidently I was wrong.

Anyhow, I'm going to call the guy again, and tell him
that I don't care that I'm not in his club, but I want
to do all that I can to see that this ordinance DOESN'T
pass!

Cheryl

    There are a couple of cat clubs across the country that are by
    invitation only.  There is a good reason for that.  National Capital,
    San Francisco Revelers, and a few others hold very big shows each year,
    get sponsorship from cat food companies, and donate huge sums of money
    to charity each year.  When you are talking about shows on this scale,
    you have to be careful about the folks in the club.  You want people
    that will work their tails off, and that are dependable, responsible,
    trustworthy (due to the $$$ involved).  Just like in any part of life,
    there are some members of the cat fancy that don't measure up.  Clubs
    like these want their members to have proven their committment in other
    clubs before inviting them to join.
    
    I have just been through that with the San Francisco Revelers.  But, I
    understand why they are the way they are.  They only have about a dozen
    members, and put on the largest show west of the Mississippi each year. 
    That is a lot of work for 12 people to do.  But, we do it, and do it
    well.  In the last year, Reveler's donated over $25,000 to the Winn
    Foundation, not to mention other charitable organizations around the
    bay area.
    
    Call the VP back and ask him to refer you to another local club that
    might benefit from your membership.  I am sure he will be aware of
    other clubs in the area that are looking for members.  If MD is
    anything like CA, there are lots of clubs that overlap territory.  You
    should be able to find one close to you that you can join.
    
    Jo

    The following information is from the NPA Gazette (National Pet
    Alliance).  
    
    The following cities, states are considering mandatory spay/neuter
    laws:
    
    Denver and Boulder, CO
    Dallas, TX
    Miami, FL
    San Mateo County, CA (still in limbo)
    San Bernardino, CA
    Phoenix, AZ
    Nevada (Senate Bill--it failed!! :^})
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Shasta County, CA
    Monterey County/Pacific Grove, CA 
    Glouchester City, NJ
    State of New Jersey
    Sherman, AR
    King County, WA
    
    If you live in any of these areas and would like further information,
    you can send me mail and I will put you in touch with the right person.
    
    For those of you that are not familiar with the NPA, they are a
    national organization of cat and dog fanciers with the following goals:
    
    Strong support for neuter/spay of pets through educational programs and
    low cost neuter/spay clinics.
    
    Finding solutions to pet overpopulation - primarily targeting the feral
    cat population.
    
    Protecting the rights of breeders - enabling them continuation of
    showing and breeding of pedigreed animals.
    
    Defending the rights of pet owners to be able to house their pets
    without restrictions, limits, or fear.
    
    Elevating the status of responsible breeders by setting standards and a
    code of conduct for all members to live by and by creating a breeder's
    network, both dog and cat, for ethical breeders.
    
    
    Jo

    Add to this list, Montgomery County, MD
    
    

    
    I saw a piece on the Ordinance on the Channel 5 news last night.  Joan
    Wastlhuber (CFA Judge) made a brief comment as well as a local dog
    breeder. The report indicated that the Ordinance will take effect on 
    April 1 and will include 1) mandatory spaying/neutering of pets over
    the age of 6 months 2) licensure and fees for Breeders and 3)
    Inspection of premises.  Is it my misperception that this ridiculous
    ordinance (IMHO) seems to be moving forward with an incredible rate of
    speed? Obviously the power behind this is incredible.  Other than the PHS,
    who is lobbying so hard to get this ordinance passed?  Why is there so 
    little visibility to the public from organizations like the CFA and
    AKC?  We discuss it and read about it in our publications but it obviously
    is not being  disseminated in a public forum!
    

    Without passing judgment one way or the other, I'd just like to note
    an opinion that in some cases 6 months might be a bit "young"; yes, I
    know that female can get pregnant at 6 months, and that some males
    can impregnate females at that age, but I recall that Eirene was very
    petite at 6 months; there was some concern over putting her under
    because she was just under 4 lbs. They had to keep a very close eye on
    her, and I remember that the vet told me that if it weren't that I had
    her twin brother, he would have preferred to have put the spaying off.
    The reason that Panther wasn't neutered at 6 months instead was because
    veterinary thinking was that a male neutered very young would be more
    prone to FUS, and the fact that he didn't seem big enough (I think that
    the vet meant he couldn't tell if the testicles had descended). Billy's
    neutering also got postponed till he was older for the same reason.

    Now that I have finished rambling, I guess my point is, what happens if
    the cat is over six months but the vet doesn't think it would be safe
    or effective to neuter at this time? Does the ordinance allow some kind
    veterinarian generated  exception mechanism?

    Deb

    To answer Marlene's question, PETA is behind the ordinance, as are PAWS
    and Concerned Animal Lovers.  These organizations have quite a bit of
    money to put into media.  CFA and the AKC do not.  These organizations
    will not stand for any kind of "animal use" (these terms are from their
    literature), whether it be for breeding, showing, guide dogs for the
    blind, working dogs for the handicapped, anything.  By banning
    breeding, they are getting on the side of an issue that gets to
    people's heart (pet overpopulation), and also working toward their goals
    of not having any animal use whatsoever.
    
    Until we see the actual ordinance in writing, we will not know what the
    specifics are.  My feeling is that the county is not going to spend
    hundreds of dollars to police the residents by going door to door to
    see if all cats over 6 months are spayed/neutered.  In fact, this
    ordinance will only affect the unincorporated parts of the county, not
    anyone living within city limits.  
    
    I think what will happen is that the ordinance will be enforced at 
    the Peninsula Humane Society (when folks bring in litters of kittens 
    they will be fined for not spaying/neutering), and through the cat 
    shows.
    
    My own feeling is that the pet overpopulation problem is out of control
    and something needs to be done.  This ordinance will not help.  The
    feral cat population does not have an owner that can be fined, nor do
    they have an owner that can take them in for spaying.  I would much
    rather see a county put their money into educational programs, and into
    a feral cat program such as the one the NPA is doing.  
    
    The NPA has a feral cat program called TTVAR.  TTVAR stands for Trap,
    Test, Vaccinate, Alter, and Release.  This makes sense, both
    economically, and ethically to me.
    
    I think that PHS will see their numbers of "drop-offs" go down, but the
    number of ferals that they pick up and euthanize will probably go up as
    folks start dumping pets rather than surrendering them at the shelter
    and facing possible fines.
    
    And, the breeders will be paying BIG for this.  Legitimate breeders
    like myself that have maybe two litters a year will be footing the bill
    for enforcing this ordinance.  They have to pay a licensing fee to have
    a cattery/kennel.  They have to pay a litter registering fee for every
    litter, and an additional fee for every unspayed/unneutered cat or dog
    in the cattery/kennel.
    
    This just doesn't make sense to me.  
    
    

    Well said, Jo!!
    
    Bonnie

    More info on San Mateo Ordinance.  The ordinance has to be voted on
    once again before it comes law.  It isn't a "done deal" yet.  The media
    would have you believe otherwise.
    
    Also, once it is voted into law, it will be in the courts.  The AKC has
    already got a lawyer ready to file suit on it's constitutionality.
    
    Jo

    I think I might just write a letter to PETA and tell them I am 
    withdrawing my support of them because of their stand on this
    issue.
    

    I withdrew my support of PETA a few years ago when they tried to 
    have some insane ordinances passed for farms.  They also harrassed
    the Grafton High kids for a donkey ball fund raiser game.
    
    Another group similar to PETA is FOA.  I am quite suprised as to what 
    they are into.
    
    

    If any of you get the CFA Almanac, check out the articles in the August
    (maybe September) issue about the antibreeding ordinances, etc.  There
    is some very informative information in there about PETA, FOA, and some
    others.  
    
    Alot of you may be surprised by what you learn.
    
    Jo

    
    Whether all of the points in the Ordinance pass or not I take issue
    with them all!  There is no way that I would spay/neuter at six months
    unless there was a medical reason. Licensing fees.  Does someone think
    that breeders have money?  God knows that you know going into it that
    it iis not a money maker.  What about parts of the general public ( and
    there are those I have spoken to personally) who want their pet to have
    "just one litter" to experience childbirth or want their children to
    see it or those who do not want to neuter their pet because they want
    to keep their pet MALE but DO NOT TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY after litters
    are born?  Why are breeders being targeted while statistics show that
    "cats of breed" are not the animals filling our humane societies?
    Inspections.  The money may not be there to be able to properly administer
    it, but if it gets on the books it will always be there to sight (by groups
    like PETA). I am surprised that an organization like the ACLU hasn't jumped
    on this one.  How do you spell RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
    
    Phew!  I'm done now.  Sorry folks, I just had to let it out.....
    
    

    The ACLU may be a part of this once the thing passes and it is
    challenged.  That is what I have been told anyway.  They can't do
    anything until this actually passes.
    
    Jo
    

    A little off the subject ...but maybe an offshoot of the same groups...
    
    A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a friend who is a long-time
    dog breeder/shower here in the New England area. She was telling me
    that some of the extreme animal-rights groups have been forming picket
    lines at some of the dog shows. They have also had several instances
    where these folks have managed to take the dogs from the shows and turn
    them loose outside. I can't for the life of me understand what their
    logic is if they think this is doing the dogs any good. I shudder to
    think of their fate.
    
    I'm not sure where the problem started but she said it had worked it's
    way up to the CT area at the time we spoke. The reason my friend made a
    point of mentioning this to me is that she had heard several rumours to
    the effect that the groups were threatening to 'hit' the cat shows
    next ...with intentions to remove cats from their cages and turn them
    loose outside.  I haven't seen any evidence of this problem yet, but
    it can't hurt to keep an eye on your cats in the show hall just in
    case.
    
    The whole situation enrages me. I can't help believing that the motive
    behind the ordinance and actions such as this have something to do with
    power and/or money. They certainly don't seem to have much to do with what
    is best for the animals.....
    
    Linda  

re .80 (Jo)

I'd be interested in learning more about the animal rights organizations you
referred to here.  Would you please send me (on-line or off-line or hardcopy)
more details, or a pointer to them if it's too much work?  I don't get the CFA
Almanac but would be interested in what they had to say.

Jill

    The NPA Gazettte did report in their recent publication about animal
    activists letting dogs loose at shows, and the intention by these
    groups to do the same at cat shows.  It contained a warning for all
    exhibitors to keep a close eye on their animals at shows.
    
    Also, those of you involved with clubs that put on shows, in most
    states this type of behavior by protestors is illegal.  Know your
    rights before your show.  If you think there will be trouble, advise
    the owners of the show hall so that they can help if something goes on. 
    In most cases, the protestors cannot enter your show hall, they can
    only stand outside and peacably protest.  They cannot disrupt the show
    (letting animals loose would qualify as disrupting), or create any kind
    of disturbance.
    
    My club held a show in San Mateo, CA (yep, the heart of anti-breeder,
    anti-show country) and we were prepared for protestors, but we had no
    trouble with them.
    
    Jo

    re: .81 -
    > There is no way that I would spay/neuter at six months unless there 
    > was a medical reason. 
    
    Six months of age is the standard age to spay female cats.  I don't 
    understand your opposition to that.  
    
    I would understand if there was a medical reason NOT to spay at that
    age - like size or health of the cat.
    
    If a cat goes outside it is especially important that it be neutered
    or spayed at 6 months of age.  Even males.  I just had Sundance
    neutered at 6.5 months because he was starting to display mature
    male behaviors and I have unspayed breeders in my house.
    
    My feeling on males however, is that if they do not go outside,
    arent' living with unspayed females and are not displaying mature
    sexual behaviors it is better to wait until 8-9 months.
    
    Just wanted to clear things up on the neutering issue.
    
    Nancy DC
    

    
    As you may have gathered there was alot of emotion in that note.  "No
    way" may have been a poor choice of wording. I would not run out at
    6 months and spay my cat just because 1) someone considers it "the standard"
    or 2) an ordinance is telling me that I have to. Every cat is
    different, every environment is different. "One size does not fit all".
    If the **situation allows** I would delay as long as possible because of
    the anesthesia alone. That in itself is risky enough for an adult cat 
    let alone a 6 month old Exotic kitten...
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    In most cases I would not have my kittens spayed or neutered at 6
    months.  I feel it is too young to put a kitten under general
    anesthesia and that much stress.  When a kitten of my breeding goes to
    a new home, I generally work out a "timetable" of when to spay/neuter
    the kitten with the new owner.  This timetable usually includes a 3
    month waiting period while the kitten adjusts to the environment.  I
    feel that it is very important not to put a kitten through surgery
    while they are already stressed from changing environments.  Throwing
    too much at them at once can be a disaster, as I learned with a kitten
    of my breeding that was spayed at 5.5 months, one week after going to
    her new home.
    
    I find it interesting that some breeders will spay at 6 months, but not
    neuter until much older.  Spaying is major surgery.  Neutering is not. 
    In my opinion, just based on the stress factor alone, you are safer
    neutering at 6 months than spaying at six months.
    
    Jo

    I think the reason for neutering at a later time is the reasoning
    that if you wait until the male's "equipment" gets to full size
    the cat is less likely to have FUS problems.  I know some vets
    disagree with that.  Depends on the vet.
    
    I never questioned having a female neutered at 6 months.  I've
    always done it that way.  The only time I would have held off is
    with a particularly small kitten or one with health problems.  I'll
    have to rethink my position on this.  Thanks Jo.
      Nancy