True Agendas

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Sac City, Sac County - and California

I attended the Sacramento City Council meeting yesterday afternoon - what, you say? The City Council meeting? What happened to the County Board of Supervisors meeting?

Good question. I found out about a week ago that the BOS meeting was postphoned until April 17 (see Item 42), and that a County mediation meeting will take place tonight instead from 6-9pm. At the same time, I found out that Sacramento City and County Animal Control - and HSUS and a whole slew of other AR groups - put an animal overpopulation proposal on the City docket for vote yesterday afternoon!

Wow - talk about subterfuge... and even better, when I went to verify the Sac City Council Meeting agenda this morning, I found yesterday's agenda no longer online. Voting will now take place in about three weeks, I believe - but if I heard right, the public will not be able to comment again in session before the vote. Another interesting point: while the County meetings last year filled the chambers to overflowing, not even half of the City seats were taken. Again, I wonder if the public is aware of the proposals about to change their pet ownership rights.

The best (*cough*) news of all: AR legislators are now proposing mandatory spay and neutering for the entire state of California. I'm not the only one who's unhappy with this.

I wonder how much a kitten or puppy will cost in the Golden State ten years from now if these proposals are allowed to pass...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 19, 2007

Making a Difference in Sacramento

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will be revisiting the county shelter-proposed "Animal Overpopulation Ordinance" on February 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. (See Item #40 of the Action Summary for January 16, 2007)

Read the ordinance - tell all your neighbors - write, call, fax and email your opinion to the Clerk of the Board. Take the day off work and GO TO THE MEETING. Sign up to give a 3 minute talk on why government should not interfere with your property rights or right to privacy. Nothing says "we'll remember you next time we vote" like participating in the political process.

One strange thing I noticed: almost no one whose skin possessed a lot of melanin showed up at last year's public Board meetings for this proposal. Could it be that no one notified a substantial portion of the pet-owning community about this ordinance?

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, February 18, 2007

PeTA Wins... and Loses

The PeTA Two were convicted of dumping trash illegally (dozens of dogs and cats which were euthanized as soon as the van carrying them pulled away from their former owners). According to the laws of the state, justice was served. All felony charges were dropped.

As a result of publicity generated by the case, one decades-long PeTA supporter wrote to an Animal Rightists' Google Group that he had removed PeTA as a beneficiary of his nearly $3 million life insurance policy. A PeTA representative responded that the organization was surprised at this since it's 'public knowledge' that animals it acquires are usually killed by the organization.

If it wasn't before, it is now....

Here's another blog I just found on canine politics. Check it out.

Labels: , , , , ,