Kern County Animal Control Commission (KCACC) is Wrong
Kern County has been a bastion of common sense and old-fashioned citizen rights in a state that is increasingly controlled
by counties who are anti-citizen rights and anti-dog. We are a community of staunch Western American values. Kern County is
home to an abundance of show and other competition-dog kennels. Now there is a surge to abrogate Kern County citizens of their
property rights. It comes under the guise of both bringing Kern County "in line with the rest of the state" [Commissioner
Yraceburn at November KCACC meeting] and reducing the indiscriminate production of dogs and cats.
Being "in line with the rest of the state" is of dubious value. The rest of the state isn’t doing too well either
financially or constitutionally. Kern County should strive to be better than the rest of the state. Reducing the indiscriminate
production of animals (and by this is meant reducing the number of animals being accidently or negligently born) can be accomplished
by several, proven, means: trap-neuter-release for feral cats, low-cost or no-cost spay/neuter programs available to any pet
owner, and education (beginning in grade school) about responsible pet ownership. A strong, committed Animal Control needs
to use foster homes and halfway / training houses to get dogs and cats ready for adoption. It has only been since the infamous
lawsuit that forced Kern County Animal Control to comply with state law that we have seen any movement toward getting the
stray or relinquished animals into new homes.
What is being discussed in KCACC meetings will not solve any of our problems but it will cause plenty more. The proposed
zoning ordinance changes do not address the public tragedy of dumping unwanted pets nor does it treat the mental illness of
hoarders. These zoning changes will target honest, decent people who enjoy the company of their well tended and well cared-for
pets. These zoning changes will make people into criminals. Good people who cannot afford the fees or who have not played
nice with their neighbors will be forced to make "Sophie’s Choice" as they look into the faces of their non-human family
members. This is just plain wrong.
The people appointed to the KCACC are striving to make Kern County as anti-dog and as anti-citizen property rights as the
ultra-liberal counties to our west. It is not only a disgusting display of power, it is devastating to those who have worked
to perfect their kennel bloodlines and have made their kennel name known in the dog world. This attack on our rights is heartbreaking
to the conservative, law abiding people who have been drawn to Kern County as an oasis of sanity in a state of increasing
socialism.
Through many public workshops featuring concerned citizens’ input and effort, the heads of Resource Management (Dave
Price) and Animal Control (Denise Haynes) realized the extreme negative impact proposed county ordinance changes will have
on the citizens. They have shared their insight with the KCACC to little avail. The power drunk ACC members have made inflammatory
statements within earshot of the concerned public, such as "I don’t care what the people want" [Commissioner Elliot
at October KCACC meeting].
Since when do we allow our local government to run roughshod over us? Each County Supervisor appointed a member of the
KCACC. Each Commissioner thus represents their District Supervisor. In the contentious battle that has been instigated by
this Animal Control Commission and will be played out in the County Board of Supervisors meeting hall, I hope all Kern County
citizens will learn about the issues facing our county community and become involved in their resolution.
Tehachapi Mountain Dog Fanciers, February 2008
7-11-09 Letter to the Editor, Bakersfield Californian
[in response to a front page (A1) article about a dog-on-cat attack]
On the front page of the 7-09 paper edition a contributing writer told us about a horrific attack on her
property. My heart goes out to her as I'm sure do most who read that article. What I am confused about is the
writer's assumption that a mandated spay/neuter law (MSN) would have prevented the attack. The dogs' owner had not licensed
the dogs nor controlled them when they were off their property, both of which are violations of County Ordinance. They
may not have been vaccinated against rabies as required by the State. But, the writer calls for a MSN?
How does a government-mandated surgical procedure result in a compliance with leash laws or licensing laws? It's rather
like saying people should neither drive drunk nor speed, so let's mandate everyone must purchase an economy car or face fines.
Huh? What in the love of Mike does one have to do with another? Enforce the licensing laws (which cost quadruple
for an intact dog) and leash laws, but don't delude yourself that forcing me to remove my dog's gonads will make other dog
owners comply with existing law.
8-08-09 Letter to the Editor, Bakersfield Californian
[in response to a long editorial comment by the original writer and after multiple rebuttal letters
had not been published, that is how the anti-pet (animal rights) people control the media]
I am so sorry about the writer's tragedy when unlicensed, illegally roaming dogs entered her home and killed her
cat. I understand that many people assume that reducing the sex hormones will change many behaviors. But,
the prey drive is just as strong in sterilized animals as it can be in intact animals. Sterilized animals will still
roam if left out alone. Sterilized animals will still bite. To spay/neuter means the animal cannot procreate. Spay/neuter
surgery does not create an obedient dog and certainly does not create responsible owners. Mandating that the normal
condition for every dog is to be sterilized has caused increased numbers of pets being destroyed, licensing to drop even further,
and a decline in vaccinating against rabies in every locality where it has been tried. This is why those concerned
with animal welfare work diligently to oppose mandatory spay/neuter proposals while supporting licensing enforcement and low-cost
surgeries.
