Candidates answer my question (or not really)

[hollyL]

I sent the question below to several candidates. Companion animal issues are very important to me and it is not the typical "what about education" or "what about jobs" question so I was very interested in the response from the candidates. Unfortunately, most didn't feel it was important enough to even answer.

*******************BEGIN EMAIL*********************
I am still an undecided voter in several of the upcoming races. One important issue to me is the significant problem North Carolina has with the overpopulation of companion animals. It is estimated that over 250,000 unwanted companion animals are euthanized in North Carolina shelters each year, almost double the national average. What steps would you take to correct this problem and how important would this issue be in your term in office?

Best Regards,
Holly ****
Cary, NC
*******************END EMAIL*********************

Here are the responses:

Governor
Mike Easley
----begin email---
Ms. Nielsen-

As an animal lover, this issue is very important to me as well. I have
been apalled by the poor conditions in which unwanted pets live, and the
alarming rate at which they are euthanized.

Governor Easley signed into law this year a budget that requires county
animal shelters to abide by much higher standards of care and
conditions, to bring them in line with private, non-profit shelters.

Of course, as you realize, the root of the problem is overpopulation.
Governor Easley supported a provision over the summer that would have
imposed a small tax on pet food to pay for shelter improvements and a
program to spay and neuter pets to keep them from reproducing.
Unfortunately, this provision did not make it through the General
Assembly.

It is unfortunate that this issue is not more prominent in the minds of
most voters and will probably not get talked about very much during the
campaign. But lawmakers like Rep. Becky Carney will continue to push for
spay-neuter programs, and the Governor will continue to support them.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Adam T. Lord
---end email---

Patrick J. Ballantine
-no answer-
----------
Senate
Erskine Bowles
-no answer-

Richard Burr
-no answer-
-----------
Commissioner of Agriculture
Britt Cobb
-no answer-

Steve Troxler
-no answer-
-----------
For NC Senate District 16
Janet Cowell
-no answer-

Mark A. Bradrick
---begin email---
Hi Holly,

I know I come across in my web page as a hard nosed individual who only concerns himself with tax cuts, fiscal discipline, and infrastructure, but I am in fact an animal lover. I have two cats, Stinky and Huey, both of which have the best vet care, sleep inside every night, and have all they can eat. My wife and I love them like they were our kids. I am always disturbed to hear about the number of dogs and cats being put down. The fact of the matter is no legislation will change people’s irresponsible behavior when it comes to letting dogs and cats breed. Both my cats were fixed before they could breed. Unfortunately we will have to continue to put animals down to control the stray population and prevent diseases. The government can’t really do anything, people need to change. I know that is not what you want to hear but is the reality of the situation.

Best regards,
Mark Bradrick
---end email---

[washere]

Wow. I'm pretty shocked at how few responses you received!!!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that anyone who doesn't have time to reply to a simple question (or have an assistant take care of it) while running for office probably won't get my vote.

I will say, that I grew up in Richard Burr's Congressional district, and always found him to be EXTREMELY responsive to questions and requests. I'm more than a little surprised that his campaign didn't respond to your question.

[johnb]

In the grand scheme of things, that's a pretty low priority for any politician. I wouldn't fault any of them for wasting the time to have a policy position on the subject or not even paying attention to the matter.

There is a perfectly good solution though. Empty the shelters and send the animals to the local medical school, vet school, pharmacuetical testing facility, science lab, etc....solves two problems at once.

Or open more Korean restraunts. :twisted:

[johnb]

By the way holly....I do have a dog, a chow....my son named him Nicholas Nickleby years ago...he was reading Dickens at the time.

I gave him another name. For the past six years he's been Fat *******. And he is fixed which explains that empty, glassy look in his eyes.

While I do have sympathy for dogs and cats, it's limited by my greater concen for the lives, health and safety of human beings. If Pfizer needs to use X number of beagles to test a new cancer treatment. Sorry for them. But that aside, Braddrick is right, no amount of legislation is going to resolve the issue.

[washere]

In the grand scheme of things, that's a pretty low priority for any politician.

Well, see, the wild cats (and the squirrels) are of a very high priority to me.

If they don't want my vote badly enough to come round up the cats, or atleast tell me what they'd do with the cats I round up *for* them, then they must not want my vote very badly.

[hollyL]

Braddrick is right, no amount of legislation is going to resolve the issue.

No amount of legislation is going to stop people from raping and murdering so let's get rid of those laws too. The 'legislation won't change it' answer is a lazy answer (however I do give Braddick credit for the answer and his willingness to speak with me about it...he might actually get put on my 'republicans I vote for' list). Below I've included a few examples where legislation has reduced euthanasia rates in other states [these are not my words but copied from various sources] and how it also saved TAX DOLLARS.

I'm definitely not in agreement with your medical testing theory and probably won't ever be. One thing I think is important is realizing the importance of stopping/punishing animal cruelty and abuse. One for the obvious reason as it isn't nice/good to abuse animals but also the direct, proven scientific link to domestic and violence towards people. i.e.

"A survey of pet-owning families with substantiated child abuse and neglect found that animals were abused in 88% of homes where child physical abuse was present (DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). A study of women seeking shelter at a safe house showed that 71% of those having pets affirmed that their partner had threatened, hurt, or killed their companion animals, and 32% of mothers reported that their children had hurt or killed their pets (Ascione, 1998). Still another study showed that violent offenders incarcerated in a maximum-security prison were significantly more likely than nonviolent offenders to have committed childhood acts of cruelty toward pets (Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001)."

Where legislation HAS helped

New Jersey implemented a statewide subsidized spay and neuter program in 1984. Over a 16 year period, from 1984-1999, New Jersey experienced a 29% decline in animal impoundments, and a 10% drop in the euthanasia rate, while the number of people residing in the state increased by 8%.

New Hampshire launched a statewide publicly funded spay and neuter program in 1994. Between 1994 and 2000, the state's eight largest shelters admitted 30,985 fewer dogs and cats than in the six years preceding the program, and saved an estimated $2.2 million (based on a per-animal sheltering cost of $105). In this same time period, New Hampshire's euthanasia rate dropped 75%.

Since the state [New Hampshire] implemented a publicly funded, targeted spay/neuter program, shelter intake numbers began to drop. In the first seven years, 37,000 fewer animals entered New Hampshire shelters than in the prior seven years. In addition to saving lives, the program has saved taxpayer dollars.

In 1992, San Diego Department of Animal Control euthanized 15,525 cats at a cost of $121 per cat. That year, Feral Cat Coalition San Diego, a private, volunteer organization, launched an aggressive spay/neuter program for feral cats. By 1998, the number of animals killed each year dropped more than 45 percent, at a savings of $859,221 to taxpayers.

The required spaying and neutering has helped prevent the King County shelter from performing thousands of euthanasias by helping to ensure that fewer animals came in to the shelter. In 1990, about 17,000 animals came into the King County shelter. Last year, only 9,000 animals came in despite the drastic growth in King County. (In 1990, the population of King County was 1,507,300; in 2000, it was 1,737,034.) If the number of animals coming into the shelter had grown at the same 15% growth rate as the human population, almost 15,000 animals would have been euthanized in 2000. Instead, only 6,069 animals were euthanized. This remarkable drop allowed King County to claim in 2000 that they euthanized no healthy, adoptable animals. Typically, an “unadoptable” animal is one that is extremely sick, and has a small chance of recovery.

[johnb]

Holly....so what? That an owner may be irresponsible and allow their unspayed/unneutered animal to roam and breed is not the same thing as that owner being violent towards the animal. Those are two separate things you are confusing. The first we may consider negligent, although that is the animals natural behavior pattern. The second is a willful action on the part of the human.

As for the medical testing, frankly, if it results in a cure for some malady or a vaccination to prevent sickness, that's unfortunate maybe but I'd rather have that child, parent, or sibling home from the hospital instead of in a casket being dropped into the ground. And if gettting that vaccination or cure means X number of beagles are used for medical/science experiments sobeit, so long Snoopy. As I said, my concern is for the children, not the dogs. And no Brent, I'm not buying you a beer.

[johnb]

By the way Holly, isn't your advocating legislation of this type nothing more than you trying to legislate your particular morals and impose them on the rest of us in the form of laws intending to change other people's behavior? I thought government wasn't supposed to do that?

Or is "legislating morality" only bad when conservatives are behind it?

[hollyL]

By the way Holly, isn't your advocating legislation of this type nothing more than you trying to legislate your particular morals and impose them on the rest of us in the form of laws intending to change other people's behavior? I thought government wasn't supposed to do that?

Or is "legislating morality" only bad when conservatives are behind it?

I don't think saving considerable tax dollars by reducing the burden on the state to take care of/euthanize animals has anything to do with morality. I thought republicans were all for reducing taxes?

We only make laws for particular morals anyway like abortion, porn and same sex marriage johnb. :wink:

[hollyL]

but I'd rather have that child, parent, or sibling home from the hospital instead of in a casket being dropped into the ground. And if gettting that vaccination or cure means X number of beagles are used for medical/science experiments sobeit, so long Snoopy.

If you want to give your kid something tested on a dog go right ahead. Personally, I'm not too hip on even eating what my dogs eat and I'm certainly not going to take a drug just cuz it didn't kill my dog.

And on the abuse issue I was making a seperate point not trying to justify one with another.

[Brent]

As I said, my concern is for the children, not the dogs. And no Brent, I'm not buying you a beer.

How about a milk? It would be for my children! :lol: