From prometheus_horse at yahoo.com Wed Jul 1 14:57:29 2009 From: prometheus_horse at yahoo.com (Prometheus Horse) Date: Wed Jul 1 15:04:19 2009 Subject: [FEL-L] Test Message-ID: <106247.34907.qm@web110704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Haven't received anything from the list in some time. This is a test. Feel free to ignore it. Tim Fuller President, NEOPOA Bringing fire as the light of reason to mortals and morons for better than two decades. Check out http://www.neopoa.com and become a more informed pet owner. Be a snappy dresser and help animals too! - NEOPOA has an online shop at www.cafepress.com/neopoa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.breuckman.com/pipermail/felines-l/attachments/20090701/db10aa8e/attachment.html From catkennel87 at aol.com Wed Jul 1 12:04:33 2009 From: catkennel87 at aol.com (Jean Hatfield) Date: Thu Jul 2 16:51:55 2009 Subject: [FEL-L] jeanhatfield@earthlink.net has a new email address Message-ID: <7731032.582481246467873480.JavaMail.vmail@service6> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.breuckman.com/pipermail/felines-l/attachments/20090701/47bf199b/attachment.html From Jungletouch at comcast.net Tue Jul 14 23:26:07 2009 From: Jungletouch at comcast.net (Jungletouch) Date: Wed Jul 15 08:02:18 2009 Subject: [FEL-L] Please Help Message-ID: <0e2301ca0504$6096bce0$184f154c@gary> http://saveourdogs.net/ OK All, Your help is needed here. The mandatory spay neuter bill has passed Assemply Appro. Committee. If this passes, you know cats will be added in or attacked next. Please fill out the simple form. Link is at the top of this email. Even if your not in Calif, please do it. They meet tomorrow for another vote. As soon as you fill it out, it will automatically be sent to the Assembly Committee. Lets inundate them with faxes opposing this bill. Imagine their surprise when they get to the office in the morning. Assembly Appropriations Committee Action Alert! Groups and individuals need to act NOW to stop SB 250, and save our dogs. Your letters to the Senate and the Assembly B&P Committee do not "count" in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. We need a much bigger response than we have seen to date. SB 250 has squeaked by three times with the bare minimum number of votes. We know that a bigger response can stop this bad bill. SB 250 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on July 15. We need to get letters to committee members before that date to have an impact. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.breuckman.com/pipermail/felines-l/attachments/20090714/be2b3fc8/attachment.html From Jungletouch at comcast.net Tue Jul 14 23:34:24 2009 From: Jungletouch at comcast.net (Jungletouch) Date: Wed Jul 15 08:03:30 2009 Subject: [FEL-L] (no subject) Message-ID: <0e3001ca0505$88928700$184f154c@gary> Here is a copy of the letter that is automatically sent. Gary _____ July 14, 2009 460 Bohemian Hwy Freestone, CA 95472 California State Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: California SB 250 (Florez) -- IN OPPOSITION Dear Assembly Committee on Appropriations Member: I am writing to ask you to oppose SB 250 (Florez), mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats. A law that is very similar to SB 250 and was pushed by SB 250 supporters went into effect in Los Angeles in 2008. This caused the killing in LAAS shelters to increase by 30% in just one year. This is much worse than elsewhere in California. When laws like SB 250 have been implemented at the local level in California and elsewhere, they have led to increased costs, increased animal deaths, and decreased animal licensing income. California should not create a state law out of a policy that has backfired every time it has been tried in order to "do something" about an issue. SB 250 would make the problem much worse. The California Department of Finance opposes SB 250 because it would increase costs to California's state and local governments. Their analysis determined that SB 250 would result in even larger costs for the existing mandated reimbursement resulting from the 1998 Hayden Act, which at more than $20 million per year is already one of the largest reimbursements that the state must pay to local governments. The Department of Finance also anticipated increased costs to local governments beyond this reimbursement, and potential new mandated reimbursements. Supporters of SB 250 point to Santa Cruz County as their "model for the state." Since Santa Cruz County passed a very similar measure, animal control costs have doubled. Santa Cruz County per capita animal control costs are 74% higher than for California as a whole. If this "success" became state law through SB 250, the $249 million that California governments pay each year for animal control would soar to $433 million. Local governments are likely to sue for a new mandated reimbursement with cost increases of this magnitude. Please vote NO vote on SB 250. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary Fulgham -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.breuckman.com/pipermail/felines-l/attachments/20090714/7bbd06d0/attachment.html From cheetah at bigcats.com Wed Jul 15 14:16:50 2009 From: cheetah at bigcats.com (Cheetah@BigCats.com) Date: Wed Jul 15 14:16:58 2009 Subject: [FEL-L] Re: spay/neuter Message-ID: <30b4bce60907151216j7118e004ud0f53a08d85bfa44@mail.gmail.com> Wow I am really surprised that mandatory spay/neuter caused euthanasia to go up. Does anyone have insight on what was going on there? Were people dumping at the pound/hs to avoid having to comply? On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, wrote: > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:34:24 -0700 > From: "Jungletouch" > Subject: [FEL-L] (no subject) > To: "Jungletouch" > Message-ID: <0e3001ca0505$88928700$184f154c@gary> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Here is a copy of the letter that is automatically sent. > > Gary > > > ?_____ > > July 14, 2009 > 460 Bohemian Hwy > Freestone, CA 95472 > > California State Assembly > State Capitol > Sacramento, CA 95814 > > Re: California SB 250 (Florez) -- IN OPPOSITION > > Dear Assembly Committee on Appropriations Member: > > I am writing to ask you to oppose SB 250 (Florez), mandatory spay/neuter for > dogs and cats. A law that is > very similar to SB 250 and was pushed by SB 250 supporters went into effect > in Los Angeles in 2008. This > caused the killing in LAAS shelters to increase by 30% in just one year. > This is much worse than elsewhere > in California. > > When laws like SB 250 have been implemented at the local level in California > and elsewhere, they have led > to increased costs, increased animal deaths, and decreased animal licensing > income. California should not > create a state law out of a policy that has backfired every time it has been > tried in order to "do something" > about an issue. SB 250 would make the problem much worse. > > The California Department of Finance opposes SB 250 because it would > increase costs to California's state > and local governments. Their analysis determined that SB 250 would result in > even larger costs for the > existing mandated reimbursement resulting from the 1998 Hayden Act, which at > more than $20 million per > year is already one of the largest reimbursements that the state must pay to > local governments. The > Department of Finance also anticipated increased costs to local governments > beyond this reimbursement, > and potential new mandated reimbursements. > > Supporters of SB 250 point to Santa Cruz County as their "model for the > state." Since Santa Cruz County > passed a very similar measure, animal control costs have doubled. Santa Cruz > County per capita animal > control costs are 74% higher than for California as a whole. If this > "success" became state law through SB > 250, the $249 million that California governments pay each year for animal > control would soar to $433 million. > Local governments are likely to sue for a new mandated reimbursement with > cost increases of this > magnitude. > > Please vote NO vote on SB 250. Thank you for your consideration. > > Sincerely, > > Gary Fulgham From Jungletouch at comcast.net Wed Jul 15 14:34:08 2009 From: Jungletouch at comcast.net (Jungletouch) Date: Wed Jul 15 18:48:25 2009 Subject: [FEL-L] Re: spay/neuter In-Reply-To: <30b4bce60907151216j7118e004ud0f53a08d85bfa44@mail.gmail.com> References: <30b4bce60907151216j7118e004ud0f53a08d85bfa44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <104301ca0583$39082450$184f154c@gary> The bill hasn't passed. So, it hasn;t gone up yet. The reason it will go up is because people who cannot afford to spay and neuter will be dumpin their animals. This bill will allow anyone to be charged with a misdameanor if caught. Gary 707-501-9649 Jungletouch@comcast.net www.jungletouchexotics.com www.exotic-cats-and-hybrids.com www.coolgraphiclinks.com Contact me about Web Design and Web Hosting -----Original Message----- From: felines-l-bounces@catbox.com [mailto:felines-l-bounces@catbox.com] On Behalf Of Cheetah@BigCats.com Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:17 PM To: felines-l@catbox.com Subject: [FEL-L] Re: spay/neuter Wow I am really surprised that mandatory spay/neuter caused euthanasia to go up. Does anyone have insight on what was going on there? Were people dumping at the pound/hs to avoid having to comply? On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, wrote: > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:34:24 -0700 > From: "Jungletouch" > Subject: [FEL-L] (no subject) > To: "Jungletouch" > Message-ID: <0e3001ca0505$88928700$184f154c@gary> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Here is a copy of the letter that is automatically sent. > > Gary > > > ?_____ > > July 14, 2009 > 460 Bohemian Hwy > Freestone, CA 95472 > > California State Assembly > State Capitol > Sacramento, CA 95814 > > Re: California SB 250 (Florez) -- IN OPPOSITION > > Dear Assembly Committee on Appropriations Member: > > I am writing to ask you to oppose SB 250 (Florez), mandatory > spay/neuter for dogs and cats. A law that is very similar to SB 250 > and was pushed by SB 250 supporters went into effect in Los Angeles in > 2008. This caused the killing in LAAS shelters to increase by 30% in > just one year. > This is much worse than elsewhere > in California. > > When laws like SB 250 have been implemented at the local level in > California and elsewhere, they have led to increased costs, increased > animal deaths, and decreased animal licensing income. California > should not create a state law out of a policy that has backfired every > time it has been tried in order to "do something" > about an issue. SB 250 would make the problem much worse. > > The California Department of Finance opposes SB 250 because it would > increase costs to California's state and local governments. Their > analysis determined that SB 250 would result in even larger costs for > the existing mandated reimbursement resulting from the 1998 Hayden > Act, which at more than $20 million per year is already one of the > largest reimbursements that the state must pay to local governments. > The Department of Finance also anticipated increased costs to local > governments beyond this reimbursement, and potential new mandated > reimbursements. > > Supporters of SB 250 point to Santa Cruz County as their "model for > the state." Since Santa Cruz County passed a very similar measure, > animal control costs have doubled. Santa Cruz County per capita animal > control costs are 74% higher than for California as a whole. If this > "success" became state law through SB 250, the $249 million that > California governments pay each year for animal control would soar to > $433 million. > Local governments are likely to sue for a new mandated reimbursement > with cost increases of this magnitude. > > Please vote NO vote on SB 250. Thank you for your consideration. > > Sincerely, > > Gary Fulgham _______________________________________________ Felines-L mailing list Felines-L@catbox.com http://www.breuckman.com/mailman/listinfo/felines-l From invite+ymar5brn at facebookmail.com Thu Jul 16 02:34:17 2009 From: invite+ymar5brn at facebookmail.com (Gloria Johnson) Date: Thu Jul 16 02:34:28 2009 Subject: [FEL-L] Check out my photos on Facebook Message-ID: <03d2e3e3630e30e3cf8d94e179125898@localhost.localdomain> Hi felines-l@catbox.com, I set up a Facebook profile where I can post my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. Thanks, Gloria To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1463965698&k=Z6E543RZV321UC1ISCV3X4Q&r felines-l@catbox.com was invited to join Facebook by Gloria Johnson. If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click on the link below to unsubscribe. http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=0a28cf&u=1492190990&mid=c8d527G58f1070eG0G8 Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.breuckman.com/pipermail/felines-l/attachments/20090716/04340f87/attachment.html