The city of Riverside, California (not to be confused with the county of Riverside which passed a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for so-called “pit bulls” earlier this month), is to consider a mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) ordinance for so-called “pit bulls” on Tuesday, October 22, 2013, at their 6:30 p.m. meeting at city hall. (See the agenda here.)

If passed, Riverside’s ordinance would specifically include,

“Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Stafford Terriers and mixes in which those breeds can be easily identified. It would include exceptions for registered breeders, dogs with health issues that prevent sterilization and law enforcement dogs.”  

What is an “American Stafford Terrier” because I don’t believe such a breed exists.   But then, neither does that non-existent “breed” “pit bull.”   Nor are mixes of those breeds “easily identified.”   Just ask Denver.   They think Boxers are “pit bulls.”  

Yet Riverside, which already has an existing mandatory spay/neuter ordinance that is not enforced or enforceable, maintains that this additional MSN geared specifically towards “pit bull” owners, will suddenly start being heeded:

It really is a mix of protecting people and other pets and protecting the animals themselves. Its not banning the breed, said Councilman Mike Gardner, who asked that the pit bull rule be brought to the council.

Oh, so, because it’s not a ban, Riverside “pit bull” owners shouldn’t contest it.   That kind of logic, or lack thereof, is  reminiscent of those idiots who say that we shouldn’t mind it when the government blatantly violates our 4th amendment rights to privacy via things like warrantless wiretapping and illegal, Nazi-style checkpoints because, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.”   Yeah, brill.

But no 4th amendment, Nazi-style, privacy violations are planned, at this time, if Riverside passes a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance:

Riverside County Animal Services spokesman John Welsh said officials wont be climbing peoples fences to examine their dogs, but they already can cite owners of any breed if the animal is unlicensed.

So, sleep tight Riverside, knowing that your own city government won’t be unconstitutionally trespassing on your private property to see if you’re a scofflaw . . . at least for now.   But it is interesting that Mr. Welsh is basically admitting that the existing mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in Riverside isn’t actively being enforced, and the breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance they’re considering passing also won’t actively be enforced.  

While I of course don’t condone Animal Control trespassing on people’s property to check for things like licensure compliance, or in this case, compliance to a mandatory spay/neuter law, I also don’t condone passing frivolous legislation that the city outright acknowledges it has no intention of actively enforcing.   Indeed, what’s the point of passing either the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance or the breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance if there is no intent to enforce it?  

Still, Riverside County Animal Services maintains that,

. . . a disproportionate number of pit bulls end up in shelters and must be euthanized. They make up 20 percent of shelter dogs and 30 percent of euthanasia cases.

And how will that change with a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance as opposed to just a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance?   The MSN law already isn’t being enforced or abided by.   And if it were being enforced and abided by, those shelter intakes and kill rates would just shoot up, so again, what’s the point of this additional breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law?  

And you know how you know a bureaucrat is lying, I mean, besides the fact that their lips are moving?   They contradict themselves:

Its actually not a hard law to enforce, [Riverside County Animal Services spokesman John Welsh] said. There is no underground anymore. Were canvassing neighborhoods left and right.

So, the current mandatory spay/neuter ordinance isn’t being abided by such that Riverside claims it needs to pass additional legislation in the form of a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, yet Mr. Welsh says MSN laws aren’t hard to enforce?   That’s his first contradiction.   (And Mr. Welsh maintains that there is no underground anymore???   Tell that to the evil dog fighters who keep their dogs chained up in their basements!)

Mr. Welsh further maintains that Animal Services isn’t climbing people’s fences to enforce the current MSN law, meaning Animal Services isn’t intrusive with their enforcement, but they do “canvass” neighborhoods.   “Canvass” meaning: “to examine carefully by close inspection or scrutiny or to investigate by inquiry.”   How does one examine something carefully or closely inspect something without gaining access to the object of investigation, meaning, in this case, a dog?  

Is Riverside going door-to-door asking if people’s dogs are altered?   Or does Animal Services go around stopping people walking their dogs to inspect their genitalia?   Yes, how do they “canvass,” or examine carefully or investigate, without inspecting dogs?   Or if by “canvass” Mr. Welsh simply means to go door-to-door to ask if people’s pets are altered, then I seriously doubt Animal Services can claim effective enforcement, which means Mr. Welsh seems to have contradicted himself again.  

Mr. Welsh seems to be saying several different things and in so doing, contradicting himself.   One thing that’s clear, when politicians or bureaucrats start contradicting themselves it’s usually because they’re lying, they’re covering something up, or both.   In this case, how do we know that Riverside’s current mandatory spay/neuter law isn’t working?   Because they’re saying that the MSN ordinance is working while endeavoring to pass even more.    

 

[google-map-v3 width=”350″ height=”350″ zoom=”7″ maptype=”roadmap” mapalign=”center” directionhint=”false” language=”default” poweredby=”false” maptypecontrol=”true” pancontrol=”true” zoomcontrol=”true” scalecontrol=”true” streetviewcontrol=”true” scrollwheelcontrol=”false” draggable=”true” tiltfourtyfive=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkerlist=”Riverside, California{}4-default.png{}The City of Riverside, California to Consider Additional Mandatory Spay/Neuter Requirements, This Time for Pit Bulls” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]