Before the majority of the Pasadena City Council (Madison, Gordo, Masuda, McAustin, Bogaard) plows forward on a mandatory spay and neuter law for all dogs and cats, they should look at the miniscule amounts of money that the Pasadena Humane Society are spending (or not spending) on “spay and neuter programs” and “education” up to this point. Because they routinely end up with a budget that is more than $10 million per year and carry assets that amount to over $26 million. For example, in 2011 their 990 shows that they only spent $50,307 on spay and neuter programs and another $3,829 on educational programs.

Uh oh. Well gee, if you’d attended any of the City Council meetings and listened to PHS representatives Steve McNall or Elizabeth Campo speak then you would have came away with the assumption that they are doing everything that they possibly can to lower shelter killing, provide affordable and accessible sterilization surgeries, and educate the public. Unfortunately, the realities go pretty much against that narrative and thus against what the City Council are being told and/or led to believe… Those figures amounted to spending less than 0.006% of their yearly $10 million on spay and neuter and 0.0003% on education.

In 2011 President Steve McNall alone made almost 3x ($152,336) what the PHS spent on sterilization efforts for that entire year. That’s more than 39x what they spent on educational outreach! Another point, the “revenue” that is being brought in by spending those allocated amounts on spay/neuter and education is routinely TRIPLE what they put into the programs… So they are making money by voluntarily spaying and neutering, and by doing the little amount of educating that they are doing. Why wouldn’t they be doing it more, and allocating more efforts and funds into those directions? Their return from 2012 shows much of the same proportionally.

Now I’m not suggesting here that McNall should take a pay cut, or anyone else, but rather that they should be putting far more money into accessible sterilization efforts as well as educational efforts. That’s not too much to ask. Especially when they are so quick to trot out the multiple sob stories about how much they are already doing, the lack of funding that they may run into when asked to do more, and the overwhelming need for this law in order to curb alleged overpopulation. What need? The Council was not talking about this law. They shot this same piece of legislation down less than a year ago. This is only now being reinserted as to allow Councilman Steve Madison an opportunity to save face, after his desire to scapegoat all Pit Bulls was resoundingly rebuffed by the community. Councilwoman Margaret McAustin, as told to me by an attendee at the last meeting, stated privately that she “just wants something” to be done. Nice. So whether it’s BSL or BSL-MSN or MSN, what’s clear is that most on this Council have no desire to simply hold individual owners accountable for the actions of their individual dogs.