AB 1634 Backtrack on Bogus Statistics?

(CA Healthy Pets Coalition - published July 3, 2007)

Much of the fight over AB 1634, which would require universal spay and neuter of most pets, has been who has the most honest statistics. One contentious issue among both camps is the success, or lack of success, of the Santa Cruz County spay neuter ordinance that much of AB 1634 is based on.

Supporters point to statistics showing a dramatic decrease in the number of animals going to shelters in Santa Cruz County since the new law took effect as a sign of the ordinance’s success. Not so, say groups opposed to the bill, including PetPAC and the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA). These groups have released a flood of graphs, charts and press releases stating that the Santa Cruz ordinance has in fact resulted in a drastic increase in shelter costs, and stagnant intake numbers that do not show an appreciable decline.

But in a new twist, it now appears that the statistics being distributed by the groups opposed to the bill are actually not figures for Santa Cruz alone. The numbers used have joined the statistics for Santa Cruz , which has the ordinance, and Watsonville , which did not have an ordinance during the time period in question. The resulting numbers, which include both communities, do show an increase in costs and an unimpressive, slight decrease in shelter intake. But, when the statistics are broken out by community, Santa Cruz does show the dramatic decrease in shelter population touted by the bill's supporters, while Watsonville does not.

"It's disingenuous, ill informed and shoddy. I hope that these groups will have the decency to retract their incorrect data" said Judie Mancuso, Campaign Director for the AB 1634 campaign. "They’ve been spreading misinformation about the bill, and now it's coming back to bite them."

Indeed, several Sacramento insiders are interested in what this potentially embarrassing information means for groups opposed to the bill. "You can't just come out and say 'We've been misleading you' to Legislators, no one wants to do that. But you also can't just sit back once something like this is revealed and act like it hasn't happened. In this particular case, I would think that a brief retraction, without any fanfare, would be the smartest move" said a consultant familiar with the bill, who declined to be named because of a relationship with one of the groups.

Retractions of data are not uncommon in political campaigns, but typically they are most successful, and uneventful, if the data is of a benign nature. In this case, the incorrect data has been used for weeks in high level materials distributed by PetPAC and NAIA, and has been one of the cornerstones of their opposition to the bill. "They really are in a bind" said the consultant, "I wouldn't want to be in their shoes on this one. They went overboard with the data before making sure they were using correct numbers."

The flap over the statistics is just one of several controversies surrounding the bill, which has generated more public comment than any other legislation this year. The bill is to be heard next in the Senate Local Government Committee on July 11.

For more information, please visit www.cahealthypets.com.