Pound Seizure

I am writing in response to the commentary on pound seizure ("Should Pound Animals Be Used For Research?" July 1). What is the matter with our San Diego Board of Supervisors? In regard to the issue of pound seizure, they have taken every means at their disposal to side-step the issue. They have repeatedly refused to place this item on their agenda for public debate. And now at least one supervisor, John MacDonald, wants to defer this issue to a referendum. On the other hand, the elected leaders in North County know how to represent their constituents.

Two men are in custody after police officials found about 22 pounds of cocaine, with a street value of about $1 million, in a van they were driving on the Golden State Freeway near Six Flags Magic Mountain, authorities said Friday. Arnulfo Romero, 35, and Ramiro De La Mora, 30, both of Salinas, Calif., were arrested at about 11:30 p.m. Wednesday, said Officer Michelle Fink of the California Highway Patrol. They were being held in lieu of $1 million bail.

The decision of our county Board of Supervisors to continue the practice of "pound seizure"--where animals are sold from county shelters for laboratory experimentation--was a crushing disappointment to those of us who attended the hearing. I would like to briefly state some of the reasons why pound seizure should be discontinued: --Having been trained as a "classical" researcher, I can find no legitimate reason for using animals of unknown genetic background and environmental experience in research.

This is regarding the article about the Pasadena Humane Society ("Putting on the Dog," March 15). It is wonderful that this privately owned organization, fueled by donations from compassionate people, has raised a few million dollars to improve conditions for homeless animals that end up there. It is beyond belief that anyone finds it "mind-boggling" or "howls" because animals receive some comfort at what is, more often than not, Death Row. Do street people really dream of that for themselves?

Your article of Aug. 20 "Animal Research Gets a New Friend--the Incurably Ill" on Mr. Simpson's new pressure group for animal "experimentation" relates the suggestion that this group may be "a front for biomedical researchers" and reports that he denies the charge. He claims instead that he wishes to promote cures for diseases in humans and other animals. There is an easy way to test his sincerity. Next month the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will decide whether to cancel their pound seizure contract, by which lost pets are now taken from county animal shelters and given to UC San Diego for lab exercises.

The Trull article missed the entire point of the bill to end pound seizure (prohibiting the use of pound animals in medical research). Shelters were originally designed to protect animals. Sending animals to research, where they undergo painful experiences and spend the rest of their lives in small cages in social isolation is hardly my idea of protection. These are animals that have had good home and loving families and that have trusted humans. Many people, having become aware of this practice of pound seizure, now have lost trust in the shelters and face a major dilemma.

Opponents of pound seizures were greatly disappointed when the county's animal control advisory committee recently voted 5-2 (with the chairman abstaining) to continue San Diego County's contract with UC San Diego for pet sales to the university for laboratory experiments. The committee seemed unable (or unwilling) to grasp the central issue--that opponents to the contract are not attacking or threatening animal research, only the source of these animals--in this case our pets. Instead, the committee members' comments (or rationalizations)

The Times' editorial ("Animal Research," Oct. 20), urging a Yes vote on Proposition C--the relinquishing of lost animals in pounds or shelters to UCSD for research--is a masterpiece of intellectual dishonesty. The pivotal issue is not whether medical research performed on animals "could lead to progress in fighting diseases afflicting both humans and animals." It is about the legitimacy of taking lost or abandoned animals for research from a place of refuge. Why all the fancy rhetoric about medical research on animals?

This is regarding the article about the Pasadena Humane Society ("Putting on the Dog," March 15). It is wonderful that this privately owned organization, fueled by donations from compassionate people, has raised a few million dollars to improve conditions for homeless animals that end up there. It is beyond belief that anyone finds it "mind-boggling" or "howls" because animals receive some comfort at what is, more often than not, Death Row. Do street people really dream of that for themselves?

While generally accurate and fair, The Times' article on the Proposition C aftermath ("Animal Advocates Unbowed by Defeat," Nov. 15) contains an inflammatory quote certain to leave a wrong impression. In the story, a Los Angeles "animal activist" called vivisectors to task, describing them in derogatory terms. The article then connected the quoted woman to the San Diego coalition opposing Proposition C. The woman quoted was not a part of the San Diego County coalition to defeat Proposition C, and was not authorized to speak for that coalition or for San Diego-based Stop Taking Our Pets.

The Times' editorial ("Animal Research," Oct. 20), urging a Yes vote on Proposition C--the relinquishing of lost animals in pounds or shelters to UCSD for research--is a masterpiece of intellectual dishonesty. The pivotal issue is not whether medical research performed on animals "could lead to progress in fighting diseases afflicting both humans and animals." It is about the legitimacy of taking lost or abandoned animals for research from a place of refuge. Why all the fancy rhetoric about medical research on animals?

I am writing in response to the commentary on pound seizure ("Should Pound Animals Be Used For Research?" July 1). What is the matter with our San Diego Board of Supervisors? In regard to the issue of pound seizure, they have taken every means at their disposal to side-step the issue. They have repeatedly refused to place this item on their agenda for public debate. And now at least one supervisor, John MacDonald, wants to defer this issue to a referendum. On the other hand, the elected leaders in North County know how to represent their constituents.

Stepped-up pressure on drug dealers doing business in the Los Angeles metropolitan area resulted in seizure of about 5,000 pounds of cocaine worth an estimated $100 million and, separately, almost $3 million in drug cash about to be laundered, federal and local officials said Monday. A Drug Enforcement Administration official said the weekend cocaine seizure was the second-largest bust in Southern California history.

Opponents of pound seizures were greatly disappointed when the county's animal control advisory committee recently voted 5-2 (with the chairman abstaining) to continue San Diego County's contract with UC San Diego for pet sales to the university for laboratory experiments. The committee seemed unable (or unwilling) to grasp the central issue--that opponents to the contract are not attacking or threatening animal research, only the source of these animals--in this case our pets. Instead, the committee members' comments (or rationalizations)

A routine arrest for drunk driving turned into one of the biggest drug busts in Imperial County history early Monday morning when a California Highway Patrol officer discovered 770 pounds of cocaine--worth an estimated $30 million on the street--concealed inside a pickup truck, CHP Lt. Doug McMurray said. CHP Officer Steve Roberson stopped Jose Vargas Perez, 26, about 7:40 a.m. for weaving in and out of lanes on westbound Interstate 8 near Brock Research Center Road, 20 miles west of Yuma.