Jon
06-26-2007, 12:51 PM
A story in Monday's paper about Assembly Bill 1634, the healthy pets act, caused quire a stir among some readers and not for the reasons I might have thought.
The bill, which would require pet owners to spay or neuter their animals at 4 months or face fees, was the subject of a public forum by state Sen. Joe Simitian Saturday.
Our correspondent Rachael Warecki referenced the fact that some representatives from the Palo Alto Humane Society had some reservations about the proposed law since it does not provide resources for free or low-cost spay/neuter services.
However, she only wrote that the "humane society" unofficially was against it not that representatives from the Palo Alto Humane Society had some reservations.
Well, that caused a furor among those in favor of the bill since the U.S. Humane Society is listed as a supporter.
Some called us biased and a "shame" to our profession. We clarified the item on-line and ran a clarification.
But the lesson here, I suppose, is to make sure we are specific as possible in our writing. We are local and assume that our references to local entities will be understood by all, but that clearly is not the case.
And I know now not to tick off animal advocates.
The bill, which would require pet owners to spay or neuter their animals at 4 months or face fees, was the subject of a public forum by state Sen. Joe Simitian Saturday.
Our correspondent Rachael Warecki referenced the fact that some representatives from the Palo Alto Humane Society had some reservations about the proposed law since it does not provide resources for free or low-cost spay/neuter services.
However, she only wrote that the "humane society" unofficially was against it not that representatives from the Palo Alto Humane Society had some reservations.
Well, that caused a furor among those in favor of the bill since the U.S. Humane Society is listed as a supporter.
Some called us biased and a "shame" to our profession. We clarified the item on-line and ran a clarification.
But the lesson here, I suppose, is to make sure we are specific as possible in our writing. We are local and assume that our references to local entities will be understood by all, but that clearly is not the case.
And I know now not to tick off animal advocates.