Terri, then I guess you're part of the problem.
How to create a no-kill community is well-understood. A blueprint of how to do it is at [link] - a blueprint that specifically warns against coercive or punitive laws as counter-productive, and that tells how to save animals.
Good intentions don't save animals. Proven solutions can. The solutions in the link I've provided are how San Francisco did it.
Those proven solutions are NOTHING like HEART, which is a badly written, poorly conceived ordinance apparently written and supported by people who have not bothered to research or understand the subject of why animals lose their homes and how to save them when they do.
HEART makes dog parks illegal, as animal cruelty
HEART makes flexi-leads, even in a park or off the sidewalks, illegal as animal cruelty
HEART makes normal-sized crates illegal as animal cruelty - the crate you put your puppy in, to housebreak it, is required to be the same size as a pen that a commercial dog lives in all its life. You cannot housebreak most dogs that way - meaning more animals will lose their homes.
HEART requires that your dog have water every single second of every single day. Take up the bowl to refill it, without putting another down first, and you're guilty of animal cruelty.
There are literally dozens of other problems with the law. It's beyond ghastly.
This is a stupid, badly written, and ill-conceived law. Criminalizing pet ownership does not help animals find more homes. HEART is arguably the worst-written and most poorly researched animal law I have ever seen. It is an embarassment to Albuquerque.
The efforts to recall HEART and Sally Mayer are efforts to put the results for the animals over ideology.
They are not "economically and culturally motivated", and many folks who support these efforts have far more practical experience helping animals than either Mayer of some of her well-meaining, but ill-informed, supporters.
You can't legislate humanity. You can work for a more humane community. Criminalizing dog ownership is not a way to work for a more humane community.
Look at the proven ways to get to no kill communities, and you see an emphasis on outreach to the community.
What about the places that have actually achieved no kill?
You'll see involvement of the larger community, not attempts to villify it.
You'll see shelter hours shifting to when people can actually visit - nights and weekends.
You'll see adoption events in the community.
You'll see help with behavioral issues that cause folks to relinquish pets, with hot lines and training classes available to the community.
You'll see public relations to make people WANT a shelter pet.
You'll see foster programs to hold onto pets long enough to get them rehomed.
You'll see ways to present shelter pets as desirable that are enthusiastically supported by the entire community - regular folks, businesses, shelter workers, and the ethical breeder community.
The problem is not "overpopulation."
That is an excuse and a cop out, and its time is gone. We will not let you off the hook that easy. We will not let you sell the animals short with HEART. They deserve better.
There are enough homes for the pets we have, now, today. It takes time and outreach to match those pets up with suitable homes.
Making every minor offense a case of animal cruelty does not reach out to the community. Vilifying the larger community does not reach out into the community. You can be an agent of change, but HEART has it wrong on almost every count. Read "Building a No Kill Community" at [link]
Then read some more of the articles at [link]
IMHO, no one who understands the issues can support HEART.
Go on to read about how San Francisco did it. That can and should be replicated here. But first HEART has to go.
Don't just "do something." Do the right thing.
HEART is a badly misguided piece of work - presumably well-intentioned, but you know what the road to hell is paved with.
The problem appears to be Mayer's unwillingness to question her assumptions, or to dig deeply into the subject she's legislating. HEART is an emotional piece of legislation, not a logical one.
Show dog breeders, who opposed the bill, are not "in it for the money", nor is their opposition to the bill a sign that it's hitting their pocketbooks. These are people who gladly spend five and six figures a year on a hobby - a very expensive and time-consunign hobby - and she's surprised they'll fight to keep it?
Most localities specifically exempt "reputable hobby breeders" from many regulations - because those folks typically belong to clubs with codes of ethics that include lifetime responsibility for the lives they create (they can and will take back 12 year old dogs - I've seen it), requiring s/n of pet puppies placed, and significant followup and support of puppy buyers.
They do not contribute materially to the problem, and they are a big part of the solution. If you're going to get a purebred, and you choose not to get one from a rescue, this is the sort of breeder that you should get a dog from.
Why buy puppies when there are dogs in the shelter? Because people do have a preference as to what kind of dog they have, and some folks want to get a dog as a puppy. Purebred dogs in shelters are overwhelmingly from commercial breeders, overseas importers, and irresponsible backyard breeders. Most of those do not live in the city - many don't live in the state or the country. HEART doesn't address that issue.
Do you want folks getting their purebred dogs from local ethical people who will take them back, or from overseas importers who could care less?
People who spend hundreds of dollars for a purebred pup, when a mix is virtually free, are expressing a strong preference. Whether you agree with that preference or not, nothing is going to stop them from driving across the city limits to buy a pup.
The idea of a magic barrier that will keep deliberately bred dogs out of Albuquerque is absurd. What it will keep out of Albuquerque are reputable and ethical breeders.
75-80% of the dogs in shelters are mixes - most of which were unplanned and unwanted from the get-go. Those births are not prevented by draconian laws, because the folks who bred them do not consider themselves breeders. The folks who bred them consider those dogs "accidents."
Mixes are 3 times more likely to be relinquished, and only half as likely to be adopted. That pushes them from 75% of the shelter dogs to 87.5% to 90% of the euthanasias (excluding pit bulls, who have a higher euth rate.) Mixes do not have the benefit of breed-specific rescue groups.
So, does Sally target the accidental litters? The oopses that are around 87.5-90% of the dog euthanasias, and around 98% of the cat euthanasias?
No, instead she targets the "wrong thinking" people who are breeding dogs and taking lifetime responsibility for them, and the wrong thinking folks who have a breed preference in a pet.
They don't agree with her, and she doesn't understand their viewpoint, so they must be evil.
If a community focuses on providing low-cost s/n, you don't need to make it mandatory, and you don't need to take away the rights of the good guys.
There are grants. There are proven programs. None of those were in HEART.
Want to see how to create a no-kill community the right way? Read [link] In fact, the folks who have accomplished no-kill communities actually warn AGAINST confrontational and restrictive laws as counter-productive.
Sally Mayer did not do her homework. And the rest of us, including the animals, have to live with the consequences. She could have done it the right way - but that wouldn't "demonize" her "enemies."