California Considers Mandatory Spay and Neuter Legislation
I found this in the April, 2009 Veterinary Practice News.
Spay/Neuter Bill Returns
California state senator Dean Florez, D-Shafter, reintroduced legislation that requires pet owners to have their cats and dogs sterilized. The bill requires that dogs be spayed or neutered unless the owner gets an unaltered dog license. Roaming cats would have to be spayed or neutered.
Julie Mancuso, founder of Social Compassion in Legislation said the bill would cut euthanasia ratios and save taxpayer dollars.
Bill Hemby of PetPAC, a group that helped defeat a similar bill last year said the legislation arrives during financially tough times for the state, making enforcement a challenge.
Share this entry with your pawple anywhere:
You have questions. 
Dang…not again. Not everyone who does not alter their dogs is going to breed…some people have read some sources that claim that altering may not be the best decision, and while I don’t know enough about the sources of that info to believe it, I can’t judge someone for not wanting to do something that they think may be bad for their pet.
Let people make their own decisions about their pets, I say. This is nation is a republic, not a tyranny.
And to those who just shrug and say “well, it works”…really? I’ve read some articles on how it could make pet overpopulation worse rather than better. Even if it does work, does the end really justify the means? Is it worth violating the Constitution, thus making it even more possible for our freedoms to get taken away, to help quell pet overpopulation? And if all pets were to be spayed/neutered, there wouldn’t be any left because they can’t breed. Which is exactly what PETA and the HSUS want.
okay….there are no vertifiable sources which I have heard that say spaying/neutirng is a bad thing. The whole opposite. Its wonderfull. It has many benefits , and I have yet to hear the first disadvantage. There are TONS of un wanted animals , strays , ferals , etc and if this legeslation was passed it would be wonderfull. It might mean a little extra work for breeders , but if it helps reduce strays , why not? And if you really think altering all the animals in california (and that is impossible anyway) is going to doom the animal population of the world , you are sadly mistaken. Anyways , the breeding animals would continue to breed , they would just have to get a permit. This bill just helps prevent unwanted litters and heartbreak. That way the only animals who could breed would be ones that are kept in adequate conditions and managed by knowledgable people who did the right exams and only breed the best animals. I am sorry but your arguments make no sense at all. And how is altering your pet , for his or her benefit ,taking your freedom away ,exactly?
There are technically some sources that suggest that spaying can cause more health problems than it prevents. I’m not sure what to believe though. I believe in spaying and neutering, but I think that people should be allowed to make their own dang choice on the matter. I have seen VALID arguments on both sides.
If people are FORCED to alter their pet without a breeding license, that means that the government is capable on taking our freedoms away. The bill violates the Constitution. If they can override the Constitution on this, then think what else they can do.
Plus, having to have a license to breed hinders rather than helps the truly reputable breeders. The BYBs are able to be licensed, but the reputable breeders have to spend a lot on their dog’s health testing, they may not have the money for a dang license. They might want to reserve the money needed to get the license to cover any complications that may come up with their dog’s litter.
You can think that my ideas make no sense if you want to, but they make perfect sense to me. Just respect my opinion as my opinion.
although i can relate to cookie’s instinct against compelling pet owners to act responsibly (it would be much better if they just chose to do so voluntarily), i have to agree with michis that such a law would prevent a great deal of animal suffering with no comparable downside. as for the claim that that such a law would be unconstitutional, i would have to ask what provision of the Constitution, exactly, would be violated by this law? whether one’s take on the Constitution is based in traditional or more modern interpretations, the regulation of domestic pets seems hardly off-limits in terms of legitimate government reach.
I wouldn’t call violating section 4 and 5 of the Bill of Rights just to get an license to have an intact dog “no comparable downside”.
But, if you want to believe that forcing people to comply rather than encouraging them to make an informed decision (AKA, educating them on both sides), eh, that’s your perogative.=/
Not to mention that the bill cannot be enforced to the full extent, and will not stop law-breakers. They will still breed, whether purposely or because of oops litters. All the bill does is stop law-abiding citizens from making their own choice.
Read the the SB 250 website, and view the videos and posters.
$250 million dollars is spent on housing and euthanizing dogs and cats at California Animal Shelters. 500,000 plus dogs and cats are euthanized every year.
Volunteer and free spay and neuter do not work. BYB and irresponsible people will not spay & neuter their pets. This will help animal control to go after repeat offenders and BYB to slow down the cycle.
We love dogs and cats, and we need to STOP the vicious cycle
of killing 1/2 million abandoned dogs and cats due to over-pet populations and not enough homes.
Personally, I believe this will bring nothing but good. There were dozens of stray-cat litters EVERY YEAR in the apartment complex where I grew up, and it was so sad to know that likely none of them would find loving homes. I’ve always spayed or neutered my pets, unless they were breeding animals (which only one was, and after the first litter he was neutered, too). This helped with so many issues we faced: behavioral/aggression problems, territory marking, and of course, the unwanted litters. Spaying or neutering is the responsible thing to do, and I believe it truly is the humane thing to do, as well.
The way to stop is through education. Get the info into the masses, make it common knowledge. Won’t be a cure-all, but then neither will forcing people to alter their pets.
Regarding the assertion that the law would violate “section 4 and 5 of the Bill of Rights”: if this is a reference to the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, I can’t really see how a state law about pet neutering could possibly violate two amendments that limit the federal gov’t’s powers with regard to unreasonable search and seizure, or even due process of law etc.
The real question here is whether one believes, as a matter of public policy, that people should have the option to act irresponsibly with regard to their pets, regardless of the potential suffering that might be caused to animals as a result (see Karma and Paula’s posts for just a few examples). Just as I don’t believe that the government is overreaching by having laws against cruelty to animals (even within the privacy of one’s home), I wouldn’t object to a spaying/neutering regulation where it provides substantial results against a persistent and serious problem.
Believe whatever you like, but I’ve read that in every case where spay/neuter ordinances have passed that the number of dogs in shelters increase rather than decrease. I’d like to ask you NOT to put words in my mouth. I never said that people should be allowed to be irresponsible, I made it very clear that I think they should be allowed to make an educated choice. This means, educate people. And let them make their own dang choice based on that.
I can see where you’d need to have laws against animal cruelty, but not spaying is hardly cruelty, especially if people are well informed as to how to prevent accidental litters even with an intact dog. It won’t stop bad people or people who don’t care from making an impact, but again, neither would an ordinance. There is no way that they could enforce it to the extent that would be needed, and it would only keep law-abiding responsible breeders from their job of keeping the breed healthy. Not to mention keeping law-abiding citizens from making their own educated (on both sides of the spay/neuter argument) choice.
And if you are comfortable with a government that seems to want to want us to think that we need them just to make a choice, good for you. Because I’m most certainly not. If there were any countries that had many freedoms left, I’d love to check out of here. I hate the direction this country has gone in within the last several years.
Its an outrage — hey look how well its working in L.A. lets inflict on the rest of the state.
First of all why should responsible breeders be forced to get permits? Responsible breeders are not the problem the people who are the problem are the ones who are not going to comply with a law.
Secondly, — and thirdly! its a gross violation of rights, extremely intrusive and not at all guaranteed to bring down shelter numbers.
I’d love to see a study that proved that mandatory spay and neuter programs led to a direct decline in shelter deaths.
I don’t live in the states so this does not apply to me. However, I do think that if they put this law in effect they would need the man power to enforce it (which is quite unreasonable unless you expect to start licencing all cats and dogs) and they would need to offer the service for free as not everyone can afford the cost.
I think that they should first start with offering to spay/neuter free and then see what happens.
I have a friend who kept on “claiming” that she had no money to spay her cat and had many unwanted kittens who kept getting the mom pergers again and again. Her issue was more a missappropriation of funds and not a lack however if it was offered by out state / city / province / country ( don’t really care which) for free this sad situation would never have arisen.
There are many homless or individuals under the poverty line who may chose to not have a pet because they believe in this and would not have a pet without them being altered but can not afford to do so. It would be highly advantageous for them to own a pet and if this matter was all that was stoping them then it should be wiser to legislate a free service than legislate a manditory cost.
Just my two cents from Chicago, where they are starting the push for mandatory spay neuter under the guise of the “Pet Overpopulation and Safety Ordinance”.
I have discussed this issue in the Pet Connection forum mentioning the fact that all the people for this legislation just keep bringing it back until the general public stops caring about it so they can pass it. I’ve written a couple of articles on this at dancingdogblog and the particulars in our State.
All the veterinary associations are against this, which goes against their self-interest, because it cites an arbitrary date when spay/neuter has to be accomplished. Different breeds grow at different rates, and premature spay/neuter results in later diabetes, bone cancer, and other illnesses. Since only 20% of the public abides by the licensing laws, leash laws, poop pick up laws, well, you get the picture, the targeted audience will not be reached. Bites stats will not recede. Hey, Denver has managed to kill around 1700 pit bulls and they still don’t see a correlation in the bite stats… Shelter intakes do rise, open intake shelter kill rates did go up in the 13 cities that tried this, a rabies outbreak occured where veterinarians had to report what clients were not following the spay/neuter law, so vet visits plummeted and public health was endangered where this was instituted. Santa Cruz I believe was the only city reporting “great successes” and they were caught fudging the stats by an independent review panel. Costs incurred by cities ran from $8-18million tax dollars.
So if the 20% of the population that follows the current pet laws will follow this one, what about the other 80% who ignore the law? How does that reduce shelter numbers??
Lots of laws get titled with phrases that create knee-jerk approval reaction by the majority. Let’s not forget “the clean air act” “no child left behind”, et. al. Most of us don’t check out the finer points or read the results from source material where whatever program has been put to real time testing. Unintended consequences can turn the best laid plans upside-down. By the way I am and have been for decades very much in favor of spay/neuter.
Thanks for listening.
Once again a law that will not stop the offenders. Responsible people are not causing the problem yet the law will affect them the most! I believe that people should make their own choice on their own pet. I wish more would choose to spay/neuter but really am against more “big brother type’ laws. I have had two male goldens in my life. One I never did neuter as he was so mellow. The other I neutered as soon as he was about 9 months with good growth. Nither bred more puppies as I was responsible. I liked being able to decide what was best for MY dog.
I don’t see how pointing out that people won’t abide by a law can possibly be an argument for not having the law in the first place. The posted speed limit on a road I travel is 55. That is a law. Obey the speed limit. Most people ignore it and go faster. So we shoud just not have a law regarding speed on our highway because most people choose to ignore it? I think a spay/neuter law would be a good thing given the proper chance. As far as breeders are concerned, I don’t understand the problem. If you are a decent breeder than your animal gets regular checkups, has up to date shots, etc. So where exactly is the added “health care costs”? Isn’t it just things you were doing to begin with? Same with just the average pet owner. If you care about your animal, you make sure it is taken care of. In my area there are shot clinics and spay/neuter clinics where you can have everything done at cost. I pay $5 for vaccinations and $22 for spay/neutering surgery. I pay more than that in a month for cat and dog food, so how is that not affordable? Our rights aren’t affected in this either. If they were taking away our right to OWN a pet that would be different. We have the right to own a gun, but the government regulates who they think is responsible to own one. Is this against our freedoms? That isn’t even the case with our pets. Everyone can still own one, altered or not. There are just other steps we have to take if we wish to have an unaltered pet. So far I haven’t read anything that says what type of process this will be, so we are left to speculate at what kinds of hoops we will be put through to have an animal. In fact, it could be as simple as signing a paper at a routine vet check. They offer the license, you sign, and voila! You now have permission to have an unaltered pet. I am more concerned with having less dead animals. Less population=less strays=less euthanizations.
A lot of good and valid arguments here but those of you who are all about violtaing individual (Constitutional) rights?
How many of you have fed starving & homless animals, seen them deliberately run down in the street, or have had an abandoned cat show up on your door with a kitten in her mouth? (She and the kitten both had mange so bad that they had to be euthanized.)
I know that there is a segment of population that feels our rights are more important than those of the animals. Maybe you’re right. There are those that think laws are a waste of time because of enforcement and manpower issues but can we really just sit back and “trust people to do the right thing”?
Frankly, I would love a law that required potential pet owners to take a class on responsible pet-ownership before any puppy, kitten, rabbit, bird, reptile or fish was sold to or adopted by any individual. We know that’s not going to happen.
Okay, so let’s make it more expensive to keep that pet in a breedable state if that’s what you choose. That works for me. If they can handle the fighting, yowlig and spraying that comes from un-neutered male cats – okay. If they enjoy the aggression from that male dog, so be it. Let’s just make them pay for that “freedom” with a conditonal license.
Anyway, this seems a simpler method of dealing with people and the critters who depend on them for food, health, shelter, etc. Sure it may seem intrusive but there are vets who volunteer time for low cost spay, neuter and vaccination clinics as a way to help keep the population of unwanted animals down.
Seeing a starving animal on the city streets disturbs me just as much as seeing the homeless people with children in line at the soup kitchen. (Yep, those people who have had to give Fido to the shelter because they lost their job and then their home…)
It just plain hurts my heart…
People being forced to neuter pure bred dogs is not going to solve the population problem and will probably result in more pure breeds becoming very rare or even extinct…..
Yes there are pure bred dogs at shelters and yes there is a population problem especially with cats, but the problem is with irresponsible pet owners who allow their animals to wander…these people are the least likely to follow a mandatory neutering law If they can’t even obey the leash laws….
My theory is to only mandate neutering on pets that are found wandering their neighborhoods without supervision by their owners. These are the ones who will have/cause the “oops” pregnancies.
I fear that mandatory sterilizing laws will only serve to turn loving and sensitive pet owners who choose not to sterilize pets for whatever reason into a whole new class of outlaws. The militant spay and neuter people who are probably almost all pro-choice for human mothers, see nothing wrong with eliminating the right of pet owners to choose weather or not to spay and neuter their dog and cat children. For most pet owners the pet becomes like a child to them, and receives all the loving concern that human children receive. People will disclaim ownership of pets if a fine is involved for not sterilizing them and they are found wandering. If vets are mandatory reporters of unsterilized pets, people who choose not to sterilize pets will not take them in for treatment or necessary shots. I believe the result will be more homeless pets and less healthy pets. We need to leave the government out of more of our fundamental choices and not less of them.