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 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…

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.

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.

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 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.

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.