Los Angeles Enacts Mandatory Spay and Neuter Law
The April 1, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) reports on a law that will take effect this month in Los Angeles. An excerpt from the article is below.
This April in Los Angeles, one of the nation’s strictest pet sterilization laws takes effect, mandating that most of the city’s pet owners have their cat or dog spayed or neutered by the time the animal is four months old. Certain animals, such as service dogs and those belonging to registered breeders, are exempted from the law.
Supporters of the law hope that it will reduce the number of unwanted cats and dogs that are euthanized each year in the city. The JAVMA article states that in 2007 8,960 cats and 6,049 dogs were euthanized because homes could not be found for them.
However, not everyone supports the law.
Pedigree groups such as the American Kennel Club and the Cat Fanciers’ Association are opposed to mandatory spay and neuter laws, saying dog and cat overpopulation is a complex problem that goes beyond reproductive status to multiple aspects of owner irresponsibility. The Los Angeles ordinance will be difficult to enforce and evaded by owners who don’t licence their pets with the city.
Ah, controversy. Personally, I am ambivalent about this law. From a population standpoint, it makes perfect sense. It breaks my heart to think of 15,000 unwanted pets being euthanized each year in Los Angeles. The law likely will bring that number down.
But I do not treat populations. I treat individuals. The jury is still out on whether four months of age is the best time to sterilize a pet, as I mentioned in a previous post. So, although the law may be the best thing for Los Angeles’ cats and dogs in general, there are some individuals for whom the law may be less than ideal.
You have questions. 
I hate mandatory speuter laws. Not only because it violates our rights given us in the Constitution, but also because I don’t believe that it would actually work.
I support that AKC on this one.
I fully support this law because I volunteer and walk the halls of countless LA and OC area shelters every week to rescue as many dogs as I can.
No one has the right to breed their dog, and until we have more dogs altered and less puppies born, the overpopulation crises will never be solved. Even if this gets just a few more dogs altered rather than more puppies born, that is a few more homes for a few more shelter dogs
How sad it makes me to see apparent dog lovers so against spaying and neutering. Dogster has become a hot bed for people claiming spaying and neutering does more harm than good.
How many thousands upon thousands of dogs have been altered, at all different ages, and maybe 1% of them have a problem because of being altered, whether at age 4 weeks, one year, or 4 years.
I am very grateful for my veterinarian, who supports my rescue efforts, spays and neuters at the SAFEST age, which for most dogs, is as early as possible, and who does not rely on internet rumors and deceitful arrogant papers written by an anti-MSN veterinarian/breeder that has made its way around the entire internet countless times.
If you think breeding your dogs is a “right”, I seriously hope all of your dogs are altered because the blame for overpopulation lies on your shoulders alone.
I am against the law myself. What I dislike most is that 4 months is such an early age for it to be mandatory. It seems that the lawmakers don’t care about the good pet owners enough to come up with a law that makes sense.
I neither breed animals or allow mine outside. I just want to have the ability to choose an age that makes sense to me to have my pets altered.
“Good” pet owners have their dogs altered before it is too late.
I do not support this law, let alone spaying/neutering a dog at only 4 months of age. I am a responsible dog owner and I do not let my dog run loose on the streets. I don’t think this law is going to solve the overpopulation problem because most of the irresponsible dog owners who let their dogs mate and have puppies are going to keep doing it.
Might I suggest there is a caveat for this law: if you are a REGISTERED breeder you get a license, which has to be reapplied for every year after authorities check the breeder is regarding health and owner issues. Why do laws have to be so “all or nothing”?
I am for neutering, basically, but don’t approve of all this hysteria, which seems to be peculiar to the US, maybe its just us in the UK are a bit more sensible, pragmatic and thoughtful..?
YES, IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BREED FOR MONEY SHOULDN’T BREED, BUT RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE WHO BREED FOR THE LOVE OF THE BREED (EG, TO KEEP THEM HEALTHY AND PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE BREED) SHOULD BREED AND SHOULD NOT BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and I have never seen anyone on Dogster say that you shouldn’t spay your dog.
Pick any shelter and look up the euthanasia rate. Then, go visit the shelter and look at the dogs and cats. You are looking at death row. Take a good long look at all of the attractive, adoptable dogs and cats. Be glad that you are not responsible for working at that shelter, inserting the needle into dog and cat forearms FOR NO REASON other than overpopulation. Now tell me that you don’t support spay/neuter laws. You might quarrel with the veterinary wisdom of one age versus another. But you can’t quarrel with the fact that most innocent shelter animals are killed for the crime of homelessness due to overbreeding, can you? No. It’s too overwhelming. The death rate is overwhelming. GOOD FOR YOU, LOS ANGELES. I’m behind you all the way. Signed, a frequent shelter volunteer in the Midwest. Eyes wide open!
This is a totally silly law. like most “control” laws, the only people this really effects are those who are ALREADY responsible pet owners, who register thier pets, get them annual vaccinations, etc.
Those owners are generally smart enough to follow good advice on spaying and neutering without laws.
BAD pet owners, and those pets who are unowned are the problem, and no law will change that.
Like gun control laws, enforcement of immigration, “help america Vote Act” and every other “over reaching” “knee-jerk” law made because the public is outraged at a particular circumstance – these laws are generally poorly thought out, and have primary effect only on those citizens who already follow laws. And we all know that bad owners of pets generally do not follow existing laws.
Instead of making laws “bad owners” won’t follow, how bout putting good money to education and to providing cheep/free services for spaying and neutering.
The comments from people on this blog make it very clear to me that a mandatory spay and neuter law is necessary.
If any of you can read, there is already an exception in the law for registered breeders. So, if you are a dog breeder, and register, and follow the laws on that front, your dogs don’t have to be spayed or neutered.
The MAJORITY of animals owned by people in this city, however, are NOT pedigreed and are not owned by breeders; rather, they are owned by pet owners, and pretty much all evidence points to the fact that neutered animals make better pets. If you are a pet lover or pet owner, and have no interest in having accidental puppies or kittens on your doorstep, or have no interest in owning a bitch in heat or an aggressive male of either species, then getting your pets fixed at an early age is a NO BRAINER. Four months old, six months old, whatever!
To me, it’s just SAD that the government has to legislate such basic decisions. They wouldn’t HAVE to if the average pet owner was smart enough to do it on their own.
With so many unwanted domestic cats and dogs being put down every year, the only humane thing is mandatory spaying and neutering.
Those people who are against the law, I challenge you to go to any local animal shelter on any given day and look those unwanted animals in the eye, knowing they are to be killed, and STILL say you are against this law.
Oh, and to Cookie from Tennessee, there is no right in the Constitution which allows people to neglect and overbreed animals. Regulating that behavior falls squarely within the rights of States to legislate.
This is a highly contentious discussion for such devout animal enthusiasts as we all are.
I do agree with Dana’s post (3:22 am). Unfortunately, breeding dogs/cats provides profitability for a subset of our communities, coupled with abjecy irresponsible pet guardians who just don’t have it together to take care of their own – let alone pets!
I, do, however STRONGLY disagree with statements indicating increased aggressivity relative to intact male dogs. Although mine are desexed, I come into contact with many intact males and they are NOT aggressive. With that said, I agree whole-heartedly with Dana’s appropriate assessment re: those in kill shelters due to nonspaying or neutering.
I volunteer with a breed-specific rescue group – and I can’t tell you how many dogs we welcome into foster and eventually rehome due to this lack of responsibility. Should it be mandated – that I’m not with 100%. Are we only to allow the AKC accredited breeders to reproduce our beloved family members??? This group of profiteers has adulterated breeds beyond recognition (take a look at the bull dog during the 1800’s, look at the osteosarcoma rate in German Shephards, pug faces and respitory disorders)
The AKC has distorted canine lines since its inception! They’ve bred a bull dog with a CLEFT PALLATE and watered down its original size and musculature. Golden Retrievers are beginning to look auburn (trendy), osteosarcoma are highly prevalent in German Shephards and Greyhounds – This is what I’d like to have the government look into. Our animal family members are being mutated to what the AKC considers highly sought VISUAL traits – unfortunately many obstructive and potentially fatal attributes are also furthered!! Absolutely reprehensible – and they call themselves animal enthusiasts?
Is it just me??
Dana:
I’m not sure how a law like this will change anything. 1) many owners of pets don’t care to bother with rabies, what makes you think they would bother with spaying? 2) who pays for spaying for owners who cannot legitimately pay on their own, or must they just give up loved pets.
Also, many people want kittens and puppies, not grown animals. this may not be your choice, but it doesn’t make it a WRONG choice. There simply are not enough kittens and puppies to “go around” as it is. anything stating otherwise, is misrepresenting the truth. I would much rather get a kitten from a neighbor’s cat, then from a kitten or puppy mill where the animals are horridly mistreated. yet this is how most people who go to pet stores, get thier kittens. The go to pet stores, where kittens cost 20 bucks, instead of shelters where they go for 150 to 200 bucks.
Owing a pet is not the right of the privileged or the educated. owning a pet is not the right only of those who agree with you about how to care for animals. There are religions that say you should not mutilate an animal. There are people who legitimately (and we cannot prove them wrong) feel it is sad that a pet not have a chance to be a mother. These kinds of laws attempt to take a admittedly bad situation, and just adds laws that cannot be managed, and are morally questionable since they make certain assumptions that are not universal.
While it is correct about the irresponsible people who will not get their pets rabies/vaccinations let alone sterilized, but there are low cost and free vouchers for people who cannot afford it. Owning a pet costs money and if you can’t afford the basic health care than how does one afford to feed it. Also it does not cost $150 + to adopt a cat or dog, through LA Animal Control it it $32-$37-not bad for a sterilized pet with current vaccinations and there are plenty of puppies, kittens, and even purebreds too, while adopting an adult has its advantages ie potty trained, obedient trained, not teething anymore… I do not believe only priviledge or educated people have the right to own a pet, i do believe every pet owner must do the responsible thing and help stop the overpopulation, overbreeding and thousands of euthanized animals. The laws are there to help an out of control situation. It may not be perfect, but it has to start somewhere.
i fullly support this law and whoever doesont fix thier animals are clearly not true animal lovers.f u people who breed u carzy mo-fos
Living down under I have been reading your discussion about the passing of this law with interest as it seems to be provoking some very intense debate.
In an ideal world this law would not need to be passed as we would all be responsible dog owners, however this is not an ideal world and it never will be.
As a breeder of pedigree fully registered dogs I would like to point out a few things from a breeders point of view. I do not breed my dogs to make a profit – infact usually I don’t. The last litter I bred cost me and the litter before that actually made me the grand sum of $125.00 profit which was a shock at the time. The first litter I’ve ever bred that made money!
I get very disheartened when the puppies I carefully and lovingly breed are offered for sale against unregistered animals who’s back yard breeders have never subjected their breeding stock to any of the expensive tests and health checks my breeding stock undergo that should be mandatory before even thinking of breeding any animal. Or, registered breeders who just do it for the money. I currently know of a bitch that had her second litter just before she had her second birthday. She hadn’t made it in the showring so she was retired and bred from…… AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH.
They are advertised on the net, in pet shops etc…… at a comparable, sometimes far dearer price than the puppies I breed. They come with no guarantees of temperament in particular, no breeder followup, no support networks, no vetting of the homes they are going to. Yet people still buy them and come unstuck. I had a workmate the other day who was distressed because they bought one of their dogs from a petshop and had to have her put down just before she turned 3 yrs old because she had hip dysplasia so badly she couldn’t walk and was in chronic pain.
While I am the first to agree that people deserve to have their freedom to choose what they should and shouldn’t do, and that such legislation penalises responsible dog owners rather than the irresponsible (we have some pretty useless knee-jerking dog laws in our country) I support this legislation in theory.
No one has the right to breed a dog without first sitting down and considering whether the animal they are going to breed is going to be the best example of that breed that it possibly can be against the breed standard, healthwise, temperamentwise and whether there is a loving home for it to go to.
It may seem harsh to some, but sometimes legislation has to be passed to protect the weak, the innocent and those unable to defend themselves – newborn puppies.
No one has the right to breed a dog without first sitting down and considering whether the animal they are going to breed is going to be the best example of that breed that it possibly can be against the breed standard, healthwise, temperamentwise and whether there is a loving home for it to go to.
===
There is an arrogance to breeders that really annoys me. The last sentence of this quote is a wonderful and important sentence. but the idea that a cat or dog i choose to breed or allow to have children must be some “perfect animal” based on someone else’s standards is simply elitism. I have had the single best cat, who was intelligent, friendly, and a delight to be with for 16 years. Had I been able, i’d have let her have a litter of kittens, taking at least one myself. she was maine coon, but probably not a pure breed, and with 7 toes, no longer qualifies as “show quality”. But she was teh single best cat I’ve had in my 40 years.
Why should I not be able to make an informed decision about whether or not her kittens are as good as some breeder who will charge 1000 bucks for the kittens? Why does she have to conform to somone’s “breed standards” to be a cat worth sharing with the world?
I live in Orange County and I am so fed up with
the indifference of our politicians which are all Republicans. We are stuck with one county shelter, built during World War II. The Board of Supervisors, all Republican, have been promising a new shelter for 10 years. A vet that previously worked at the County shelter, said the killing is horrific. The county has no provision for spay neuter vouchers for anyone. I am definitely for a mandatory spay and neuter law. If your pet is spayed or neutered, you won’t be affected by such a law. A lot of people who say they are responsible pet owners, are actually not. The old Republican statement “I don’t want the govt telling me what to do” should not be applied to every single thing. We are talking about lives, not property. Most supporters of the Mandatory Spay Neuter Bill in state congress are animal welfare people who have first hand knowledge of the tragedy that exists in our animal shelters. Most of the opponents are clubs and breeders that make money off of animals. I am glad the L.A. politicians are progressive thinkers and not like Orange County. When it comes to animals, our politicians are still living in the 50s.
I say that anyone who is not a breeder, and who really cares about there pets, should spay and nueter their pets, not because of the law, because they love their pets.<3
Punitive laws only result in decreased compliance, decreased license revenues, and increased shelter intakes and killing. This has been the case in every area which has enacted similar laws to the LA ordinance.
We are already seeing shelter intakes and killing rise dramatically in the wake of this new legislation. Check the city website to see for yourself. 20% increase in intakes, and 28% increase in killings over this past year. The first increase in the last 15 years!! The ultimate in counterproductive activity!!
http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats_dept.htm
For information on REAL SOLUTIONS to shelter deaths, visit http://www.nathanwinograd.com
“there is no right in the Constitution which allows people to neglect and overbreed animals.”
Sorry it took so long to get back on this one.
I am saying that people should be allowed to make their own informed choice on whether they should spay/neuter their dog, not that they have the right to overbreed and neglect it. Please do not put words in my mouth.
I am a responsible owner of a mutt who wandered into my life in a rural part of Hawaii. The mandatory spay/neuter law in Los Angeles (where I now live with my dog) deprives my of my constitutional right to decide whether to spay or neuter my dog. It lacks sufficient criteria for conscientious objectors who think that unnecessary surgery is inhumane. There is a lack of consensus in the medical world as to whether spaying or neutering an animal has ANY benefit beyond forced sterility. Loss of testicles disrupts the animal’s natural hormonal balance and can result in lower self esteem in male dogs. Basically, it should be my responsibility to decide whether to spay or neuter, and while the State may encourage me to do so, it should not coerce this action through mandatory laws. Should I ever allow my dog to breed, it will be in a responsible manner, the consequences of which would be my full responsibility. If my dog goes through life without breeding, it will also have been due to my responsible decisions. Stop this nanny state nonsense. There’s no evidence that this mandatory law will reduce the number of irresponsible pet owners or shelter drop-offs. Stray animals will continue to be treated the same by animal control, regardless of this law. This law is unfair, and in my opinion, unconstitutional.