Mandatory Sterilization
Here’s an interesting story concerning the new mandatory sterilization ordinance in Los Angeles, CA.
When the Los Angeles City Council approved the measure in February, the hope was that pet sterilization would stem the tide of unwanted and stray animals flowing into shelters. According to the Humane Society of the United States, 3 million to 4 million animals are euthanized in shelters nationwide each year.
The new ordinance, which goes into effect in less than a week, orders all dogs and cats 4 months and older be sterilized.
The ordinance would exclude those dogs and cats that have special skills or are being trained for special activities. Also exempt, are show dogs and those trying to join the show circuit. Lastly, are those that have medical excuses. Hmm….as in, “No don’t cut those off, I may need them at a later date.”
Since spaying or neutering can be expensive the city has put into place a number of low cost options.
There are a number of reduced-cost options for sterilizing your animal. The city’s shelters and many of their private rescue partners offer vouchers — to everyone — worth $30 toward the cost of a sterilization procedure performed by participating veterinarians. Senior citizens, the disabled and low-income residents quality for a certificate for a free procedure at certain veterinary hospitals or a mobile clinic.
Interestingly, City Controller Laura Chick, released a report stating that “L.A. Animal Services was ill-prepared to implement or enforce the new law.”
She contends that animal control officers already have difficulty enforcing the other ordinances in place. While I realize it may be hard to enforce every ordinance, such as the leash law, it doesn’t mean an important issue such as this should be swept under the carpet.
It seems to me, the city controller is more concerned about the bottom line than the fact that millions of innocent animals are being euthanized each year. By putting an ordinance like this into place the number of suffering and abandoned animals will be substantially cut down.
There are already major costs involved to catch, temporarily take care of, and euthanize these abandoned animals. I would think that, in the long run, the enforcement of this ordinance would be cost-effective for the city.
Do you think that it should be mandatory for all pet owners to sterilize their pets, unless they fall under one of the exemptions ? Or, do you think the this is something the government should stay out of ?
Wow. This is interesting legislation. I’d have to mull this one over some.
Personally I’m all for neutering/spaying pets that don’t have a really solid reason to remain “intact”. Even though my three dogs are exceptional hunting dogs from solid hunting lines we decided to have all three spayed because 1) we knew we didn’t have the time to devote to puppy care 2) they are our pets and we didn’t want to risk losing them to complications in whelping or other breeding related health threats. (we have friends who almost lost their dog delivering pups and knew of a breeder who lost his top bitch to a nasty mastitis infection) 3) to reduce the risk of breast cancer that increases every time the female comes into heat.
On the flip side, spaying and neutering are not totally without risk. I have a friend who breeds dobermans. She took two of her females in to be spayed, not knowing that they had a genetic health risk. One died shortly after surgery and the other was in intensive care but thankfully survived.
With legislation like this it’s possible some pets may die as a result of the procedure. That’s scary. My heart would go out to those owners. But a mandatory law if enforced probably would make a definite impact on the number of unwanted litters etc brought to shelters. There are too many irresponsible pet owners out there that are contributing to this unwanted pet problem because they don’t diligently contain or monitor their pets that aren’t neutered or spayed. It breaks my heart to consider the staggering number of animals… many healthy, young and adoptable that are put to death because there is no home for them. Something has to change…so maybe a drastic measure like this has to exist….because owners have had the opportunity to be responsible and have failed.
I think the exemptions should be closely monitored or have their case reviewed periodically to see if they are indeed pursuing a show career with the animal, are still working on the animals skills and showing document results or if they are keeping the animal intact for breeding purposes, prove that they are operating a legitimate, responsible breeding program….and aren’t just a hobby breeders or a backyard breeders or worse a puppy mill.
I think it is a good law, and even think it should apply to some breeders as well. Because there are so many good even great mixed dogs who need homes. That if breeders were also limited to breeding and litters it would give some of the wonderful rescues to get good homes. And would reflex on the money business as well. Because you cannot tell me that sme breeders of show dogs are not just doing it to make money which alot of them are already wealthy. and most rescue and abondoned dogs have so much love to give and deserve to be loved. I also think if an ordinance is going to enforced it is the steralization of dogs and cats. More than any other in a community.
FINALLY SOMEBODY IS LISTENING!!!!!!THANK YOU CITY OF LOS ANGELES, MAY THE WORD SPREAD TO ALL CALIFORNIA AND ALL 50 STATES. THEY ALSO SHOULD HAVE A LICENSE AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR THE BREEDERS TO AVOID THE AWFULL PUPY MILLS!!!!!
I am 100% against manditory spuetering. I think that it should be the owner’s choice.
Yes, I support speutering and I think that all dogs and cats should be speutered unless they are truly breeding quality and belong to responsible breeders. And of course show dogs and such.
So, do I like this? N-O. I will be sure to never even visit Los Angeles.
Oh, BTW in response to the above comment, GOOD breeders never breed any more than 2 litters a year and often skip years.
To add to what I said, I hope that this does not spread and yes I even hope that it goes away completely.
If, however, it does spread to all 50 states, I wouldn’t even want to be an American citizen anymore and would seriously think of moving to another country.
This bills ignores the rights given to us in the Constitution. That’s been happening a lot lately actually, but this is going too far.
P.P.S.
There are many bad breeders in the show dog world. However, good breeders do not ever breed for money.
So how would I feel if a legislation on bad breeders was passed? Mixed emotions. I’m passionate about this because one day I hope to be a reputable breeder. On one paw, it’s be much easier for good breeders to keep the breeds healthy. On the other paw, wouldn’t that also being taking away rights just as much as mandatory speutering? So, I’m torn on that one.
I agree with Cookie. Especially when someone tells me it’s mandatory… makes me rear that stubborn head of mine and say I don’t think so. I think more dogs and cats should be fixed but not you must do this or else.
Of course I am coming at it from the angle of a responsible owner and not Joe Schmo down the street who tosses a couple dogs in the back yard “for the kids” and ends up with bunches.
Of course it should not be mandatory.
For one thing, it is unproven that these laws decrease the number of pets going into shelters. Absolutely unproven.
It villifies responsible owners and breeders. If lawmakers are concerned with the welfare of animals there should be low-cost spay and neuter programs available and they should turn their legislative focus to the issue of puppy mills and pet stores.
Community based support and outreach is the answer not broad and ill-thought legislation.
I believe there are many more reasons listed at petconnection.com/blog…and more articulately.
I highly support mandatory sterilization. There are way too many unwanted dogs in this world. I volunteer at a shelter and a breed specific rescue and it is heartbreaking to see a wonderful, young adult big dog get put down due to lack of space. At least 75% of our stray dogs that come in are not fixed (they are prior to adoption).
Backyard breeding is a huge problem and needs to be addressed. People put together whatever they think will make them a profit and the poor animals suffer. Unneutered males are more aggressive and prone to wander, so this law could minimize bites.
Until each stray dog and cat has a warm bed to sleep in laws like this are needed. Over 4 million dogs in the US last year were euthanized. Please spay and neuter your pet even if you are not in LA.
If you visit a shelter or volunteer for one you would understand, those who breed only for the money dont have a heart…..
Ang, I volunteered at a shelter last year, and one of my dogs came from a shelter. I understand, but I still don’t agree.
P.S.
Personally, I would definitely speuter any pets of mine that weren’t breeding quality or show dogs, and I think that IDEALLY everyone would do the same, but everyone does not feel that way - yes, even people who believe in pet overpopulation.
I agree with the law, and although I can’t remember offhand where I read this, I did read that in areas where aggressive spay/neuter and education programs were initiated there was a definite reduction in homeless animals.
OH! I just remembered, it’s in this month’s Bark magazine… let me see what it says and I’ll quote it here…
OK — got it! There is a NY City vet, Dr. Andrew J. Kaplan, who is putting together a program to increase education and spay/neuter programs in his city, and he is certain his plan will work because it is based on New Hampshire’s STOP program which has reduced the area’s shelter population by 65%! You should read the entire article to get the full gist of what the program covers — which is basically spay/neuter and education that is directed at low-income people (the biggest offenders).
Of course, this is an educational program that encourages spay/neuter rather than a mandatory law, but I think the effect on the numbers of animals entering shelters would be very similar (maybe even better?).
If you want to read the article, it is in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of The Bark.
Anyway, I think a law that helps reduce the heartbreakingly huge number of animals that are being euthanized is a very good thing. I know people get up in arms over their rights, but I think they should be gracious about it and sacrifice their “right” to create even more dogs when there are already so many that the “extras” are being killed. Also, to be honest, I don’t see where anyone can think they have the “right” to breed dogs in the first place. I think such a thing should be a privilege, not a right, and that this law would turn things in that direction. Not such a bad thing in my opinion. Maybe some breeders will lose their “rights”, but it’s the dogs that will win, and I’m all in favor of that.
WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THE DOGS NOT ABOUT OURSELVES, THEIR FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE A GOOD LIFE NOT BECAUSE SOME IRRESPONSIBLE PERSON DECIDED NOT TO FIX THE DOG ITS OK BECAUSE HE WILL BE EUTHANIZED IN THE SHELTER. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE…..or is it that every dog that goes in gets adopted???
I’m all for education programs, but mandatory speutering is too extreme, even for a big-hearted animal lover like me.
Ang, I am not thinking of myself, I am thinking of the people. I care very much for dogs. Dogs are a huge chunk of my life that I feel like I just could not live without. I care about them too, and I do all in my power to oppose irresponsible breeding. I even made a website to educate people about all that’s involved in responsible breeding. Heck, I wear myself out mentally trying to educate people.
According to a knowledgeable friend of mine, all we need to do to get most dogs out of shelters is bump up the adoption rate, we don’t need mandatory speutering. My concern is, if we required all dogs to be speutered, and only reputable breeders could breed, then we might have pet underpopulation on our hands. Not many people are cut out to be good breeders.
I’m also concerned about PETA’s mission to get rid of domestic animals. They actually support speutering to kill out domesticated animals.
Some quotes from PETA:
“The cat, like the dog, must disappear by neutering until our pathetic version…ceases to exist. Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles—from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.”
- Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, PETA, 1982
“We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
- Wayne Pacelle (HSUS President), Animal People News
“I despise ‘animal welfare.’ That’s like saying, ‘Let’s beat the slaves three times a week instead of five times a week’.”
- Gary Yourofsky, PeTA’s national lecturer
“Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe.”
— PeTA’s Domestic Animal Issues & Abuse Department director Daphna Nachminovitch, in The Virginian-Pilot
I don’t want to get them started. They could turn the mandatory law into where all pets no matter what have to speutered.
I am all for it. Something has to be done about this problem. I live in L.A. and I am very happy this ordinance is taking place.
I think that in problem areas where there is such an absolutly staggering number of homeless pets, that this is a wonderful idea. But i also think it should be coupled with education programs like what were mentioned in NY.
Cookie, you mentioned that you were worried that this would cause an under-population of dogs. I don’t think that will ever happen. Because no law is 100% enforceable, there will always be people who have illigitamate batches of puppies. For example, i live very near a reservation that is full of low-income residents, there are TONS of puppies and dogs that come from that single area alone, and i have a really hard time believing that a law like that would help anyway.
Even so, i think that it is a very good idea, at least it would make a dent in the population.
It probably wouldn’t, but I’m still deeply concerned about PETA.
*prays that mandatory speutering stays away from Georgia*
ugh… we have to do “something” about “overpopulation”. Even if that “something” doesn’t actually work, is unenforceable, is divisive and is unfair. Even though no one knows what “overpopulation” is. Great thinking.
Every study so far has shown that mandatory s/n INCREASES the number of pets abandoned to shelters. Which INCREASES the number of pets killed.
How about we focus on reducing the factors that cause pet abandonment, make it easier to adopt out animals and stop targetting certain breeds and correctable behavior/health issues for death?
How about everyone read Winograd and start thinking about the REAL ways to bring a community together around reducing the number of pets killed in shelters.
It’s completely irrelevant how many pets exist in the world (”overpopulation”???) What does matter is how many we KILL, and how to reduce that number.
Also, I know a few people who don’t spay/neuter. Not because of laziness or even because they don’t care about their pet, but they seem to have informed choices. I don’t quite agree with them, but I partly agree with them and respect their position. I know some very avid animal lovers who are against neutering. I know of a reputable breeder and at least two Dogster members. These people should be forced to spay/neuter their pet? I don’t think so. They want only what they think is best for their pet.