Spay/Neuter laws

corgipower

border_mutts

There's simply no enforceable way to force irresponsible owners to spay and neuter their pets (too bad... I wish there were)

how exactly would spaying/neutering make someone a responsible owner? keeping the dog on the property, keeping the dog under leash or verbal control, keeping the dog from barking 24-7, taking the dog to obedience classes, getting routine vet care, feeding adequate diets, making fresh water available, grooming as needed. these make an owner responsible. whether the dog is altered or intact doesn't. why should i put my dog through major surgery at the whims of the legislators?

 Okay, maybe I need to clarify... when I said "irresponsible" owners I certainly wasn't talking about the kind you're describing; I meant the uneducated/apathetic ones who don't get their dogs fixed because it's "too expensive" or they just don't care, and then let their pets roam around and get pregnant, or do backyard breeding (for irresponsible reasons like money, etc.).  Unfortunately there's no way to force them to spay/neuter their pets. (aside from trying to educate them and/or making low-cost spay/neuter readily available, as others have mentioned)  If you read the rest of my post, I was saying that mandatory spay/neuter laws are unfair and illogical, for the exact reasons you describe here.

janetmichel3009

lol.. i just wanted to say, i miss the "do not feed the troll" emotion..

Sure, the OP is probably a troll but I think it's a good discussion to have so well-meaning people don't fall into the 'mandatory spay/neuter sounds good, should reduce the animals being pts in shelters" trap, it's a much more complex issue than that.  It actually increases the number of animals being pts.  People don't want to deal and just turn them into the shelters, which are already busting at the seams, and have to then 'make more room'.  I believe California saw some of that, as have other places where these laws have been put into effect or been in danger of being put into effect. 

While I feel it's a crying shame that so many animals are needlessly euthanized, I do not want to see mandatory spay/neuter laws.  I feel it would make matters worse and be a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money. 

I can't stand the BYBs and am against breeding animals as a sole source of income.  Having said that, there are plenty of responsible breeders in the country who take proper care of their animals, and pups, and do NOT want a "feel good" law preventing them from breeding.  If this is what it comes to, these breeders will have to apply for many permits and I guarantee the fees for their pups will increase drastically.

While this may sound like a good law to impose, be careful what you wish for.  Once the government gets involved, it may take decades to reverse such a law or allow it to expire.  Too much government control = communism! 

Again it seems to me that very low cost or free spay and neutering might have an actual effect on the number of animals being neglected and put to sleep.  It's unfortunate, but I do know people who would think $40 is too much to spend, who don't want puppies but will take their chances with an unaltered pet, and be "careful."  So the effort behind the laws, if that was put into really reducing the cost of spaying to be as low as possible, I think that could actually prevent the beginning of unwanted animals.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/09/MNGG8QCJ941.DTL

Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz
Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-09) 04:00 PDT Scotts Valley -- There are fewer dogs on death row inside the Santa Cruz County animal shelter these days, a dozen years after the county became one of the first in California to mandate that pet owners fix their Fidos.

This seaside hamlet of wave riders and organic-food lovers is being touted as a model in contentious debates in Sacramento over a bill to require that most California dogs and cats be spayed or neutered.

"There was a time when we would euthanize for space -- we'd pick five or six animals that had to be killed to make room for incoming strays," said Tricia Geisreiter, the county's animal services coordinator.

Before 1995, the shelter warehoused 14,000 animals a year. Today, it takes in about 5,500. Euthanasia has dropped from 30 percent to 17 percent of sheltered dogs and from 60 to 50 percent of sheltered cats.

Lake, Los Angeles and Stanislaus counties followed Santa Cruz's lead, as did the cities of Sacramento and San Bernardino.

In Santa Cruz today, more of the sheltered animals get adopted because they can stay longer in their cages. They can stay longer because there's more room -- spaying and neutering laws have resulted in fewer unwanted litters and fewer strays roaming the beaches and streets, officials say.

(more article if you click the link)

You care deeply about the welfare of dogs... not only those that belong to you, but those that are homeless.

You have seen and understand the statistics of shelter euthanisia - it saddens you, and moves you to action.

You know that a healthy dog is an altered dog; it is in the best interest of most pet owners to have their dogs spayed/neutered.

You understand that reasonable fees are associated with keeping unaltered dogs, and you willingly pay these reasonable fees as a part of your choice to have unaltered dogs as a hobby, for performance or show.

If you do choose to breed, you do so knowingly and with proper licensing to ensure health and a good future for all dogs.

Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz
Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-09) 04:00 PDT Scotts Valley -- There are fewer dogs on death row inside the Santa Cruz County animal shelter these days, a dozen years after the county became one of the first in California to mandate that pet owners fix their Fidos.

Sorry Hounder, that article sounds editorialized. It's poor journalism. And I wouldn't look for facts in one article written by someone with an agenda like that. Try citing better facts if you want to change people's minds.