Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre mandatory spaying and neutering laws an enforceable or practical idea?
Results so far:
| No | 41% | 157 votes | Total: 383 votes | |
| Yes | 59% | 226 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesMandatory Spay/Neuter Laws (MSN) are quickly rising to the front in the current trend of pet limitation laws. MSN is geared towards easing the pet over-population that has millions of animals dying each year. In theory, MSN would work wonders in the fight to end the need for kill-shelters. Theory and reality are two different things though.
The first issue with MSN laws is that they do not address feral cats or stray dogs. They are instead aimed at pet owners who may or may not be responsible about their animals. These laws are usually poorly written with plenty of loopholes. A fee is charged for 'breeding licenses' which many responsible breeders wouldn't be able to afford. Responsible breeders don't make money on the puppies and frequently come out behind their expenses. Puppy millers and backyard breeders would be able and willing to pay that fee though. This results in an influx of low-quality, unhealthy animals. Another loophole is that people who provide notes from their vet's office saying their dog is not medically sound enough to neuter are exempt. Those who show their pets in confirmation would have to produce documentation that they show their animal and potentially pay a fee as well.
Another issue is enforcement. How in the world do the politicians and supporters of these laws plan on making sure they are followed? Most states are not equipped with enough law enforcement agents to enforce laws currently on the books. If those laws were being upheld their would be very little need for new ones like BSL and MSN. It is not feasible that Animal Control is going to go house-to-house asking for paperwork that the animal is altered or medically unfit to be altered. Therefore the law is a waste of ink and paper.
Add to the above the fact that a few of the MSN laws that have passed actually mandate early spay/neuter and another huge issue rears it's ugly head. Early gonadectomy is shown to lead to joint, bone, weight and behavioral issues later on in an animals life. The hormones removed by sterilization ARE needed for proper growth/development. Forcing people to put their animals health at risk to obey a law is horrifying.
And the final issue, perhaps the largest one for many pet owners is the fact that these laws open the door for further violation of our personal freedom. Responsible pet owners will get their animals desexed without a law saying they have to. By law, animals are considered property. By allowing the Government to trample over our rights, as citizens, to own and use property as we see fit we allow them to become more liberal in their systematic removal of our constitutional rights.
In summary, instead of pushing for more laws added to the ones already in place we need to stand up and push for better enforcement of the ones we have. Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws jeopardize our rights, the health of our animals and they are fairly ineffective in general.
VOTE NO TO MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER LAWS!
Learn more about this author, Skathock Motyka.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Would a neutering plan save pets? Absolutely, when enforced. It would also save tax payers money as the problem of overpopulation in shelters goes down.
The Dallas City Council is considering a new ordinance to require mandatory spaying and neutering of pets, limits on how many pets can be kept in a single-family household, and a tightening of the rules affecting dangerous dogs.
Two proposed laws currently read as follows:
- Requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered, except those owned by people with breeder permits issued by the city government. Animals under 4 months old and those exhibiting applicable medical conditions would also be exempt. Breeder permits would cost $500 annually and would subject those in possession to random city inspections.
- Allowing city residents to keep no more than six dogs, cats or a combination in a single-family home. Animal foster or rescue operations could keep more upon obtaining permission from the city's animal services director. People with more than six animals would be grandfathered, meaning they would not have to give up pets they own.
As expected, this has stirred up a torrent of opinions and discussion in the world of breeders, rescuers, shelter workers and pet enthusiast.
But I ask you, what will it take to control the problem of animal over population? In 2007 the Weatherford/Parker County Animal Shelter took in more than 7000 dogs and cats, most of them strays and many of them litters of puppies and kittens. Is it unreasonable to enforce a law that requires pet owners to spay or neuter their pets? Or, is it an intrusion on a pet owner's rights?
In my opinion, something must be done to end this insanity and cut down on the lost and abandoned animals. I would like to see tighter regulations enforced on breeders so the responsible American Kennel Club breeders are encouraged to continue, the Puppy Mills put out of business and the naive back yard breeders are forced to discontinue letting their dogs breed each year.
I also challenge anyone who disagrees to come spend a week volunteering at the city animal shelter to see what comes in and doesn't go out, and most of all, walk the kennels and look the dogs and cats in their eyes when it's time to pick who has to be euthanized because there's no room to take in any more animals that day. You will soon realize that the enemy is not the city shelter. The enemies are irresponsible breeders and the average pet owner who refuses to get their pet spayed or neutered resulting in more cats and dogs that can be handled in one county. The dogs and cats are the innocent victims.
We absolutely need a municipal animal shelter where the public can bring in animals that are loose, stray or otherwise, and it is city money well spent, but wouldn't it be nice if we were able to adopt out more every month than are euthanized?
Yes, this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Having been involved in our local shelter for a few years now I know first hand that we cannot adopt out animals fast enough to end this tragedy. The only way to end the senseless killing of surplus pets is by implementing enforceable mandatory spay/neuter laws. The passing of these kinds of ordinances will be important to both animals and taxpayers, and if it passes in Dallas, hopefully the other cities in DFW and Parker County will soon follow suit.
Learn more about this author, Denise Cook.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Animal Rights & Issues
- Should Congress call hearings to investigate the horse racing industry?
- Should circuses be banned for their treatment of animals?
- Should the American Kennel Club perpetuate breedism?
- Is it right to clone animals?
- Is ear cropping inhumane?
- Does the International Whaling Commission care more about the whalers or whale conservation?
