by Denise Cook

Created on: May 04, 2008

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.