Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

[Eileen Stein]

This came up obliquely on another thread, and IronHorse suggested there that it might deserve a thread of its own. I think it does. From being involved in opposing AB 1634, the proposed state-wide spay/neuter bill in CA, I've come to realize that the whole issue has more facets than I originally thought. It has been something of an eye-opener for me. (Opposing the CA bill itself was a no-brainer -- it would have allowed high-volume puppymillers to keep their dogs intact and breeding, for example, and would for the most part have prevented the breeding of working stockdogs, and was one of the most badly-written bills I've ever seen. But could there be such a thing as a good mandatory spay/neuter bill? What would it say?)

 

The question I'm posing in this thread is not whether people should spay/neuter their dogs, or whether people should be encouraged to spay/neuter their dogs (although those questions may not be as clear-cut as they at first appear). The question is whether the law should require people to spay/neuter their dogs -- IOW, should be it be a crime to have an intact dog? There are lots of things that are generally good (stopping to help victims of road accidents? community service?) which are not required by law, and there are lots of things that are generally bad (eating junk food? smoking?) which are not criminalized. Some of the reasons for not criminalizing bad things are (1) concern about infringing personal liberty, (2) concern that the costs will outweigh the benefits, and (3) concern about unintended consequences. An example of the third is the fact that some localities which have enacted MSN (mandatory spay/neuter) have later repealed the law when they found a sharp drop in the number of dog licenses purchased and a drop in rabies vaccination, apparently because people chose to keep their dogs under the radar and out of "the system" rather than be compelled to neuter them.

 

So . . . any thoughts? Politely expressed, of course.

[RaisingRiver]

Personally, I'd like less big brother. I think rescues and shelters should continue to only adopt out dogs who are fixed.

 

I'd rather see more education then big brother. I'd rather see more efforts in closing puppy mills and bills that control them then the general populous. I would think that most people who have unfixed pets got them via puppy mills and irresponsible breeders. That's who we need to crack down on. Not Joe Smith who might have a very valid reason not to fix his pet and is a very responsible owner.

[Laurae]

Ditto. And I like the idea that someone (sorry, I forgot who) had to educate children about all aspects of pet overpopulation in high school or junior high. Unplanned pregancies are so easy to avoid if people know what to look for, and litters of puppies are so much more work, expensive, and full of potential heartbreak than many people realize. A little mandatory, structured education in this area might go much further to address the pet overpopulation issue than complex laws that are difficult to enforce and often serve to alienate the dog-owning community from the authorities.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Oh what the heck. My completely personalized, uninformed, opinionated belief is that there are several reasons for the overpopulation of pets. Cheap, lazy owners tops the list, followed by people who may pay a couple hundred bucks for a purebred dog who think it'd be neat to breed lil' pumpkin and make some money, and strays (wherever they may come from). I think a good, well-written mandatory spay/neuter law would include:

 

- an "out" for breeders who can document that they participate in either conformation or sport showmanship activities and breed for those reasons. NOT the puppy millers who do nothing with their purebreeds but sell them for profit. Just because you have a cool specimen of your particular breed doesn't mean it should be bred.

 

- a stiff fine for not sterilizing a pet animal that would help to fund reduced cost S/N clinics and aid shelters, rescues, etc.

 

- an out for animals who have vet documentation of a health problem that precludes S/N.

 

- a required visit to a "kill shelter" for those who violate the law. Possibly a sentence of community service at a shelter.

 

- mandatory S/N of animals caught by ACOs before release to the owner unless owners can produce "out" documentation.

 

There were alot of arguments made about personal liberties and driving behaviors deeper into obscurity when domestic violence laws were initially introduced. Alot of people believed (and still do) that what happens in one's home is their business. I think the cost to the public at large is higher than most would like to believe, for both DV and the uncontrolled pet population.

 

Overall, I don't have much faith in people to do the right thing or to be as vigilant as they need to as I hear too much about accidental breedings and have to listen to idiots who have purebred dogs and intend to breed them. I think too many great adoptable animals languish and die in facilities because nothing is being done to stop this abundance of reckless breeding. Puppy mills should be shut down. Petstores selling "USDA certified" pups and kittens should be boycotted. Unless you can prove a damned good reason for not sterilizing your pet, you should be sanctioned. I feel as strongly about it as I do domestic violence and drunk driving. It's stupid and reckless and if you say you don't intend your dog to breed or become pregnant, you should be sterilizing. Plain and simple.

 

Again, JMHO. I don't care about the studies and links and all that crap, there's enough to support both sides. I do care about innocent animals paying the ultimate price for human ignorance.

[Eileen Stein]

I feel as strongly about it as I do domestic violence and drunk driving.

 

But they're not very similar, are they? The connection between the conduct and a harmful result is much more tenuous in the case of not neutering one's dog. Domestic violence directly hurts an individual -- there is no domestic violence that doesn't produce direct harm. Driving drunk CAN be done without harming anyone if you're lucky, but the odds that it will cause harm are very high, precisely because it removes the drunken person's capacity to avoid harm while engaging in a potentially dangerous activity. OTOH, assuming the harm you want to prevent by requiring spay/neuter is dogs being killed in animal shelters, the connection between the conduct and the harm is much more remote and uncertain. People can keep intact dogs for their whole lives without letting them breed, if they keep their wits about them. Many, many people have done so. And if the dog does happen to breed, it's entirely possible the resulting pups will be placed in good forever homes, with people who would not consider adopting from an animal shelter. In all such cases, NO harm has resulted from keeping the dog intact, yet you would criminalize the owner for doing so. It's like saying you'd outlaw home swimming pools because every year numerous children drown in them. What about the people who are careful to prevent that from happening? Should they lose their right to have a swimming pool because some others are careless?

 

I notice you have no exception for working stockdogs. Was that intentional?

[nancy]

I think a good, well-written mandatory spay/neuter law would include:

 

- an "out" for breeders who can document that they participate in either conformation or sport showmanship activities and breed for those reasons.

 

So you think AKC is the only reason people should breed dogs? Had I to pick an only reason, it would be work. Definitely not show.

 

That's kind of like saying that the only people who should have kids are beauty queens or body builders.

[Brandon M]

I think that maybe breeders should have to obtain a special license to breed dogs. Not something expensive, but something that tests for the breeders intentions in wanting to breed dogs. And that if you dont have the license then you must have your dogs spayed/neutered. And of course there would be rules and regulations as to who could obtain the license. Breeders such as stockdog breeders and some purebred dog breeders should be given the license after demonstrating competence and that they would be a responsible breeder. I think that if you breed dogs it should also be limited to one particular breed to help fight against puppy mills.

 

So I guess I would support a mandatory spay/neuter law under those conditions. But I just thought of that so maybe there are reasons that it wouldn't work that people will point out.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

But they're not very similar, are they? The connection between the conduct and a harmful result is much more tenuous in the case of not neutering one's dog. Domestic violence directly hurts an individual -- there is no domestic violence that doesn't produce direct harm. Driving drunk CAN be done without harming anyone if you're lucky, but the odds that it will cause harm are very high, precisely because it removes the drunken person's capacity to avoid harm while engaging in a potentially dangerous activity. OTOH, assuming the harm you want to prevent by requiring spay/neuter is dogs being killed in animal shelters, the connection between the conduct and the harm is much more remote and uncertain. People can keep intact dogs for their whole lives without letting them breed, if they keep their wits about them. Many, many people have done so. And if the dog does happen to breed, it's entirely possible the resulting pups will be placed in good forever homes, with people who would not consider adopting from an animal shelter. In all such cases, NO harm has resulted from keeping the dog intact, yet you would criminalize the owner for doing so. It's like saying you'd outlaw home swimming pools because every year numerous children drown in them. What about the people who are careful to prevent that from happening? Should they lose their right to have a swimming pool because some others are careless?

 

I notice you have no exception for working stockdogs. Was that intentional?

 

In no particular order:

 

DV and DD are illegal NOT ONLY because of direct harm caused. Trust me, plenty of DV victims don't want anything to do with the system that's there to protect them. It's about public good and the cost of the harm that does occur by the people who cause harm. Unchecked breeding does cause harm, to animals and public infrastructure that must deal with the problem.

 

Yes, people do keep intact animals w/o breding them. I have to ask why? To what end? Lots of people drink and drive and never hurt anyone. Should it be legal? And if a litter results, so they get good homes, great? Those are homes where shelter animals could live or where responsibly bred purebreds could reside. The number of purebred surrenders speaks to how many of those "good homes" don't work out and the new owners don't want to be bothered with returning to the breeder. Perhaps they moved away from the area, they're embarassed, etc.

 

Swimming pool owners pay higher insurance rates than those who don't have them exactly for the risk factor. Same with the higher licensing/fines for keeping an unaltered animal. You're not losing your right to keep an unaltered animal, no one has ever suggested that. It's that it's more expensive because it's inherently riskier. It's called attractive nuisance, like a bitch in heat. Lots of kids drown every year in pools that aren't theirs. They tend to jump fences like horny dogs and itchy bitches.

 

I would have an exception for working stockdogs. My opinion is that in order to qualify a breeder would have to show that they engage in some activity that shows an interest in the "sport" if you will, of dogs. Be that SAR, agility, working, herding, grounding (terriers), etc. in order to weed out the puppy mills. One municipality required proof of entry in at least one show a year, I find that not terribly onerous.

 

And outside of working dog or confirmation homes where the owners are responsible, how many people do you directly know who are representative of the "average owner" who've kept intact animals and never had a litter? For my personal experience, it's the idiots who just have pets who are much more likely (like the person who started the discussion on this topic) to produce an unintentional litter.

 

In the world where I am dictator (hehe) the increased fees for keeping an intact dog or cat would go directly towards low-cost spay neuter clinics where the most good appears to be done. I'd also fund free sterilization for low-income families who probably are well-intentioned but unable to do what's needed.

[Shetlander]

And outside of working dog or confirmation homes where the owners are responsible, how many people do you directly know who are representative of the "average owner" who've kept intact animals and never had a litter? For my personal experience, it's the idiots who just have pets who are much more likely (like the person who started the discussion on this topic) to produce an unintentional litter.

 

Well, as a matter of fact, back in the 70's, my family didn't know any better and our first dog wasn't neutered until he developed testicular cancer in his later years. He never got loose to breed. I had a friend down the street who also didn't know any better back then and their dog also didn't get loose to father unintentional litters, or litters of any kind. We were incredibly ignorant as owners but somehow we managed to keep our dogs home and under control.

[OurBoys]

WoobiesMom,

 

I respect your opinion so I hope you don't mind me asking....In your first post you made a comment about human ignorance and in your 2nd post you used the word idiot but you never mentioned education. How do you feel about a mandatory class on pet responsibilty including a film the kids would have to watch when all animals, not just dogs, have to be euthanized?

[Brandon M]

How do you feel about a mandatory class on pet responsibilty including a film the kids would have to watch when all animals, not just dogs, have to be euthanized?

 

I know you weren't asking me. But that probably wouldn't do much good with most people, but surely with some. When I was in school it was required that all students watched "Red Asphault" in hopes of pursuading young people against drunk driving and speeding. It didn't have much impact.

 

It would be worth a try though.

[OurBoys]

Same here BorderC. I think a lot of people have the mainset that happens to other people, that won't happen to me. When it comes to animals being killed and they have a pet at home, it might sink in better.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

I use the words idiots because of the people that I have encountered who think they are "breeders". I'm not talking about dog enthusiasts who are responsible. And by responsible I mean getting proper vet care and vaccinations, spay/neuter unless there's a legitimate reason not to, provide shelter, don't tie them to a yard to rot, etc etc etc. They are the people who decide to breed because they think it'd be neat to show their kids the miracle of life. We all know who the idiots are, we encounter them and want to throttle them. They tend to act without thinking and generally have a nonchalant, non-permanent view of their animals. If the animals become inconvenient, they're the first to dump them at the local humane society while convincing themselves that "they'll find Fluffy a good home". They let Lil Lulu out in the yard when she's in heat unattended. They know Bruno squeezes under the fence and roams the neighborhood but fix neither Bruno nor the fence. They tend to be idiots regarding their animals in general. They don't get them vaccinated because they "keep them at home". When their animal comes up pregnant, they don't consult a vet to terminate, they decide to go through with the birth and place a "free to good home" ad in the paper and let the offspring and parent die during the birthing process because a vet would be too expensive.

 

No, I don't support showing CHILDREN animals being euthanized. Children are not in control or responsible for their own circumstances, much less those of an animal (oops - edit out adult, insert animal). That's kind of a bizarre suggestion. I'm all for and strongly support public education. In reading up a bit on this topic, it appears that providing low cost or free spay neuter makes a big impact as do incentives. I'm all for that. Bob Barker can't do it alone people. I also like the municipalities and rescues that don't adopt out until the animals have been sterilized as well as those who sterilize an animal that's been picked up roaming before the owner can get it back. None of the ordinances I've read about have suggested outlawing keeping an unaltered animal but rather make it more expensive. People who get their breeding stock OFA certified and DNA tested surely can't complain about a higher licensing fee to contribute to the health of the animals they claim to love. But apparently they do.

[Eileen Stein]

In no particular order:

 

DV and DD are illegal NOT ONLY because of direct harm caused. Trust me, plenty of DV victims don't want anything to do with the system that's there to protect them. It's about public good and the cost of the harm that does occur by the people who cause harm. Unchecked breeding does cause harm, to animals and public infrastructure that must deal with the problem.

 

Of course DV and DD are illegal because of direct harm caused. Whether DV victims want anything to do with the system that's there to protect them or not, they are still being harmed by the DV, and that's why it's a crime. "Unchecked breeding" and keeping an intact dog are two different things. Keeping an intact dog in and of itself causes no harm.

 

Yes, people do keep intact animals w/o breding them. I have to ask why? To what end?

 

Well, they may be persuaded by an analysis of health risks and benefits that neutering their male dog (or even spaying their female) increases its health risks. The data seem to point that way re neutering males, or early spay/neuter. Should the government require you to take an action that you believe is bad for your dog's health, when not doing so in and of itself causes no harm?

 

Lots of people drink and drive and never hurt anyone. Should it be legal?

 

I think I addressed that. The point there is that the person, by virtue of being drunk, is not capable of taking reasonable care to avoid harm. That is not true of the dog owner.

 

And if a litter results, so they get good homes, great? Those are homes where shelter animals could live or where responsibly bred purebreds could reside.

 

Shelter animals cannot live there if those people aren't willing to adopt a dog from a shelter, which some people aren't. As for "responsibly bred purebreds," I really don't see why the offspring of a conformation champion makes a better pet than the offspring of a mutt.

 

The number of purebred surrenders speaks to how many of those "good homes" don't work out and the new owners don't want to be bothered with returning to the breeder. Perhaps they moved away from the area, they're embarassed, etc.

 

Now there's the REAL cause of the dogs dying in shelters, IMO, and MSN doesn't address it.

 

Swimming pool owners pay higher insurance rates than those who don't have them exactly for the risk factor. Same with the higher licensing/fines for keeping an unaltered animal. You're not losing your right to keep an unaltered animal, no one has ever suggested that.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! They ARE suggesting that. You suggested that. This thread isn't about higher licensing fees for keeping an unaltered animal. It's about criminalizing the keeping of an unaltered animal -- MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER. Fines are what you pay when you are convicted of a criminal offense. Plus which, they'll spay/neuter your dog, because it's illegal to keep it intact. (And swimming pool owners do not necessarily pay higher insurance rates.)

 

I would have an exception for working stockdogs. My opinion is that in order to qualify a breeder would have to show that they engage in some activity that shows an interest in the "sport" if you will, of dogs. Be that SAR, agility, working, herding, grounding (terriers), etc. in order to weed out the puppy mills. One municipality required proof of entry in at least one show a year, I find that not terribly onerous.

 

I'm not talking about the "sport of dogs" -- that's AKC talk. I'm talking about working dogs. Dogs who work on a ranch or a farm. Some may go to dog trials (not shows), but most don't. They work for a living. If those dogs cannot reproduce, the harm to the border collie gene pool is huge.

 

And outside of working dog or confirmation homes where the owners are responsible, how many people do you directly know who are representative of the "average owner" who've kept intact animals and never had a litter?

Plenty. Although I do agree that most pet owners choose to spay or neuter.

 

In the world where I am dictator (hehe) the increased fees for keeping an intact dog or cat would go directly towards low-cost spay neuter clinics where the most good appears to be done. I'd also fund free sterilization for low-income families who probably are well-intentioned but unable to do what's needed.

 

That's fine with me, but again, we're not talking about higher license fees that anyone can choose to pay, we're talking about mandatory spay/neuter.

[Eileen Stein]

I use the words idiots because of the people that I have encountered who think they are "breeders".

 

But MSN doesn't target idiots. It applies to non-idiots too.

 

No, I don't support showing CHILDREN animals being euthanized. Children are not in control or responsible for their own circumstances, much less those of an animal (oops - edit out adult, insert animal). That's kind of a bizarre suggestion.

 

Why is it bizarre? A lot of education is aimed at teaching children about things they are not responsible for now, but will be when they grow up.

 

None of the ordinances I've read about have suggested outlawing keeping an unaltered animal but rather make it more expensive.

 

Then we may just be talking at cross-purposes. There ARE ordinances (called mandatory spay/neuter, because they make spaying and neutering mandatory) which outlaw, or would outlaw, the keeping of unaltered animals. I thought that's what you were arguing for.

[OurBoys]

I'm sure when they started showing that film in drivers ed, bizarre wasn't the word some parents used. If there are some parents who don't want their child to watch it, they can write them an excuse. It's JMO, but the only parents I can see doing that are the ones who are already teaching their kids pet responsibility. And believe me, there's already alot worse being shown on TV now. I also understand there are parents who want to protect their kids from reality and to a certain point that's good but animal overpopulation is a reality we all feel needs to be addressed.

 

When a child wants a pet, every parent I know made it on the condition they (child) take care of it. How often do the parents end up taking care of the pet? I can't help but wonder how many of these parents would appreciate some help in this dept.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

You suggested that.

 

Show me where. I never suggested criminalizing keeping an intact animal. In my examples, I provided plenty of exceptions wherein owners could keep an intact animal. And my support of MSN includes support of higher fees for unaltered animals. It's like saying that because your dog doesn't have rabies or you think the risks of vaccination should exempt you from ordinances that require it.

 

There are some poorly worded legislation efforts out there that do not adequately address the responsible breeders, working dogs, etc., that's true. What I support is the requirement that pet owners bear a higher cost if they choose to breed or keep a pet that can.

 

I'm done being the poster girl for MSN. You asked what people's opinions are and what they think good legislation would include. I support it and have stated why. Plain and simple. We each have what I believe to be good reasons on both sides of the issue and agree to disagree.

[Brandon M]

I want to mention one thing real quick. My dog will be 1yr old August 10. He isn't neutered and I believe there are benefits to not neutering a male border collie until he's 12-14 months old. But there is no way that my dog could possibly get out and breed because I'm responsible and make absolutly sure that isn't a possibility. If im on a walk with him and he meets another dog Im always right there, and there wont be no... dog lovin. going on.

So... I think if there was a mandatory spay/neuter law they need to take those people who dont want to breed but dont want to spay/neuter until a certain age into account. I think 14 months is reasonable.

[Eileen Stein]

"You suggested that."

Show me where. I never suggested criminalizing keeping an intact animal.

 

Well, I guess the fact that you said you supported MSN made me think you supported criminalizing the keeping of an intact animal, since that's what MSN does. MSN makes it unlawful to keep an intact animal (usually with some exceptions, true, but if you don't meet the exceptions you are subject to prosecution and conviction). Also, your comparison of MSN to domestic violence laws and drunk driving laws, which criminalize domestic violence and drunk driving.

 

I'm done being the poster girl for MSN. You asked what people's opinions are and what they think good legislation would include. I support it and have stated why. Plain and simple.

 

I guess I'm a little confused about whether you do support MSN as I understand it, but I appreciate your posting your opinion.

[OurBoys]

What about more incentive?? Instead of charging higher fees for intact animals why not a discount for animals that are s/n? Free s/n, discounts on vet visits. Have Big Brother step in and compensate the vets.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Well, MSN laws do come in a wide variety of skins don't they? I thought your post asked for what we thought good MSN legislation should include, that's what I provided. In fact, I listed several "outs" that would allow for keeping intact animals.

 

I also support massive incentives and public subsidizing of SN.

[Guest LJS1993]

I was under the impression this would be more of an open thread of ideas and thoughts. I didn't think it was meant for debate and argument. Of course I could be mistaken.

[Eileen Stein]

I think that maybe breeders should have to obtain a special license to breed dogs. Not something expensive, but something that tests for the breeders intentions in wanting to breed dogs. And that if you dont have the license then you must have your dogs spayed/neutered. And of course there would be rules and regulations as to who could obtain the license. Breeders such as stockdog breeders and some purebred dog breeders should be given the license after demonstrating competence and that they would be a responsible breeder. I think that if you breed dogs it should also be limited to one particular breed to help fight against puppy mills.

 

So I guess I would support a mandatory spay/neuter law under those conditions. But I just thought of that so maybe there are reasons that it wouldn't work that people will point out.

 

I think the main problem is who would make the determination that someone was competent and would be a responsible breeder, and what criteria would they use. It would be pretty expensive to administer if it was taken seriously and not just a matter of people checking the "right answer" ("I want to improve the breed" or whatever) on a form. It would be good if breeding could be limited to those that would do it right, but I guess I just don't have enough faith in the knowledge and judgment of the people who would be making the decision. I kinda doubt they would have the same priorities that I would have.

[Eileen Stein]

Well, MSN laws do come in a wide variety of skins don't they? I thought your post asked for what we thought good MSN legislation should include, that's what I provided. In fact, I listed several "outs" that would allow for keeping intact animals.

 

I also support massive incentives and public subsidizing of SN.

 

I do too. In fact, while the CA bill was undergoing its many amendments as it made its way through the legislature, I kept wishing they had done more study of what measures had shown themselves to be effective in actually reducing shelter admissions and euthanasias. I think there's a lot of that sort of information available, but the bill proponents just didn't take the time to look for it.

[Eileen Stein]

I was under the impression this would be more of an open thread of ideas and thoughts. I didn't think it was meant for debate and argument. Of course I could be mistaken.

 

Well, this is a subject I'm really interested in right now, thanks to the CA bill and the way it played out, and I tend to think discussion, debate and even argument (conducted with civility, of course ) all help you get at the truth of a subject. At the least, you get clarity on what someone else is saying, and at best you get to see what positions stand up to analysis and what ones don't.

 

BTW, what the HECK are you doing to that dog?