- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Secret extremist agenda: To outlaw dogs as pets, says spay/neuter law critic
June 10th, 2009, 4:00 am · 51 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
Now that the kinder, gentler Snip-the-Roamers bill is closer to becoming law - it gained the state Senate’s approval last week, and now heads to the Assembly - critics are mobilizing to block it.
Supporters of the state-wide spay/neuter proposal - better known as Senate Bill 250, The Pet Responsibility Act, championed by Orange County animal activist Judie Mancuso - say it targets “irresponsible pet owners” and will simply require that dogs be spayed or neutered unless their owner/guardian obtains an unaltered dog license. However, cats and dogs that roam would have to get their reproductive parts disabled.
The idea - at least, if you take supporters at their word - is to reduce the half-million-or-so homeless animals put to death every year in California’s animal shelters.
Hamil
Mancuso’s nemesis on the last spay/neuter bill (the highly divisive AB 1634, California Healthy Pets Act, which died in Sacramento last year) was Laguna Beach veterinarian John Hamil. Hamil, a former California Veterinary Medical Association president, challenged the state’s euthanasia statistics, questioned the “almost national absence” of puppies in shelters, and said that the bill represented a slippery slope down which Big Government would tumble. (Read a CMVA article on the bill’s death here.)
Hamil’s take on the new bill? “The same thing, dressed up,” he said. “The people that want to pass this simply don’t want people to have dogs. They tell you what their position is. Their position is people shouldn’t have pets.”
Do you really believe that? we asked Hamil.
“Absolutely,” he said. “If you can’t have puppies, how can you have any more dogs?”
(We’ll point out here that the new bill does have exemptions for breeders; and that Mancuso, at least, can’t be accused of opposing pet ownership, as she has 15 cats, two bunnies and a permit that allows her to keep them all at her home.)
DOESN’T WORK?
“My objection is that mandatory spay neuter hasn’t worked anywhere,” Hamil said. “Show me one place. I cannot find anywhere it has been successful. The ASPCA (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and the AVMA(American Veterinary Medical Association) are against it. All the people who do things for animals are against it. Why is that? If it worked, don’t you think they’d be for it? They’re either convinced it doesn’t or aren’t convinced it does.
“The people against 250 are not against spaying, neutering and licensing. They are against 250 and all of its machinations because it has never worked. It has driven apart all the groups that need to work together, and that’s not going to serve animals well. Find commonality. Everyone admits there is a problem, but everybody does not understand why and how to solve it.
“The most successful program I know of is in Canada, where something like 90 percent of dogs and 50 percent of cats are licensed, and the money is used to fund low-cost spaying and neutering,” Hamil said. “That’s the way they’ve been successful. Animal control needs to be a service organization, not a punitive one. Instead of giving someone a ticket for the dog getting out, it’s ‘Here’s the latch that will shut your gate.’ Help solve the problem that created animal’s breach. They also are very aggressive if you don’t license. The whole idea is to get everyone in the system so they know where they are and can identify animals in cases of emergency.
“That’s a very different perspective than here - which is punish, punish, punish. That has always been my contention. You drive people out of the system rather than bringing them in. You get in an adversarial position and nothing works.”
LIES, DAMN LIES, AND STATISTICS
So, does mandatory spay neuter work, or doesn’t it? Santa Cruz’s experiment has either worked spectacularly, or hasn’t worked at all.
“Judie keeps touting Santa Cruz as a success, but it hasn’t worked and is in big trouble now,” Hamil said.
- Santa Cruz adopted a mandatory spay/neuter law in 1995.
- The number of animals impounded and killed there dropped until 2003.
- Then intake numbers soared 52 percent between 2004 and 2005.
- Perhaps that’s because, in 2004, Santa Cruz County took over animal control duties for the city Watsonville - a rural berg that didn’t have a mandatory spay-neuter law before.
“When the animal shelter took on the Watsonville shelter a couple years ago, our numbers shot through the roof,” Tricia Geisreiter of Santa Cruz County Animal Services told The Bakersfield Californian recently. “Now people are saying mandatory spay neuter doesn’t work.”
Intake numbers in Santa Cruz shelters, including Watsonville, began to drop in 2005 and haven’t stopped, Geisreiter said.
Anyway, when the Orange County Grand Jury (unsuccessfully) urged county supervisors to adopt a mandatory spay/neuter law last year, it cited San Francisco’s program as a model, not Santa Cruz’s. But perhaps the highest praise was for New Hampshire’s program - which is voluntary, not mandatory.
MANDATORY/NOT MANDATORY?
Mancuso insists that SB 250 is not a mandatory spay/neuter law, and that this is one of its strengths. The only time it becomes mandatory, she says, is when an owner has that brush with the law - i.e, a loose, unaltered pet is picked up by animal control. Then it’s mandatory. (Thus our “Snip the Roamers” moniker.)
So maybe there’s some common ground for Hamil and Mancuso here.
We hope so. For the sake of all the homeless beasties. Something has to change.
Below, we copy the AVMA’s statement on mandatory spay/neuter, which you can find here:
The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences.
The AVMA believes that state and local governments must evaluate their needs and resources to develop appropriate and effective dog and cat population control programs. This would include:
Providing sufficient funding to animal control agencies to facilitate:
-Strict enforcement of existing animal control laws, and
-Licensing of all dogs and cats.
-Prohibiting the sale or adoption of intact dogs and cats by humane organizations and animal control agencies.
-Promoting surgical and nonsurgical sterilization of intact dogs and cats. Just as for other veterinary medical and surgical procedures, veterinarians should use their best judgment in recommending at what age sterilization should be performed for individual animals.
-Requiring licensing, rabies vaccination and permanent identification through microchipping.
Meantime, our colleague Samantha Gowen wants to know how you feel about AB 250. Vote in the poll by clicking here.
For background on the spay-neuter bill, as well as the no-puppy-mill bill, see:
- No-puppy-mill and spay-neuter bills progress in Sacramento
- Controversial spay-neuter bill passes in Senate
And more on animal welfare stuff here:
- Killing up, adoptions down, at county shelter
- Cat’s meow: About three of every four don’t leave shelter alive
- A dog’s life? Pooch’s chance of survival slips at county shelter
- No mandatory spay/neuter law for OC pets
- Stop the killing! A no-nanny approach OC can emulate
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain. Mmmm.
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain, part two
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain, part three
- OC’s dead pets enter the food chain, part four
51 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Follow this blog:
-
More from OC Watchdog reports-
ADVERTISEMENT
You can follow this blog: on 
Yes EVERYTHING is now a governemnt conspiracy…RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
Government has grown exponentially, and at the expense of the people. Is there no area of our lives that an overreaching government has not seen fit to tax or regulate?
Mandatory spaying and neutering is an insidious and indirect tax on pet owners, who have already seen license fees double in one year alone. What if you decide you want your pet to have puppies or kittens at some point in the future? You will have to pay exhorbitant fees for “permission” to keep your pet unneutered, if the pet police will even allow it.
BSC
Bat s*&t crazy
Roaming pets should be illegal whether spayed/neutered or not.
Can we do this for hard core gang members? Seems like the money would be better spend on that
I can understand this vet’s position. I would think as well if you are spaying/neutering dogs and cats more and more that you are also reducing the gene pool and potentially make cats and dogs more susceptible to more genetic diseases.
I prefer a voluntary program like New Hampshire. But, if it’s mandatory, then the penalty for violators should be volunteering at their local shelter. The way we treat animals is pathetic! Anything that can be done to change this, should be done
I think Mr. Hamill should personally get the opportunity to “put down” the unwanted pets that could have been avoided. He believes spay/neuter is a government conspiracy to eliminate dogs? What a nut cake. And interesting to see how he cherry picks data regarding Santa Cruz’s successful program. I’m a dog lover and because of that, I don’t want to see shelters filled to overflowing. And now with the economy, shelters are going to shorten the “reprieve” days for pets. If somebody wants to leave their pet “intact” they only have to pay a fee to allow them to do so. Want more puppies? Pay for the privilege.
according to the latest news the fee to keep your pet intact will be at least $100 - $300 per year and that’s ridiculous. We’re not looking to have puppies, but our breeder and vet think that neutering has significant health risks. Responsible pet owners are the ones who will be punished by this. The people who let their dogs stray are already breaking the law and will continue to do so.
Spay and neuter dogs that are not purebred! Preserve the breeds………I know, there are many good dogs that are mutts, don’t get me wrong……and yes, roaming animals need to be fixed. don’t punish the law abiding pet owners
What a moronic statement. Pure bred dogs are often inbred to the point that they suffer major health problems, including hip dsplaysia, problems which many owners would not be willing or able to pay vet bills to fix. It would also give rise to more puppy mills which are well known for their horrid conditions and ill treatment of the breeder dogs.
Total BULL! There are NO stats kept on mixed breeds- as you can’t make any subsets. Take any mixed-breed - and it can and will have any ailment that YOU believe runs on the breeds that made it. Go study statistics and genetics - as you obviously are ignorant on both!!!
Actually, Luna is correct.
Neuter All Gang Bangers instead.
Johnb wrote: “Can we do this for hard core gang members? Seems like the money would be better spent on that”
I think the country and legislators are already moving in that direction with the “subcutaneous chip”
Outlaw dogs as pets? Use them as food??
That is simply not true! Our REAL agenda is to eliminate ‘irresponsible pet owners’.
The bill is simply a front to imprison and fix irresponsible pet owners for life. Once we catch these irresponsible pet owners, we will have them ‘fixed’ so they can no longer procreate, and then we will give them a lobotomy, so they are no longer threats to society, or the animal population.
Leave my dog alone, go spend the taxpayers money on lets say the taxpayer, not their dogs. If you want to spay and neutar, start with the super poor taxpayer with 14 kids of her own.
so there!
I agreed with Hamil 100%. I recently got a puppy for my son. He is 4 months old and I reported to OC animal care and was told I need to pay licensing fee $100.00 cause ne is not neutered dog. However, the back of the brochure said $24 for Neutered dog or puppy between 4 - 6 months old. I explained to them that he is 4 months old and his testical hasn’t drop yet and I just want to license him first. I was told I still need to pay $100 bucks! I decided to wait. This is rediculous and this people who works at Animal Shelter are inflexible moron.
Of course Mancuso is anti-dog she has 15 cats! Want to bet she doesn’t leash these cats too?
her cats are probably neutured. and just because she has cats doesn’t mean she hates dogs. that is a such a dumb thing to conclude.
Dear Dr. Hamil,
I understand that you have a huge financial interest in the creation of lot’s of puppies. You make lots of money from the vet bills from birth to death, regardless of how long the animal lives, or what it’s life is like.
But when you state as you do in the article:
“The people that want to pass this simply don’t want people to have dogs. They tell you what their position is. Their position is people shouldn’t have pets.”
Please do not claim to speak for me, a supporter of this bill. I have had dogs all my life and I will continue. I support SB250 because I’m tired of my tax dollars paying to house and kill “unwanted” pets.
Ed,
I agree with you 110%!! If people would just take responisibility for their animals, we might not have this problem.
500,000 euthanized anilmals/ year
365 days/year
1369 kills/day statewide 7 days a week
I can’t find the number of “kill” (vs. non-kill) shelters in California. All… and I mean All I can find links to are rescue shelters.
Do they have a person at each shelter just killing animals all day? What a depressing job.
I found a lost Aussie shepherd, no tags, seemed like a stray. I kept her overnight, and gave her to animal control the next day. Our family loved this dog, and told the shelter we’d adopt her if the owners couldn’t be found.
When her time was up at the shelter, she was given over to a rescue organization who wanted a $300 donation to adopt her from them.
All this ‘rescue’ is a scam. Adopt a dog from a shelter and then turn right around and sell the dog. These rescuers are doing nothing more than cherry picking nice dogs from shelters and then charging the public to adopt them. That’s why they want to eliminate the competition.
We went to several shelters, the vast majority of dogs for adoptions are pit mixes, other aggressive breeds, old dogs, and yappy chihuahuas. Very few nice family dogs. I think a lot of this mandatory spay/neuter is about making people spend lots of money at a rescue or settle for some nasty Pit Bull at the shelter.
you are SO WRONG! i work at a shelter. the owner pays for expenses out of her own pocket to ensure the animals are spayed/nuetered, have shots and are in good health. she is at the vet weekly. the adoption fee does not cover the costs that make the animal OK to be sent off to a new family. rescue shelters DO NOT make a profit off of adopting animals out.
I think there are many people that should be spayed and neutered
Soon dogs will be having litters in back alley clinics, or crossing the border for kibble of questionable origin. Smaller breeds may try to pass themeselves off as ground squirrels.
And what about the unborn puppies? Who speaks for them?
What they are heartlessly forgetting is a female dog’s right to choose. Is it any wonder so many of the male dogs are turning to humping legs publicly?
Sorry, folks, but SB250 still has to go, because it defies common sense. It makes the ridiculous leap of logic that a loose pet will breed no matter what, which just does not follow. That’s the equivalent of calling them guilty before the act, and we don’t live in a Minority Report world, people!
The fact is this: MSN doesn’t work, period, and the real purpose of these bills *is* animal genocide and extermination of domestic pets–an animal Holocaust one snip at a time, and there is no reason to there.
Dr. Hamil is 100% right–we need carrots and services, not sticks and punishment, and SB250, like AB1634 before it, does none of the former and too much of the latter.
ARistas like Mancuso are control freaks who seek to punish others for their hate and shortcomings. Those people are the real threats to society, and we can do without them.
Besides, in a nearly broke state with billions in deficits, why is the legislature worried about the sex organs of pets anyway? I think they have bigger priorities to figure out, don’t you?
Where is th report from lake County.. Why isn’t Judie publishing that one.. you know.. the one that shows Lake County HAS mandatory spay/neuter.. has had for some years now…how’s it working?? hmm let’s see .. the NUMBER ONE county in ALL of California for KILLING animals is.. TADA.. LAKE COUNTY.. so how’s that law working for ya? Looks like the supporters like Mr Buck of mandatory spay/castrate have some ’splaing to do.. MSN = DEATH and KILLING.. Lake County proves it hands down…but beleive me .. you won;t see them printing that statistic…
As for John Hamil not putting dogs down.. he is a TRAINED veterinarian.. of course he has to put animals down.. everyone should be so lucky to have a wonderful and caring vet for their pets as DR. John Hamil. Mr Buck .. YOU do not speak for me.. your agenda is NO MORE PETS… just as DR. Hamil states….
Castration of pets is still MAJOR surgery.. MAJOR.. who will pay when an animal dies under a FORCED castration gone wrong? Will the state then reimburse the pet owners for the loss of their beloved pet..
This is just another attempt by the ANIMAL RIGHTS INDUSTRY to take your rights from you….
NO ON SB 250.. the pet extinction act..
There are NO exemptins for breeders.. NONE.. why does the OC Register keep printing lies
My dog was a 4 month old stray roming the streets in South Central LA he was picked up and put in a cage with about 20 other dogs, not given a name and scheduled to be euthanized in days. I happened to adopt him and 4 years later is a licensed microchip dog in MIssion VIejo. My point is he was a puppy born because of some dog roming the streets and 3-4 months down the road when the puppies became a problem dumped or turned out. The people up there can’t provide for their families much less adopt dogs out of the shelter. The result these dogs get euthanized. Anyone who can’t see the problem is in dreamland. People who let their dogs run around unaltered deserve for them to end up in the shelters what kind of a life do you think these dogs will have anyway they will probably end up getting hit by cars or biting someone walking down the street. I love my dog but I feel sorry for the problem facing these overcrowded shelters because puppies are being born from irresponsible dog owners. So what that the breeders and the dog owners want their dogs to run around unaltered.
One time offenses will fall under the new bill so if it gets out by accident Ok deal with it, The second time it happens the dog deserves to be taken from the owner for spay/neuter if it is not fixed.
I heard Judy talk about this at a luncheon that Best Friends LA was also at there are 3 bills: Puppy Mills AB241, SB 250 Spay/Neuter and the new Dogfighting bill. All are passing in Senate and Assembly that should show you that educated people are concerned with strict animal responsiblity laws as they should be. Patti (a Republican)
There are plenty of vets pro spay/neuter I am taking a vet assistant class right now and the vet states neutered dogs are healthier than unaltered dogs AND LESS AGGRESSIVE. Incidently the only problems I have ever encountered at dog parks (and I frequent dog parks and beaches with my neutered, licensed, dog) is UNNEUTERED MALE DOGS…THEY TEND TO BE DOMINANT AND AGRESSIVE I would think spay/neuter would be commen sense just because of this much less that they can develope tumors in male parts (I just read about this from the vet teaching my class) this is a proven fact. Breeders. get over it you should adot a mixed breed from a shelter anyway, anyone who adopts from a pet store is behind the times (check out the problem with puppy mills). Go on YES FOR SB 250 and see how many workers for the shelters are for the bill. Also, it has passed the SENATE, as has AB 241, and now needs the Assembly full vote. Since the majority of the Asssembly voted for the bill before it WILL probably pass and become law in Jan. 2010.
Patti,
First let me say I am not in favour of euthanizing pets. I don’t want to see puppy mills proliferate. I don’t think anyone should buy a dog or cat in a pet store. Put your brain to thinking about this. If all dogs are spayed and neutered , what will happen to dogs? You can only see the immediate results of those action to spay and neuter . You have not looked in the long term Believe me the proponents of this bill have. Eliminate pets , one dog, one litter at a time. Even though you decry your dog’s origin and so you should, where will you find your next dog if this bill takes the intended affect? The people who back and fund the lobbying of this bill know. If they are successful you will not find one at all. You are right about your dog. Under their system, he would never have been born. Look him in the eye and tell him how disappointed you are that he was born. Enjoy your pet, but if they have their way it may be the last one you own.
By the way I am a breeder and I require all the puppies I sell as pets to be spayed /neutered. For those few that I do sell to be kept intact for breeding, I require that those owners sign a contract that says they will require the same of their pet owners and that they do health testing prior to breeding. I have never had one of the dogs I produced end up in a shelter or wandering the streets. If an owner cannot keep the pet I take it back and will either keep it or rehome it. I have a dog who has been with me fo r a year because his owners moved to a new area where they could not find pet friendly accomodation. He finally gets to go home this month to his family because they have found suitable accomodations.
I agree with Dr. Hamil that this punitive approach will not work. This bill is just the foot in the door for the animal rights propaganda. It is not about pet control but eventual pet elimination.
The idea of ‘pet elimination’ is absolutely laughable. Dog owners that don’t want to alter their pets can get a license to keep the dog unaltered-they aren’t forced into it. And, why exactly would a pro-animal advocate want to eliminate pets? You conspiracy theorists…
When the license fee is $100-300 per year that’s pretty much “forcing” people into it. Targeting strays is one thing, but the bill has no provision to keep them from stopping me on a leashed walk and giving me a ticket, even though my dog is licensed and chipped. And limiting the gene pool has only one eventual conclusion - no pets. Read the fine print from PETA - they advocate no pets and they killed most of the animals turned in to them for placement.
I don’t agree with your stating the spay/neuter laws don’t work. Right now, there is no state law. Sure a couple of cities have some laws for spay/neuter but how can you compare this to a state law? Fact: My dog running the streets in South Central LA (a bad area with little or no chance of survial) should never have been there in the first place. If the mother/father of this puppy had been spay/neutered and not producing puppies the 3-4 month old puppy that was picked up as a stray, running the streets in LA would never have been born. How can you possibly argue with that fact? Right there is a example of how this puppy was dumped, picked up and turned into a shelter for certain death (he was lucky I happed to go up and adopt him) however I saw plenty of other ones stuffed in cages not so lucky. Incidently this was 2005 before the bad economy. Do you know how bad it is now with people dumping pets they can’t afford. Yeah for spay/neuter laws I think they can’t enforce them enough to get rid of the irresponsible dog owners. They deserve for their dogs to be turned into the shelters not the poor puppies being born that should never have been born in the first place.
Nope, mandated spay/neuter does not help shelter animals. **Everywhere* MSN has been passed, the results are the same:
- more animals dumped in shelters
- more animals killed in shelters
- fewer pets licensed
The ASPCA and the AVMA say MSN is always bad for animals and their owners. Alley Cat Allies says NO to SB250 - and they’re the #1 feral cat advocate in the country!
Los Angeles passed mandated spay/neuter for all dogs & cats a year ago. Their shelter killing jumped.
Sacramento passed mandated spay/neuter for all dogs and cats two years ago. Their shelter killing jumped.
Lake County passed mandated spay/neuter for all dogs and cats too. Their shelter killing jumped - and it’s the worst in the state, over 4x higher than the California state average!
What happened in Santa Cruz? Check out the REAL story here:
http://saveourdogs.net/category/legislation/
Sorry, OCR, you’re acting as a shill for the radical animal rights agenda - what else can one think when reading this article, then looking at the actual facts?
Los Angeles cut its’ low cost spay/neuter program. Sacramento cut its’ low cost spay/neuter program. Where are people with little income - in this economy - going to get their animals neutered? What, you want them to dump all those cats and dogs in the shelter to be killed if SB250 becomes law?
Radical animal rights proponents have been saying the past 2 years that if people can’t afford to spay/neuter, they don’t DESERVE to own a pet. Do you believe that too?
Wake up, California. SB 250 as law means it will be ILLEGAL TO OWN ANY CAT OR DOG THAT IS NOT SPAYED OR NEUTERED.
- You would have to get a SPECIAL PERMIT to keep your dog intact - which usually costs $100. - $300. where MSN is mandated now.
- It costs HUNDREDS to spay/neuter.
We have 11-12% unemployment in California right now. People are losing homes and jobs - now a bunch of radical animal rights special interests with $$$ are trying to mandate every pet owner must pay hundreds for special permits, or hundreds for medically UNnecessary surgeries.
What will familes with children to feed going to do, faced with this draconian law?
Think!
My dog is not a pit mix he is a Border Collie/Siberian Huskey that is medium sized and well mannered. I paid 50 for him at a LA shelter in 2005 and he gets second looks from people because he is well marked and has a glossy smooth coat that doesn’t shed and stays clean. Just go on Petfinder and look for a dog that meets your needs there are alot of nice dogs, young and friendly. I agree Orange County doesn’t have the greatest choice of dogs at their shelters I would suggest going to LA, more dogs and they are cheaper.
Huskies are one of the breeds most likely to bite children. Not exactly a family friendly breed.
Petfinder lists bunches of rescues that charge $300+ for dogs they ‘rescued’ from shelters. It’s all a big scam. Spend $50 on a dog from a pound and turn right around and charge someone to adopt them. Only call it a donation. Petfinder now warns that now puppymills in the midwest are listing the dogs they can’t sell as ‘rescues’ to make some money off them.
The real issue in all of this is that the dogs in shelters are not what families want as pets. We want to to buy a nice family friendly puppy that is not going to bite or be a danger to our kids. Most shelter dogs do not fit those requirements. That’s what drives the animal rights wackos crazy.
Why won’t animal control list how many dogs killed in shelters are really adoptable, and which ones are either pit bulls or older, sick dogs. I bet most of the truly adoptable dogs are snapped up quickly by rescues. Why not ask these rescue groups why they are getting the dogs people want, and not rescuing the ones no one wants. The rescue group that got the Aussie I found could have rescued an unadoptable dog, but no, they got one who had zero chance of being put down.
This message is for Samantha
I read all your reasons against SB 250 and none of them are very good. I heard Judy speak at a luncheon for SB 250 and she really made sense. My dog was a stray running the streets in LA 3-4 months old after someone dumped or abandoned the unwanted puppes. That is just one example of one puppy sitting in the pound with no name just a number waiting to be euthanized in a matter of days. He was lucky and made it out of there to become a licensed microchip dog in Mission Viejo. Most were not so lucky because up there people do not run out and adopt a dog they are just trying to feed their families. If the mother/father was not running loose there would have been no unwanted puppies. Sorry but that is fact. Too bad about the breeeders but most people are just not that concerened with puppy mill dogs (check out how the Assembly and Senate voted on AB 241) times are changing for the better. The law will help decrease the unwanted puppies all you can say is it didn’t work in Canada (so this is California and we have no state law). If a dog is running loose unaltered and the dog’s owner is issued a warning he will probably think twice before he turns it loose again. If he doesn’t well he deserves the result, sorry to say. I really don’t agree with you at all the shelters are overcrowded and something needs to be done there is no money to keep building more shelters to stuff unwanted dogs and the economy is worse than ever which doesn’t help. Someone even told me tell the shelter’s directors to send the puppies to a better area. Well, it is not going to happen anytime soon. Check out Yes on SB 250 if you want the true picture, I have seen it for myself. Sorry but I don’t agree with the vet from Laguna most vets I have talked to state neutered dogs are less aggressive and more healthy unaltered male dogs tend to develope tumors in later years, neutering calms down domaint traits in male dogs (fact).
Patti, here is a link to a summary paper on 55 different veterinary research projects showing major health issues associated with spay/neuter procedures:
http://saveourdogs.net/category/health/
Please read the section entitled, “American Veterinary Medical Association destroys case for mandatory spay/neuter”
Do you, Judie Mancuso and other believers in radical animal rights theology believe you know more than the AVMA?
The bill passed both Senate and Assembly so evidently some people disagree with you. All three bills (puppy mills, spay/neuter, and dogfighting are pretty much a done deal. Funny you didn’t mention that check you Yes On SB 250 and see how far along the bill is almost a done deal the Assembly had almost every Assembly member voting in its favor Republicans and Democats alike and is practially a done deal. You might want to take a look at AB 241 also it has also passed Senate and Assembly. Wonder why people are voting in favor of these bills could it be that maybe that is the right thing to do?
Boy do I feel sorry for the people who think Judie makes ANY sense. Yep….she knows SO much more than the ASPCA, the AVMA and DR. Hamill who, by the way was part of (and if remember correctly, head of) the AVMA council on VOLUNTARY spay/neuter programs…..ya know, those programs that actually DID work. Less than 20 years ago tens of millions of animals were being euthanized annually. Today, that number is 4 million and that number includes animals that are euthanized due to untreatable quality of life issues as well as uncontrollable aggression issues.
One of the reasons that Vets and Vet groups are opposed to mandatory spay and neuter laws is that it wil impact their business. Mandatory spay and neutering laws bring with them low cost spay and neuter services, so “fat cat” Vets will no longer be able to charge $200 or more for their services. In addition, people who use the low cost spay and neuter services may find that these Vets are more committed to the welfare of their animals, and may stop going to the high priced Vets. So there is no surprise that many Vets and many Vet organizations oppose this bill.
As far as Dr. Hamil’s comment - “I cannot find anywhere it has been successful” - this tells us more about the good doctor’s research skills than it tells us about the issue. Simply google “successful spay and neuter programs” and you’ll get plenty of examples. Perhaps someone can show Dr. Hamil how to use the Internet.
Is mandatory spay and neutering the solution to the problem of pet overpopulation? No. It is one small step. Many other things need to be done. Feral cat trap/neuter/release programs, better screening for adoption, cat licensing, public education, and improvements in shelter care are all important issues that need to be addressed in addition to spay and neuter programs.
In OC the county kills more than 15,000 pets per year, at a cost of more than $10,000,000. The numbers of pets being killed continues to increase and the costs continue to go up. We need to change the way we do things, and mandatory spay and neuter is one small step. BTW -the new bill is only “mandatory” for those people who let their unaltered animals roam.
Thank you for the smart, fact based comments you wrote.
“Atlas Shrugged”: QUOTE:
“Do you think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris.
… We’re after power and we mean it.
…There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone?
p. 436
POWER - it’s all about POWER! AND - since when was Mancuso elected to ANYTHING!!!!
So, two arguments from those against the bill:
(1) it doesn’t work to keep down unwanted pet populations.
(2) it’s all a Government Conspiracy to stop people keeping dogs as pets.
Argument (1) is debatable by either side, but argument (2) is so insane, that whoever came up with that fell out of the crazy tree and hit every branch on the way down.
To the author of this misguided one sided article..
your writing only goes to show your complete ignorance on the subjest of mandatory castration. The MAJOR surgery is not a “snip”.. if it were then anyone could do it couldn’t they?. Heck you could probably do it at home with a pair of scissors.. Disabling thier reproductive parts? Ignorant woding. Castration of both sexes of cats and dogs does not “disable” their productive “parts” ( what a silly word for organs) it removes them..
“Snip the Roamers” is a silly simpleton phrase that should be saved for some of the politicians that support this bill, not for a law that will not only make our shelter rates SOAR and create a huge health problem due to lack of vaccinations but will COST our state MILLIONS..( see the Department of Finance report on mandatory castration. and SB 250) THEY OPPOSE SB 250.. and so should every thinking individual in the state. THANK YOU DR. HAMIL for telling the truth about this ANIMAL RIGHTS bill..
NO ON SB 250.
PS.. by the way.. have you checked your own poll? No’s are WAY AHEAD.. the public does NOT support this bill
SB 250 is now on step 9 of a 12-step process to become law.
I took this off Yes For SB 250 Pet Responsibility Act
I can also copy info. showing most vets agree unaltered dogs tend to get more tumors in later years and have more aggressive tendancies urging people to get their dogs neutered and altered at a early age. I can’t believe that people don’t understand this the tumors in most male dogs are in the testicles which is a common problem in older male dogs and the female dogs get tumors in the reproductive organs, a altered dog doesn’t run this risk. Most dog parks have signs stating “do not bring in a unaltered dog” as they are usually the ones that are agressive and the unaltered female dogs are usually also a problem because they are constantly in heat. so most dog parks are against having unaltered dogs in contact with other dogs at a dog park.
This is for TrueAgendas Dr. Jeff Grognet a vet in Canada who also teaches online vet assistant classes and has been a practing vet for over 20 years writes in his online vet classes this info. regarding unaltered dogs
“Diseases Suffered by Non-spayed and non-neutered pets.
Female dogs left intact have about a 50% chance of developing mammary tumors. The hormanal fluctions during estrus prompts the development of the mammary glands and this makes them susceptible to the development of growths. About 40% of thse breast growths are malignant, meaning they an spread to other areas of the body> Bt spaying dogs before their first heat, the chance of tumors drops to a negligible level.
Intact males have their own health problems. Many develop prostate infections that can be ver difficult to treat. About 50% of intact males form tumors in their testicles. Though few of thee are malignant the treatment is still castration. Some owners feel their senior dogs are too old for neutering. I assure them that there is no age limit for this procedure as long as the dog is otherwise healty.
Sterlization is the answer to stopping unwanted pregnancies and curtailing these medical ailments.
Males can be neutered or castrated and the latter term applies to the male only. Castrated males cannonat get females pregnant, they do not wander in search of females in heat, and they do not fight with other males. I recomment preforming these surgies when my pattients are six months of age when the adult teeth have erupted. This is before the females come into heat and before the males develop annoying behaviors.” Pg 4 Chapter 4 Online Vet Assistant Lesson Course Content 1997-21009 by Jeff Grognet
intact males have their own health problems
If California passes this bill and we somehow run out of shelter pets (what a problem) I am sure that Best Friends Animal Society in Kanup Utah with over 2,000 rescued animals available to be adopted would be happy to help anyone find a shelter pet that needs one, so don’t worry about that.