Dog fancier objects to “gonad police” and Snip-the-Roamers bill

July 6th, 2009, 2:06 pm · 28 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer

We’ve been chronicling the debate over the Snip-the-Roamers bill in Sacramento, which has just two stops before reaching the governor’s desk. (More popularly known as Senate Bill 250 - The Pet Responsibilty Act - it would target “irresponsible pet owners” by requiring that animals with a tendency to roam be spayed or neutered, supporters say. Next vote is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, July 15th.)

The rhetoric gets pretty heated, so we were pleased to receive this even-tempered note from local dog fancier Kay Novotny, who opposes SB 250. (That’s her with one of her beauties to the right). We share it with you here, with her permission:

My name is Kay Novotny, and I live in Orange County with my champion Borzoi dogs. My dogs and dog shows are my hobby. I am not a breeder, nor do I currently have any plans to breed my dogs. I am a normal, responsible pet owner. In order for me to compete in conformation shows with my dogs, they must remain intact. Not sterilized.

My dogs do not roam around the neighborhood at will. However, it is not inconceivable that one might either escape or be let out of my yard. My male is not running around creating “unwanted dogs.” When my female is in heat, and capable of being bred, she is monitored very closely, and not outside when I am not my home. Therefore, none of my intact dogs are contributing to the “pet overpopulation.”

'Borzoi smile' by dog artist Nancy Boecker

Also, in reality, mandatory sterilization laws do not help with where the majority of the euthanized animals come from. The vast majority of euthanized animals come from two populations. One is feral cats. These animals are, by definition, unowned, so mandatory sterilization laws do no affect them. The other population is young, large, adolescent dogs, with behavior problems. Most of these dogs were owned by someone, at some time, so they are not an “overpopulation.” However, most are either left to roam or are turned in because their owners can’t cope with them. In fact, the majority of these dogs are already sterilized. Once they end up in the shelter, they have a very slim chance of making it into another home, because there are not enough volunteers to help train them out of their undesirable behaviors. So you see, it is not hordes of unwanted puppies being put to death due to no homes being available. On the contrary, most shelters are able to place puppies that end up in the shelter with no problems.

What the problem is, is a lack of education. Many people still think of pets as being “disposable.” I have heard many times people say - “Yeah, we are going to try it out, but if it doesn’t work, we’ll just get rid of it.” People need to be educated about what responsible pet ownership is. That for the pet, it is a lifetime commitment. That if there are problems, people should make every effort to get them worked out.

Wouldn’t it make so much more sense to take the money that the state would be spending on the “gonad police,” and spend it where it would really do some good - on low cost spay and neuter clinics, so that people of modest means can get their pets altered; on education programs and low-cost training classes for low-income folks, so they might be able to keep their pets; and on training for the salvageable large, adolescent dogs in the shelter with behavior problems, so they can become adoptable?

It is inconceivable to me how far California is sinking into a “nanny state,” instead of being an “education and personal responsibility state.” Let’s teach folks the better way to care for their pets, instead of treating them as disposable accessories.

Kay Novotny

More Watchdog:

Share this post:

Posted in: Uncategorized

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Travis says:

July 6, 2009 at 2:25 pm

She’s right, this law will only burden law-abiding, responsible citizens who would not let their pets breed anyway. Meanwhile, rejected pets will still roam the streets and end up in the pound, as if none of this had ever happened. Thanks, big government!

Post Reply

patricia burnham says:

July 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm

I was doing shelter rescue for both cats and dogs in the 1960s. Long before most of the animal rights advocates were born. And, over the years, I have continued to walk through shelters to see if they have any dogs that inspire me to adopt, train, and rehome them. The sad thing is that in the last dozen walk through’s I haven’t seen a single dog that I wanted to rehabilitate. Adolescent pit bulls and pit bull crosses don’t stimulate my will to adopt and invest the work needed to rehabilitate them. The cats do tempt me as I am quite good at taming feral cats. I don’t agree that it can’t be done. It just takes patience. It can be done and I used to specialize in it. Unfortunately, decades long exposure to cats had triggered a severe allergy to them and that closed off my cat adoptions. So now I just help with the pure bred dog rescue folks.

If you want a testimony as to the delightfullness of mixed breed dogs, watch Gene Simmons Family Jewels on TV. I would adopt Snippy in a heartbeat. She is a delightful dog. Unfortunately, when she dies, it won’t be possible for the Simmons family to replace her with a similar dog. With pure bred dogs you CAN replace a departed family member with a similar dog.

As for show dogs languishing in back yards in lives of boredom: Yesterday I took two of my dogs to visit a dog show with 1,000 other dogs in Carmel. Then we drove north to San Francisco where I had lunch at Westlake Joes and they shared an enormous yuppie hamburger (Sorry vegetarian animal rights folks). Then we took a stroll in Golden Gate park where they got to see herds of pigeons and ducks, and more than a dozen huge native pond turtles, They met dozens of kids and had as many adults say how beautiful they were. Then it was off to Ghirardelly Square for a hot fudge sundae for me, not the dogs, and home for dinner. Poor, bored, show dogs. Since my breed is Greyhounds, strangers usually ask if they are rescue dogs. So I explain that they are show bred dogs and that I rescued them from a life of boredom. They go to shows, obedience trials, rally trials, and lure coursing and straight racing. The last two are their favorite activityies. Well, next to sleeping on the bed.

Post Reply
- OCdoggirl says:
  
  July 13, 2009 at 12:01 am
  
  Sorry to see how ignorant you appear to be given that you are a supposed trainer. Given your comments about pit bulls and pit bull mixes. I volunteer at a shelter and work with dogs daily. I would much quicker choose a pit bull to work with over any other dog in the shelter. We routinely get “family appropriate dogs” like Golden Retrievers that are not so family friendly or well behaved. The pit is the easiest to train of the bunch. They are typically happy go lucky and just want to be loved. I hope we never cross paths at the shelter I volunteer at I doubt we will because I’m sure you wouldn’t venture over the pitties.
  
  Post Reply

raven says:

July 6, 2009 at 6:10 pm

I totally agree with Ms. Novotny.

I do not believe that spaying and neutering all dogs and cats will reduce the number of animals that will be euthanized in pounds. I have not seen any data to support the idea. I believe that the number of euthanizations will remain the same. Most dogs and cats that end up in pounds are abandoned and runaway pets and not the result of frivolous or accidental breeding.

However, I do believe that dog and cat ownership per capita will remain the same. People want these animals around them. Prospective pet and sporting dog owners will now be forced to buy overpriced, inferior, sick animals from other states or other countries e.g. Mexico since there will not be anyone to supply animals in CA or other states. This proposed law will decimate the fine sports of purebred dog and cat breeding and showing CA and set a precedence for other states who might follow. Thousands of people in CA and millions of people in the US enjoy this innocuous sport. I further believe that an underground illegal network of breeders will probably be established like bootleggers during prohibition. This means more of our tax money spent for enforcement in addition to the same money spent currently for pounds and animal control.

I do not believe that this proposed law solves any problems, creates new problems, spends more tax money and ruins the purebred dog and cat breeding and showing sport. So, why do it?

kevin says:

July 6, 2009 at 6:48 pm

How ’bout snippin’ the gangbangers instead!

Maggie says:

July 6, 2009 at 7:15 pm

You know we might have a creative budet if lawmakers would spend their time on the important priorities this State faces. Instead they feel compelled to pass nanny legislation to show they ae doing something most often to the deteriment of our civil liberties. How about the tree and bush law in 2007 where the government can tell you what you can have in your yard. There are no rules in the State Constitution that say that the legislature has to pass anything but a budget each year - which some snub their noses at. Also their pockets are being lined with big bucks from HSUS, PETA and other animal lobbys to pass their perverted way of thinking on to a population who is basically good and law abiding like Kay says. I tried to tell the City Manager in Laguna Woods that there were good plans that could be instituted for feral cat populations which is what they really had without passing an all encompassing multi-species castration law. Oh well, another reason to leave California.

joe says:

July 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Stupid idiots wrote this bill. The irresponsible people will always be irresponsible and the responsible ones will always be responsible. The idiots that wrote this bill will always be idiots. They should go home and cut off their owns organs first before meddling with other people’s dog’s sex organs.

ccraw says:

July 8, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Seriously people? This has been proven to be effective, and those of you that say it hasn’t, obviously have not done your research. Check out the City of Santa Clara for example. They no longer euthanize animals due to lack of space.. it has taken several years to get to this point, but thanks to their efforts and mandatory spay/neuter, they have reached their goals.

http://www.santacruzspca.org/alteredlaw.html

For the record in Ms. Novotny’s case, you can keep your dog unaltered legally (even when this bill is passed) by registering it. Read the bill or check out this website for more info:
http://www.yesonsb250.com/sb250-home.php

ALSO, yes we are euthanizing dogs and cats that are not just feral or young or whatever.. we are killing innocent dogs and cats, even purebreds, because we don’t have space. This law will help control the pet population over several years.. it’s not intended to control people’s lives or their pets, but to help our society. We spents millions of dollars alone in California to euthanize animals each year.. why not do something about that and also help these innocent animals?

And new statistics show that California shelter euthanasia’s rise 14% since 2004.

Please do your research and see the real problems with our pet over-population.. then go home and hug your dog or cat tonight and realize how lucky they are to have a home, when 500,000 pets in California last year did not, and were killed.

patricia burnham says:

July 12, 2009 at 3:31 pm

I love that the pro-testicle snippers always bring up Santa Cruz. We did check the Santa Cruz figures. They should do the same. After Santa Cruz passed mandatory sterilization, their death rate did decrease, but the surrounding jurisdictions that did NOT have mandatory sterilization had even greater decreases in death rates than Santa Cruz did. The death rates all over the state decreased in the same time frame because:

A. Voluntary spay neuter works.

B. It became illegal to adopt out shelter pets without sterilizing them, thus ending the cycle of rehome, reproduce and return the resulting pets to the shelter.

Saying that anyone can buy an intact animal license is a lie. SB250 has a long list of trivial reasons for which intact licenses can be denied or revoked. And a single infraction makes all your dogs subject to castration, not just the offender.

Steriliize animal rights advocates, not pets.

Gail Burnham

Post Reply
- ccraw says:
  
  July 13, 2009 at 1:30 pm
  
  So what you are saying then, is the system we have set up right now works, with only voluntary spay/neuter, and nothing needs to be changed?
  
  Care to enlighten us then on why we have such a problem with pet over-population and crowding in our shelters?
  
  You are a rude person for your last comment, and I’m not going to stoop to your level. No one says you have to love animals Gail, which obviously you do not. If you did, you would see the problem and be working towards a solution, as many animal lovers, like myself, are doing. If you don’t love animals, then why do you care anyway?
  
  Post Reply
  - Dr. Kay Henderson says:
    
    July 13, 2009 at 2:42 pm
    
    Gail is an animal lover and demonstrates it in many ways through her work with dogs.
    
    CCRAW, have you heard of Humane Relocation? All across the country there are shelters that are running out of dogs, particularly small dogs and are importing them from crowded shelters in this country and many others. For example Oregon just relocated about 75 dogs from Fresno. In San Diego County 10,000 puppies per year are smuggled across the border, but some shelters need even more imports. In just one week, San Diego’s Helen Woodward Center, imported 13 Mexican puppies, 12 Romanian puppies, and 37 puppies from Mississippi. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070627/news_1mc27pups). Apparently there were not enough puppies to be found in San Diego. I do not oppose humane relocation per se, providing that it is conducted properly and the dogs are handled responsibly so that they don’t bring serious diseases to our dog populations, or worse to people. The CDC is quoted as saying that 300,000 dogs were imported in 2006. Import programs are emerging all over the US to fill the demand for puppies as shelters run low on inventory. Foreign imports have brought in rabies on several occasions.
    
    There are two points to this. One is that responsible breeders are consistently blamed for problems that these unsocialized street dogs cause. The other is that if shelters do there job well, and so many do, they will not be able to meet the demand for pets. For this to happen, we need excellent public education and low cost or free voluntary sterilization, We must enforce the humane welfare, animal cruelty and nuisance laws that we already have. As we move to no kill, the number of animals in shelters will go down to the point that most shelters will have a low inventory. There will always be some sick animals and some vicious animals that will have to be euthanized. The costs of operating shelters will decline somewhat 10-25%, but since most are fixed costs to operate the buildings and maintain a staff, they will not decline as dramatically as supporters of this bill would claim. Right now the Hayden Act reimburses shelters for animals killed. That should be changed to reimburse shelters for animals that are found successful permanent homes. In California, we have made steady progress in reducing the number of animals impounded and killed over the last two decades. In places where MSN has been implemented, the progress is slower than where it is not implemented. MSN sends people underground and causes people to abandon there pets. The reduced license revenue and increased costs of additional animals in shelters hurts local government and state government.
    
    No on SB 250. It will not achieve its goals of reducing animals killed and costs. It will do the exact opposite — more deaths and more $$.

July 8, 2009 at 4:54 pm

* and I meant Santa Cruz, not Santa Clara in the 1st paragraph.

Patti says:

July 8, 2009 at 6:36 pm

This bill is not for Kay’s champion dogs which do not look like the average dogs anyway. They are really big and look very high maintantance. Why is this bill passing? Could it possible be because it will cut down on the unwanted puppies problem caused by dogs roming and having puppies? It is not for the breeders who cares about them anyway people should adopt dogs from the shelters get with the times. Go on Yes For SB 250 and look at the first video that comes up if you want to see the problem. Anyone who is interested in buying a champion purebred dog and not having it spay/neuter sorry but I am just not that concered with you and that is a lame reason for having a unaltered dog that you don’t turn loose, what a boring life for that dog. I am more interested in the average mixed breed dogs and puppies that end up at the shelter. From someone who adopted a unwanted puppy at a high kill shelter dumped in the street as a stray 3 months old mixed breed who is now altered/spayed and goes to dog parks and dog beaches 100% for Yes for SB250. When I wrote on a NO on SB 250 dog breeder blog about the problem they told me to have the shelter’s directors send the puppies to better areas. Well this is the real world it is not going to happen anytime soon. Hope the bill passes quickly it can’t be quick enough to solve the problem.

July 8, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Also, my dog is better behaved, friendlier, prettier, doesn’t shed, and swims and retrieves. A medium size, that is quiet and friendly and gets second looks when I walk him. I would never get a purebred dog ever. He came from a shelter so I don’t agree with Kay about her comments regarding socialization puppy skills from a shelter (how many have you had Kayy?) and when I walk him (which I do alot) sorry Kay but I tend to think that makes a dog more social not sitting in a shelter or a back yard) he is way more friendlier than most purebreds espically the unaltered/spayed ones did you know that they are the ones that are usually the problem at dog parks and dog beaches? I don’t agree with you at all your logic belongs back in the sixties and I also don’t see too many long haired white dogs that size on my walks most are tan black mixed medium sized with short hair and most are neutered/altered which also makes them friendlier when they encounter other dogs. The worst ones are ones not neutered/altered that people rarely walk around other dogs in the neighborhood. They are the ones that grab their dog and head the other direction when you approach dragging their dog away as it growls and snaps because of poor socialization skills by the owner.
I can see why you are against SB 250 but you need to check out YES FOR SB 250 to get a clearer picture of today’s world.

nate says:

July 9, 2009 at 10:31 am

I am disturbed by the fanatiscism of mixed breed fanciers. It seems as if shelter dog rescue is their religion and those who don’t subscribe are infidels. The shelters have few purebreds and those there usually get quickly grabbed up by the pure breed rescue. I know quite well as it took me months of searching OC/LA for a pure miniture poodle for my mother. It is mixed breeds that fill the shelters, roam the streetsand cause all the trouble. The solution is to sterilize them out of existence. The purebreed fanciers are not causing a problem and should be left alone.

OCdoggirl says:

July 13, 2009 at 12:06 am

wonder what your mixed breed heritage is Nate? By your logic, mixed breed humans should also be sterilized out of existence. Let’s start with you!

Post Reply

Dr. Kay Henderson says:

July 11, 2009 at 12:55 pm

The Department of Finance opposes SB 250 because mandatory spay and neuter (MSN) is ineffective and it will cost local government and eventually the state, millions. It will cost through the Hayden Act because MSN laws result in more animals impounded and killed. For every 1% of unaltered dogs and cats cited, 25,000 animals are likely to die at the cost of $1.5M to Local Governments.

This happened in LA with a 30% increase in euthanasia the year following MSN, 2008. MSN reversed a steady decline in deaths. MSN also results in reduced license compliance and thus reduced revenue for local government. In 2008, LA City Controller Laura Chick issued two stern statements emphasizing the need to regain lost revenue attributed to the plummeting license compliance.

Our tax dollars are already over extended. Do we want to lose teachers, fire fighters, police, and parks so that Animal Services can fight responsible citizens who have a natural pet? Make no mistake, SB 250 makes it a crime to own an intact animal. Do you know how many frightened animals escape when there is a thunder storm or fireworks? Rather than returning these escaped pets to their rightful owners Animal Services would be charging the owners with a crime of having a pet with gonads. Animal Services are already challenged to take care of the feral animals, the dangerous animals, and the animals in need of refuge because of irresponsible owners. They will be productive if they enforce our excellent animal welfare, animal cruelty, and nuisance laws.

This would be a bad bill at any time because it will fail to accomplish the goal of reducing impounds and deaths in shelters, it will reduce license revenue, and increase the costs to local governments and the state. To put this bill forward when the State cannot even balance the budget is fiscally irresponsible. I hope that voters will look very critically at any politician that supports this bill.

Kay Novotny says:

July 11, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Patti, I think it is great that you are happy with your dog. I am also happy with my dogs. I would never question your choice of a pet from the shelter, and I hope that you would grant me the same consideration for my choices. You actually make my point for me when I say that if we spend more money and time training and socializing shelter dogs, more would be adoptable.

ccraw, yes, the bill allows me to purchase an “intact permit”. Never mind that I already pay a quadruple tax on my dogs to keep them intact, now I would have to pay again for a “permit” . Also, if even one neighbor complains about my pets, even if the complaint is unfounded, the permit is revoked, forever. The gonad police come in, take away my dogs, sterilize them, and charge me for the bill. It doesn’t matter that none of my dogs have ever produced a single puppy, unwanted or not. This is what don’t like about this bill - it takes away my due process of law, and removes my right to make veterinary decisions for my own pets.

I still maintain that the primary reason dogs end up in the shelter, mixed or purebred, is because their owners treat them as disposable accessories. This will not change until we all work very hard on educating people about responsible pet ownership.

ccraw says:

July 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm

Kay,
I agree with your last sentence, we do need to educate. Still, I support SB250 for many other reasons. I know many people are what we call “1-litter” families, they want their pet to experience being a “parent” and don’t want to take that right away from them, which is silly because they are helping to breed pets that will be killed months or years down the road because no one can take care of them. Also, there are many people that say they can’t afford to spay/neuter and have accidental litters.. which is also silly, because there are MANY low cost spay/neuter places in OC alone. They just don’t make it a priority, and SB 250 will push people to prioritize being responsible pet owners.

Kay, I understand where you are coming from with your dogs, however, I don’t believe you are the target for this bill, and I think you are focusing very hard on the “what-ifs” for your situation, when the rest of us are focusing on the larger picture with pet over-population. I understand you are concerned, and you have the right to your own opinion, just like I do.

Post Reply
- Kay Novotny says:
  
  July 15, 2009 at 1:06 pm
  
  ccraw,
  
  I agree that most people think that I and my dogs are not the target for this bill. However, in reality, because this bill is being funded by “animal rights” organizations, every pet in America is the target for this bill.
  
  What I am hoping to avoid by speaking out against the bill, is becoming “collateral damage” in the shelter wars. Because so many are doing what you are saying and “focusing on the larger picture”, my rights as a pet owner are being removed. To sterilize all pets because a percentage of pets are euthanized in shelters makes about as much sense as sterilizing all people because a percentage of parents abuse their children.
  
  Post Reply

Suzan Tintorri says:

July 13, 2009 at 12:02 pm

I am against SB250 or any mandatory castration laws. What people don’t understand is that these extinction laws only result in more dog and cat deaths as people, who won’t or can’t afford to obey these draconian laws, turn their animals into the shelters or onto the streets. This has already been proven in Los Angeles.

Further, these laws take away your constitutional rights! Do we really want more government in our lives? Why aren’t the laws that are already on the books enforced? I am furious that our tax dollars are being spent to persecute pet owners in this time of economical hardship. We don’t even have a balanced budget. SB 250 is money, energy and time that would be better spent on getting California whole again.

August 6, 2009 at 9:23 am

Probably the last breed I would want is the poodle they have runny eyes and are usually very high strung they are very high maintance and require grooming that is expensive I don’t even think they are very attractive dogs. I have a mixed breed dog who swims out farther in the water then a Lab or Golden retrieves out of the water better than a Lab or Golden, is friendly, healthy and pretty with a smooth coat that doesn’t shed and is quiet and intelligent. People who are getting purebred dogs find they have more health problems and they are probably not as good as a mixed breed (however you need to be aware of what you are looking for in a dog and be very selective).

August 6, 2009 at 9:24 am

I lost interest when you mentioned poodle that is not high on my list…

August 6, 2009 at 10:04 am

If you frequent dog parks or dog beaches you will see that most people are not that concerned about getting a high maintence purebred dog to sit in the backyard and be a figurepice. They are active families that just want a dog that they can take places that fit into a busy family. They are probably not going to take it to the groomers every couple days and get it groomed so a big white long haired dog or a fancy cut poodle is probably not the answer. What is the answer is the ever increasing popularity of the short haired mixed breed dog that is average in size and good with families. Kay’s dogs are not what the average familiy is hauling to the dog parks and beaches. I support SB 250 because my dog started his life as a stray 3 months old in a bad area because he was dumped just like the lady is talking about on YES FOR SB 250. Fact some people need the law to comply with letting their dogs run unleashed. I really don’t care about the stats I just know people and that is how some people react. They need the law to comply with it. I know Kay is a breeder and sorry but I don’t agree with her logic. It will help stop the problem and that is good enough for me. I have been in a high kill shelter in LA and I can see where this bill will help the problem of unwanted puppies that are dumped 3 months down the road. Fact some of these people will think twice before they let their dogs out to run and produce puppies that will become a problem 3 months down the road. If they know their dogs will get picked up and it will cost them $$ they will probably keep better track of their dogs.

August 11, 2009 at 6:00 pm

This is for TrueAgendas stating unaltered dogs have no health problems

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. By 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 very 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 healthy.
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 cannot get females pregnant, they do not wander in search of females in heat, and they do not fight with other males. I recommend preforming these surgeries when my patients 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

August 11, 2009 at 6:31 pm

If the bill passes and we somehow run low on dogs in shelters there is always Best Friends Animal Society in Kanup Utah with over 2000 animals waiting to be adopted. I am sure they would be happy to help people in California find a rescue or shelter dog from their ample supply at Dogtown.

dogsrgr8 says:

October 15, 2009 at 2:55 pm

OH yeah, or we could get more dogs from Mexico, the Caribbean or Romania!! Yeah, that’s a good idea! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Post Reply

dogsrgr8 says:

October 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm

High fees and forced sterilization measures do not solve shelter problems, and most likely will worsen them.
The study done by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy found that the top five reasons for animal relinquishment were moving, landlord issues, cost, lack of time for a pet and inadequate facilities. None of these factors are related to purported “overpopulation” of pets, and mandated sterilization does not help pets remain in their homes.
Feral cats comprise the majority of shelter intakes, and mandated sterilization does nothing to reduce the numbers of cats in shelters.
Excessive license fees and sterilization requirements are particularly burdensome on lower income people and senior citizens. Only affluent citizens will be able to afford higher license fees and forced surgery. People will be forced to give up their pets in increasing numbers, causing shelter numbers to rise. Indeed, we are seeing this very effect in Los Angeles, where shelter numbers have skyrocketed since a mandatory neuter and microchip ordinance was implemented in that city.
Mandated sterilization is a documented failure. Any place that mandatory spay/neuter laws have been introduced, they have failed to reduce euthanasia rates, have increased enforcement costs, and have decreased compliance with legally-mandated licensing and rabies vaccination. The ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association are opposed to forced sterilization because they have seen that this policy creates more problems than it solves. Additionally, “Maddie’s funds” are not available to communities with sterilization mandates.
The numbers of dogs entering California shelters has declined dramatically over the past 35 years in the face of continued population growth. The policies of the past decades are working! Proven shelter solutions include proactive public education regarding the responsibilities of pet ownership, cooperation with breed rescue groups, and increased availability of low-cost sterilization clinics.

Orange County Register

Dog fancier objects to “gonad police” and Snip-the-Roamers bill

July 6th, 2009, 2:06 pm · 28 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer

28 Comments

Leave a Reply

Hey! You! Get O.C. politics & watchdog alerts!

Contact the bloggers

Sound off! in our latest poll

Recent Posts

Follow this blog:

Categories

Total Buzz: Orange County political blog

More from OC Watchdog reports

Recent Comments

Archives

ADVERTISE OPTIONS

CONTACT OCREGISTER

OCR SERVICES

NEWS YOUR WAY

ADVERTISING

PARTNERS