The City of Los Angeles has passed legislation making it mandatory to spay or neuter most dogs and cats by the time they are 4 months old. Here's a link to a news article about this. As most of you who have been around here very long know, I an a dog and cat lover, always have been, always will be. And, I'm not really sure what to think about this legislation. I currently have four four-legged friends living with me, one cat, three dogs and they are all "fixed" even though two of them are AKC registered and come from champion lines. My avatar is the best four-legged friend I've ever had, Abigail, and were she to be eligible to enter a dog show, she would blow the doors off her competition. According to the AKC standards, she's the perfect Pug. But, I had her spayed because Pugs have a pretty high mortality rate when they are giving birth. No way I would ever risk her life by breeding her.

But, on to the larger question about the government mandating the spaying/neutering of dogs and cats.


Is this a good idea? <- A question for debate


There are compelling arguments on each side. On one hand this will cut down on the number of dogs without homes who end up being killed every year because nobody wants them. On the other hand could this have unintended consequences like causing more in-breeding which can lead to some pretty serious chronic health problems in animals. Generally speaking, a Heinz 57 "mutt" is typically a much healthier variety of dog, and they are great friends as well.

So, repeating the question for debate.....
Is mandatory spaying/neutering for dogs and cats a good idea?


Aquilla

I think this is a silly law. How are they going to enforce it? There are so many exceptions that it is pointless. It is totally a gesture without substance.

I doubt it will make a significant change in the numbers of stray dogs. I would guestimate that half of the dogs presently never see a vet. Are they no going to because of this rule? Cities are unable to enforce current law which require all dogs to be vaccinated for rabies. People who do not bother to go to vet now are not going to start because of the city regulation.

I can not see why inbreeding will increase?

Hybrid vigor is a known advantage but that does not mean purebred dogs are unhealthy. This advantage is slight rather than major. Studies I have known usually use numbers in the single digit percentage ( 4% heavier, 6% less disease incidents, etc. ) I am not sure how hybrid vigor occurrence will be affected by this city regulation.

So, all you have to do is declare yourself a professional breeder, then? This sounds a lot like that restricting firearms, which has just led to those interested in the hobby becoming professional firearms dealers to get around the law.



Because professional breeders are not going to waste their time breeding 'mutts', and the potential pool of males and females will be very, very small.

This law also seems to neglect the demand for pets. Professional breeders would have to drastically multiply to meet demand, and we've all seen horror stories of what can happen breeders aren't regulated sufficiently.

Finally, I'm not even sure this really solves the problem. Do most of the 'excess' puppies and kittens come from pet owners, or from strays? I was under the assumption (flawed?) that the real problem was stray dogs and kits, and their offspring. I don't see strays bringing themselves in to be fixed, so not sure how this is addressing the real problem.

I have a few issues. First, for those that currently own a pet and can not afford to spay or neuter said pet, who pays for it, or do they just continue to get fines that they can't afford to pay? Second, the city really has a van that goes around sterilizing animals? Not sure I would trust surgery on my animals in the back of a van! Next, The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles' animal shelters every year. Eliminating them, really? Pretty wishful thinking, don't you think? Finally, and I know this was asked already, but who is charged with the duties to go around town lifting tails to ensure compliance? Wouldn't that cost more than the $2 million that this is supposed to prevent?

Well the amoral voices in my head say yes, the pragmatist in me says no. I'm not an animal person, so excuse my ignorance: but can animals even reproduce at four months? Is this their attempt to kill or curb a population? I know you can drive outside the city and buy new animals but that seems like money leaving the city coffers. I'm not entirely digging the logic of the people imposing laws like this.

Interesting points thus far. I'll way in on them later when I have more time, but for now, I'll address VDemosthenes' questions.





The four month thing is probably in there for female dogs. Generally speaking, most vets recommend that a female be spayed prior to her "first heat" and that can happen in some dogs as early as 6 months of age. 4 months is a little young in my opinion and most vets I know would agree. That's why there's the opt out with a vet's letter until 6 months. I think the thing is that after the first heat the surgery becomes a little more dangerous to the dog and the recovery time is longer.

What this legislation is attempting to do is cut down on the number of unwanted pets that end up being killed in dog shelters. For dog and cat lovers like myself, this is a horrible thing, but at the same time there are limitations to space and budgets to feed and house these animals.

Addressing some of the enforcement issues that others have brought up. I think enforcement would be done through existing licensing statutes that exist now in most cities, certainly ones in Southern California. In my case for example, the City of Glendale requires that I have a "kennel permit" because I have three dogs. They actually sent out an animal control officer to inspect my house prior to issuing me that permit and they had the medical records for all three, at least as far as rabies was concerned. Now, I suppose I could duck under the radar by not getting my dogs a rabies shot, but that would be irresponsible. If you can't care for your four-legged friends properly, why should you even have them? You're not giving back what you get.


Aquilla

Is mandatory spaying/neutering for dogs and cats a good idea?

I think it’s a step in the right direction. 7 million animals are killed in shelters every year, which is an improvement over past years, greatly due to mandatory spaying/neutering required by shelters before adoption. Even though the number is down, it is still far more animals than homes available for them. Is the law perfect? No. Sure, many animals will “slip through the cracks”, and sure, animal mill breeders will be exempt, and they are a big part of the problem. But, what it will do is make sure that any animal bought or adopted as a family pet will be sterilized, and if it is turned loose when the family tires of it, or gets out somehow, it won’t breed more unwanted animals that will eventually be put down.

More important to me would be mandatory “pet parenting” training for anyone buying/adopting an animal. I’m sure that sounds silly to some, but there are still people out there who don’t believe in altering their animals, whether it’s anthropomorphizing their own sexuality onto their pets (see: Neuticles), or just plain ignorance (e.g. wanting their kids to “experience the miracle of birth” ). There are still people out there who buy/adopt that cute little kitten/puppy and when it grows up, they tire of it, dump it and get another cute little kitten/puppy. There are still cruel people out there who buy/adopt/steal animals to use as bait for their fighting dogs.

Sterilization programs across the country have made great strides in reducing the unwanted pet population. But, most of these programs are privately funded, and many of them are financially strapped. The program I was able to use in the past to TNR the feral cats in my neighborhood is no longer available to anyone outside the city of Los Angeles, and there is no similar program for my city.

So, to make a long story short, yes, it’s a good idea. A better idea is educating people about responsible pet ownership in addition to it.

And for all the purebreed aficionados who are screeching about how dog breeds will go extinct with this sort of law, take a pill. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Responsible breeders won’t be affected by this sort of legislation, and most of them alter their pet-quality animals before selling them, anyway.

My experience with the feral cats in my neighborhood is sobering enough. Despite my best efforts, I cannot bring the population down. Part of it is the sheer numbers; the other part is the amount of money it would cost me that I don't have.

Edited to respond to Hobbes:

Where do you think strays come from? Yes, some are born to stray parents and have never known a human, but all strays have their genesis with a human owner who was irresponsible.

I have five cats and a dog. My cats all stay inside, and my dog only goes out into a fenced-in backyard or on a leash with us. Still, all my pets are fixed and they have all their shots, just in case they get loose, which can and does happen at times.
It's my duty and responsibility to my neighbors and to my pets to make sure they: 1. can't get pregnant or get anyone else's pet pregnant, 2. will not spread a disease or become ill themselves, and 3. I didn't declaw my cats because if they did get out and had to defend themselves or scoot up a tree, they can.
As far as mandatory spaying and neutering, I think it might be a step in the right direction. My only problem with the mandatory law is that if people were responsible about their pets in the first place, we wouldn't need to have this debate today.
But people will be people, and unfortunately it's come down to this. To me, it's just common sense to fix pets and take care of them.
Purrs,
Pookie

Yes, and practical as well. Bob Barker of "The Price Is Right" always closed the show with the reminder to have your pets spayed or neutered. It's kinder than allowing unwanted and unloved puppies and kittens fend for themselves on the mean streets. Plus, it's cold here in Columbus.

If this works could we possibly expand the program to include parents who abuse their kids and idiots who make babies they don't take responsibility for? Just a thought...

Ohh, I wish we could! When I think of so many children unwanted, unloved, etc., geez, that breaks my heart a lot worse than the plight of animals.
Ooops, that's another topic. Back to topic, though, I wonder how in the world can they actually enforce this mandatory spay/neuter law? Seems to me that would be close to impossible.
Purrs,
Pookie

This really is the issue that I have, aside from me being against most any government mandating at this level, but that is for a different time and place. Is this legislation actually enforceable beyond the pet stores and shelters? Is there someone that is going to go around lifting tails to see if a surgery has been done? How much money is it going to cost to police and enforce versus the $2 million that is being spent on euthanasia? Will it actually save the city that much money, or will it cost more? If a person can't afford the surgery, does the city pay for it? In my opinion, the intent is great, but as with a lot of what government does, it is just a feel good law. The actual enforcement of the law is too expensive and time consuming to implement, especially with the priority of actual crimes being committed that should be first on the list of priorities for the police.

Thanks for answering.

So it seems that a pet owner can put a hold on it if they want their own animal to reproduce. I believe that's fair. It's a little less totalitarian than I initially believed.

Animals generally find ways to survive. A lot of people, however, feel special attachment and are therefore compelled to provide. If not for domestication, I don't think this would be a real issue at all and nature would just run its course. That's another of my amoral beliefs shining through.

Seems like a logic right from the page of the George Bush administration. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Come on. There needs to be solid grounds that this is solution to the problem of excess dogs. It is not OK that humaniacs think this is good so everyone must automatically agree with it or they are a bad person. It is not sufficient to sound good, it must address the problem. Get behind because of life being hectic and you spay your dog at 7 months...hey, you need to be fined. Just because your pet has never been in estrus nor produced unwanted litters you are still a threat. You are the problem. I do not think so.

These types of laws only affect 'responsible' people. Responsible people will now need to jump through hoops to comply with the law. Have your dog spayed at 6 months, which is well before the typical first heat at 9 or 10 months, and you need a letter of permission from your veterinarian who recommends spaying from 4 to 6 months. Plan to bred your dog as you are interested in the breed? You need to do paperwork saying you are a breeder to comply with the law. These people will be doing the right thing without these laws. These are the people who take their pets to the veterinarian and spay/neuter without big brotherism. These laws do discourage responsible people from breeding dogs. We do not need another law to hassle people who are doing the right thing.

Let us say the law passes. A dog owner gets a pup while visiting relatives in Fresno. They take it home. They hear about the law from neighbors. The pup is 7 months old. The fines for breaking the law are reported to be $200. Some people are being turned in when they go to the vet too late. Perhaps it is safer just not to go to the vet. As long as authorities do not know about the dog you will not be fined.

Who will not be affected by the law? People who currently do not bother to ever take their pets to a veterinarian for check ups or vaccinations, much less spay/neuter. These people should be the target of any sort of legislation, not responsible people.