The trajectory of the mandatory sterilization movement informed us months ago that something like Los Angeles’ drive to limit pet breeding was imminent. Despite vocal opposition from a reported majority of veterinarians unsure as to the enforceability and advisability of such laws, L.A. went ahead with their legislation requiring spay and neuter of owned pets by four months of age.
It’s been a divisive bit of law, for sure, within all ranks of pet stakeholders. (See PetConnection's excellent post on this topic). Vets, too, in spite of the California Veterinary Medical Association’s eventual opposition of a similar law proposed and failed at the state level, have been duking it out.
For those of you unaware of the issues involved, let me recap the basics:
- Sterilization of pets through spay and neuter is widely regarded as the most basic mode of limiting unwanted strays. Euthanasia in shelter settings and the cost to society of a booming population of pets are both cited as the prevalent side effects of the failure to control pet breeding.
- In this context, laws mandating sterilization are viewed as both humanitarian and cost-effective, placing the burden of the problem on the pet owner—therefore less so on our society at large.
- Mandatory sterilization of pets is viewed as a potentially unconstitutional limitation on basic property rights. In light of the blanket approach to spay/neuter, a surgical procedure not without immediate risks and possible long-term effects, concern for the individual medical requirements of pets is an issue unaddressed by such laws.
- Moreover, the enforcement of this requirement is a highly questionable, equally unaddressed issue which may place undue legal and administrative burdens on the private sector, bulk of the duties landing in the laps of veterinarians.
- Finally, the law's particulars, exempting "professional" breeders means it's business as usual for those who are considered by welfare groups to be the ones most likely to propagate pets irresponsibly.
To be sure, it’s a complex, politically and ethically fraught issue. Given such laws’ current vagaries, as much as I believe in spay and neuter, I cannot get behind them. Ultimately, my problem is that I don’t believe they’ll work. More laws seem senseless when so many of our current animal overpopulation problems stem from a huge host of other unenforceables.
Ultimately, I believe it comes down to this: No one has yet figured out how to legislate common sense—much less enforce it.
Add Comment14 Comments
So I'm assuming the show world has an 'out' in this? What is it? I mean- you can't really prove a dog is going to be shown by 4 months of age- heck, some breeds, you can't even tell whether they are going to develop INTO a dog worthy of showing by 4 months of age! So what gives?
This agitates me- because now that they passed it, they are trying to pass it in other places too.
Trish February 29th, 2008 11:58:00 AM
I wonder why they went w/4 mos. of age as opposed to the traditional 6 mos. Everyone's aware that you can do spays/neuters earlier, usually w/out any detrimental effects, but there are lots of vets practicing that stick to the 6 mos. rule. I wonder what happens to them if they tell an owner to wait? It seems they'll end up having to change their practice protocol if they want to stay in business.
anna February 29th, 2008 01:51:00 PM
"So I'm assuming the show world has an 'out' in this? What is it? I mean- you can't really prove a dog is going to be shown by 4 months of age- heck, some breeds, you can't even tell whether they are going to develop INTO a dog worthy of showing by 4 months of age! So what gives?"
What gives is, there is not "out" for the show breeders, except to move out of L.A., or break the law. The dog is required to be in competition by four months of age, or it has to be speutered. It can't be in competition until six months of age.
Meanwhile, "professional breeders"--those engaged in the factory production of puppies as consumer goods, as if they were widgets, with the same concern for heatlh and socialization (sorry, Dr. Patty, but you were much, much, _much_ too kind to them)--they get a free pass. Can't interfere with _business_, after all.
This bill isn't about animal welfare or pet overpopulation; it's an unholy alliance between the puppy millers, happy to shut down any competition to their factory-produced unfortunates, and the "animal rights" crowd that wants to eliminate all domestic animals cmpletely.
Lis February 29th, 2008 02:20:00 PM
I say...follow the money. I imagine "hobby breeders" will be "encouraged" to purchase "business licenses" to become "professionals" thus generating untold revenue for LA to hand out to "the needy." If not, they'll pay fines which will go to the same place--down the sewer.
So, did I set the record for "scare quotes" in one comment post?
Harrison February 29th, 2008 03:51:00 PM
I guess what's weighing on my mind is the 4 months age thing as well. I have a great dane, and though it's controversial as to when you should spay or neuter a giant breed dog (some people say 6 months, other people say 8 or even a year..) 4 months sounds rather early. I understand it can be necessary to sterilize animals earlier - especially in a shelter setting - but it sort of lumps all dogs together in one group. We're talking everywhere from the tiniest chihuahua to the biggest mastiff. It just doesn't seem right.
Perhaps their hearts are in the right place, but their heads are not. The "blanket approach" that they are taking is not the way to go about this. There are far too many other factors to be taken into consideration.
Ali February 29th, 2008 04:23:00 PM
I think the greatest number of unwanted offspring are generated by the masses, not breeders (even puppy mills)and these 'accidental' or 'let's teach the kids about life' or 'let's dump the unwanted unneutered pets in the woods' produce more unwanted mutts than pet stores or AKC breeders combined. Unfortunately they are also the most likely not to be counted as they will not have their pets visit the vet or get basic shots that would identify them to the authorities who regulate rabies licenses or local pet limits.
But does that mean we have to give up trying? The laws are flawed but even the fights against them bring more attention to the problems we have.
Carla February 29th, 2008 04:34:00 PM
Carla, the fight against bad laws generates attention, but also drains resources from the programs and policies that we know DO work, because they have BEEN working. The Problem isn't the huge and GROWING one that the people behind these laws claim it is. It's big, but it's SHRINKING. A LOT. Late 70s, early 80s--over twenty million pets a year dying in shelters. Last year--_under_ _four_ _million_. And it happened without Mandatory Spay/Neuter, and mostly without wasting rescources fighting mandatory spay/neuter. The localities that have tried Mandatory Spay/Neuter have had _slower_ declines in shelter intakes and shelter euthanasias than places without.
PETA supports Mandatory Spay/Neuter. PETA also kills 97% of the pets surrendered to it, most of them in the belief that PETA, after all, is all about protecting the animals...
Lis February 29th, 2008 06:02:00 PM
I think in this issue...maybe purebreds shouldn't be spayed/neutered. I'd start with the mixed bred dogs. Then, if the problem seems to be improving, maybe move onto the purebred dogs but wait later than 4 months. I'd say wait anywhere between 6-8 (for the danes and mastiffs). That way then the show dogs can still have time to develop to see if they can be show potential, and there's no problems or controversies about fixing a dog too young.
ashleigh February 29th, 2008 06:52:00 PM
Well, that's even more frightening... So basically, the only people who will be punished are the show breeders because they're basically backed into a corner. I knew you couldn't show before 6 months, but I was hoping there was some leeway in this dumb law...
It just makes no sense. So basically, LA is killing the dog fancy, yes? How sad. And scary because it sets the precedent for everywhere else.
Trish February 29th, 2008 08:59:00 PM
Ashleigh, two problems:
1. 6-8 months is not old enough for Danes and other giant breed dogs. 6-8 months has been the normal recommendation for average-sized dogs for a long time; four months is too young unless there's a compelling reason. (The inadvisability of adopting out intact animals from shelters being a compelling reason, in my opinion.)
2. This is a "solution" not just in search of a problem but antithetiical to real solutions to the problem, which is being successfully addressed by other, different policies which this interferes with.
Shelter deaths have plummetted over the last 20-30 years. From over 20 million a year, to under 4 million a years--while the pet population has been rising. Why don't we put more money, time, and effort into the polices we know WORK, rather than diverting resources into a "solution" that makes things worse by shutting down responsible breeders, and discouraging people from seeking normal and necessary medical care--including, by the way, rabies vaccinations--because it will expose them to the draconian "features" of this law.
Lis February 29th, 2008 10:17:00 PM
Not only is shelter killing plummeting most places (where the shelters are well-run, with good outreach programs and aggressive adoption policies), but the numbers reflect a preponderance of CATS.
How is the forced sterilization of an owned dog going to help the feral cat problem? They don't, you know, get it on together.
I agree that this intrusive and unenforceable crap is a distraction, and draws resources away from the population control measures that have shown they can work.
H Houlahan February 29th, 2008 11:26:00 PM
What I don't understand is HOW would the enforcer know that my 8 year old
cat is already spayed (years ago, at 10 months, as far as I know). She is
a registered cat from a show home, but I guess it took that long, either for
them to decide she was not a show cat, or for her to be large enough for
the vet to want to operate. She is still in the petite 6-7 pound range, and
trim. I'm absolutely sure she's spayed, but I have heard that there are
not likely to be obvious scars. In Orange County, California shelters I
have heard that they tattoo the incision. Otherwise, there are stories of
cats going through a second surgery in which the vet finds that the organs
to be removed are already missing.
Miss Kitty's Mom March 1st, 2008 08:09:00 PM
Does the text of the law specify "sterilization" or specifically spay/neuter?
When canine vasectomy/tubal ligation becomes the normal procedure, this will be quite relevant.
DOWN WITH SPAY/NEUTER!
T. Durden May 1st, 2008 04:43:00 AM
However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest
tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 07:44:54 PM
Add Commment