2008.06.26
Mandatory spay/nueter law in Dallas
Dallas City Council approved new regulations yesterday that will limit the number of pets per home, require all but licensed breeders to spay or neuter their pets, and limit how long a dog can be tethered outside.
The ordinance was enacted to help animal control officers, who can barely keep up with calls about free-roaming animals, ease the strain shelters, where tens of thousands of animals are euthanized each year, and improve the quality of life for people and pets in the city.
According to a report on a Dallas television station's Web site, the city's animal shelter commission chairman, Skip Trimble, insisted that the city must move now to reduce the stray and feral animal population.
"It can only be done through sterilization," he said. "If we can't control the flow of water, we'll never stop mopping the floor."
The ordinance was passed by a vote of 10-3.
Critics of the new law feel it limits the rights of responsible breeders. However, mandatory spay/neuter laws do have significant impact on shelter euthanasia rates; the rate dropped 30 percent after the first year with such a law in New Hampshire in 1994.
What do you think? Should government enforce mandatory sterilization and limit the number of pets a family can have?
This was a dark day in Dallas. Oppressive, punitive laws of this type are proven failures across the nation. New Hampshire did NOT pass mandatory spay neuter in 1994. The state passed a law to FUND low cost spay neuter. Additionally, part of the success attributed to the reduction of euthanasia rates in New Hampshire is due to the fact most of their shelters do not handle feral or unwanted cats.
Comment by Susan Wolf — June 26, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Interesting slight tangent here...It's interesting to see places recognize the problems associated with people who don't control/take care of their pets and realize the constant "littering" causes more complex problems. Funny thing is, these same people are having *kids*. Wow. Think about that.
Back on topic, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. While I do see the issues and potential benefits, I'm a strong believer in individual rights and not forcing everyone down to the lowest common denominator. While the mandatory spay/neuter laws may drop the stray population some, in the end you're still only affecting the honest people. People who control their pets and act responsibly are not the ones whose dogs are running loose "sowing their seed".
That leaves those who don't care and are negligent. And I doubt they're really going to follow the spay/neuter law anyway.
Comment by Ed S. — June 28, 2008 @ 7:35 am
This is probably the most unintellegent law to pass yet. People are not going to be able to afford to fix their pets. And those who are breeding are not going to want to pay the addional fees. This will only increase the number of under the table breedings, only now those animals will not recieve the medical care they need. Also some families depend on free puppies and shelters to get their family friends. Are dogs going to become yet another high class commodity? Up until recently I had never purchased a dog. It was always shelter adoptions or Wal-mart dogs. We have recently decided to purchase some pure breds and I know that I would like the option of being able to breed them eventually. I would not say that I am a breeder but I would like to have maybe a litter or two. A breeding fee will just make that more difficult, is it a yearly thing or per pet or per litter. We have 2 females and have not had a litter yet, they are now 3 and 6 yrs old. Fixing them will not change their birthing history. I am as against puppy mills as the next person, but maybe we should look into shutting those down instead of punishing those who are responsible dog owners. The truth is that by forcing people to fix their dogs people will turn to puppy mills for puppies, thus making the problem worse. There will still be a demand for dogs, perhaps looser restrictions should be put into place. Limiting the number of litters permitted in a 5 yr period or something. As far as those who are being killed, what happened to the no kill shelters? I admit they are overcrouded but isn't being crouded better than dead. There are people out there who would take in those unwanted animals. Perhaps that is where the money should be allocated. I know the reason I couldn't adopt from rescue organizations was the fees. Some of the fees were so high that I could purchase a pure bred with a health guarantee. Why would any one spend that on a mix breed? as to the second part the limit. Why would you limit the number of pets a household can have but at the same time be worried about the over population? I know I would take in as many animals as I could afford to feed and care for. Growing up the limit was 4 and that never did seem like enough animals. My sister and I each had 2 cats but we wanted to get a dog but the ordinance would not allow it. I think the homes are there if the ordinances would allow it. You can't have it both ways. Either resrict the number of pets and have over crowding in the shelters or remove the restrictions and have fewer pets in the shelters. Across the board there are thousands of animal lovers in any given area. Why not offer governmental incentives to take in these unwanted animals, find home that are acceptable that can take in more that the average family on a temporary basis. These animals would be happier in homes versus cages, the shelters would no longer be over crowded, and the number of animals put to death for no other reason than their existance would greatly be reduced. This way the city knows where these animals are, and can still monitor, they are no longer on the streets or in some cold cage in a shelter. I would think that food and medical assistance would be enough for most any true animal lover to voulenteer their homes and time.
Comment by Anna — June 30, 2008 @ 11:40 am