Laying Down the Spay/Neuter Law

Animal activists, rescuers and humane organizations spend a lot of time and resources trying to get pets spayed and neutered. It's a critical part of reducing the number of unwanted animals who end up in shelters and don't make it out alive. So why do our hackles go up when mandatory spay/neuter legislation is introduced?

I mean, it sounds good, right? We agree that not enough dogs and cats are spayed and neutered, so, in theory, making it the law would help get it done. Other than people who want to breed their animals, who would be opposed to this? For starters: the American Veterinary Medical Association, No Kill Advocacy Center, ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society and the American Humane Association.

As of last night, California's latest iteration of mandatory spay/neuter, S.B. 250, didn't make it out of this legislative term. This isn't the first time the measure has been proposed in the state, and it's unlikely to be the last. If the state would only look at the dismal results of their very own Los Angeles' mandatory spay/neuter law (which pretty much reflects the results seen anywhere this type of law is enacted), they'd see the reasons why this is a bad idea.

The KC Dog Blog has a nice run-down of the lessons learned from L.A.'s law. One of the biggest problems with mandatory spay/neuter is painfully obvious in the city: it targets low-income pet owners.

One of the main reasons why people don't get their pets spayed or neutered is because they can't afford it. Los Angeles has acknowledged that the low-income community is the demographic that's having the hardest time complying with the law. To address the problem, they created a voucher program. But the voucher program has been plagued with problems. In the 2009 budget crisis, the vouchers were discontinued. The program was re-activated after public outcry, but lately, the city has fallen behind in payments. They owe vets about $130,000 in reimbursements and, until they pay up, many clinics are refusing to honor the vouchers.

So, what do people do when they can't afford to comply and don't want to break the law? They get rid of their pets ... the exact opposite outcome of a law that should, in theory, be encouraging responsible pet ownership.

If more pets were getting spayed and neutered because of the law, there would be fewer animals in the shelter and fewer animals being euthanized. But since L.A. enacted their law in 2008, the city has seen a jump in both their intake and euthanasia rates.

Best Friends' Judah Battista sums it up nicely, "We will not support legislation that penalizes the poor and will lead to people having to make life and death decisions for their pets based on the affordability and availability, or lack therof, of spay-neuter services."

In addition, mandatory spay/neuter laws have a tendency to hit feral cat caretakers hard, ignore health concerns, and force non-compliance with licensing because people are scared of being called out for have non-spayed or neutered pets.

Spay/neuter is key to reducing the homeless pet population, but mandating it when people don't have the resources to make it happen is counterproductive. Legislators would be better off creating and supporting affordable spay/neuter programs, promoting animal adoption and educating citizens on responsible pet ownership.

Photo credit: goldstardeputy