Posted by
Mike on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:03:52 PM
Last week I opined concerning the attempt to mandate sterilization of dogs and other pets in California by certain measures of the state legislature. I did not know at the time that the bill had been held in committee and withdrawn that very day for the time being.
The bill is flawed for a number of reasons. The proponents claim that it will help reduce the number of stray dogs and cats which are put to death each year at taxpayer expense. However, with regard to dogs, they point out that 70% of dog owners in the state already have spayed or neutered their animals. This leaves only 30% of dogs left intact. If this were true, it would seem fanciful to believe that this 30% is begetting the thousands of stray dogs picked up and eventually put to death each year. Assuming random mating, each of the intact dogs would have to mate with approximately three other dogs before producing a litter of puppies. It is more likely that the percentage figures represent only dogs licensed in the state, and do not include unlicensed or out of state animals which would logically account for almost the entire number of stray animals put to death each year. Every responsible pet owner knows that when a female dog gets pregnant, the first priority is to find responsible people to take care of the puppies. And yes, puppies are hard to come by in the state, which means that in fact, the dogs that are put to death never came from responsible homes and the parent dogs were never licensed to begin with, or else licensed in another state or country (e.g. Mexico).
Secondly, the law of supply and demand would not stop just because dogs are required to be sterilized. As long as kids need pets, puppies will be brought in from other states or countries. The bill would only encourage pet owners to neglect to have their dogs licensed so as not to have to subject them to unnecessary surgical procedures and trips to the vet.
Thirdly, the proposed amendments to exempt show dogs and work dogs is discriminatory against people who just want a healthy dog to love and take care of, not one that has been medically altered by bureaucratic decree.
This issue of pet owners rights will not go away, and will become bigger in the upcoming elections as more and more state legislatures attempt to usurp the prerogatives of the people.
If dogs are to be spayed or neutered, it is the prerogative of the dog owner to make that decision, not state bureaucrats.