California AB 1634

I got a random email today from people who pointed me to this article and this poll.  The email came from a rescue group encouraging me to vote yes in the poll.  This is a case where the rescue people are poorly mistaken.

A little pimer for those of you not familiar.  AB 1634 is a bill that just passed the California House and is now moving forward in the Senate.  AB 1634 is a bill that would require spaying and neutering of all dogs (with the exception of registered breeders).

At first glance, this bill makes complete sense.  Proponents (as well as the rescue that sent this to me) talk about all the unwanted pets that painfully put to sleep each year in our shelters.   However, further thought points me in another direction.

First off, let me say, that I work in rescue.  I see the hundreds of dogs in KC that we can't find homes for.  There are a lot of causes to the number of unwanted animals:  Overbreeding, people who return pets to the shelter because it's "more convenient" than whatever problem they need to work through, people who buy puppies instead of adopt, and rescues (yes rescues) that turn down "less than ideal" homes in hopes of finding perfect homes -- and instead of placing a dog in a "less than perfect home" they end up putting other dogs to sleep.  To name a few.

The solution to the number of dogs being euthenized is that of education.  We need to educate our way out of this problem.  We must teach people what it means to buy a dog.  We much encourage adoptions.  We must teach what it means to be a good dog owner (hint, it doesn't involve returning your dog to the shelter).

Legislation is not the answer.

First off, the people who are overbreeding dogs, will most likely ignore the law.  This has led to problems as bad as rabies outbreaks in Ft. Worth, TX (as people have hidden their unneutered dogs and not gotten them their necessary shots).  It will then be these illegal breeders, who will be mostly responsible for the look, temperament and balance of future generations of dogs. 

An even bigger issue is that this becomes another property rights issue of the government has dictated upon pets that we own.  Mandatory spay/neuter, overly-restrictive pet limit laws, and breed restrictions and bans are just other laws that then spin out of this type of thinking.

Spay and neuter is a fabulous concept, but it's a lousy policy.

There is a TON of information out there on this topic -- and I strongly encourage people to do a little reading before supporting Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation.  I used to favor this type of legislation, but have done enough reading to know that it is ineffective legislation that we should not be encouraging.

Here are some numbers from Santa Cruz County, which is the "model" for MSN legislation.  Their declines in euthenasia are following the same trend line that all of their surrounding counties are having.

Also, reports have shown that Santa Cruz County has seen an increase in Animal Control costs of 93% since 1995 when they instituted their mandatory spay/neuter policy.  The policy has proven to be very diffucult and expensive for them to enforce.

Here is a story from Best Friends that actually started to change my mind about MSN.

Also of note, Maddie's Fund, which has given nearly $8 million to California Feral Cat Altering Programs since 2001 has said that it will pull its generous funding for spay/neuter programs if they are made mandatory vs voluntary programs.  This will cost California rescue groups millions if they are no longer eligible for this funding.

This is a difficult solution looking for an easy answer...MSN is not that answer.

Comments

[Susan Gastrock]

Thanks for your excellent article. I've shown & rescued Kerry Blue Terriers (a very rare breed)for 20 years & have never bred a litter. I leave the breeding to the good, responsible breeders. This legislation would not only cause some beautiful breeds to become extinct (literally), but would hurt the responsible breeders. The irresponsible breeders (puppy mills, backyard breeders, folks that should, but don't get their pets altered, and "I want a sweet puppy like my little Molly, but I don't know what I'll do with the rest of the puppies; I guess I'll give them away") won't be affected. Just like gun laws, the responsible owners will follow the law, but the criminal will just continue to break it. So lets offer more low-cost pet altering clinics (along with low-cost vaccinations) and continue to educate the public about responsible pet ownership. You and I know (being in rescue)that's like talking to a brick wall at times, but sometimes you truly make a wonderful connection. What a joy it is to see a rescue in a wonderful home! Thanks again & please continue "to get the message out"...Responsible pet ownership & breeding, not more government controls! Sue Gastrock

[Brent]

Susan,

Thanks for the sentiment. And I agree, the only thing that was more delightful than wathcing a foster dog of ours head off with his new forever family (and he just walked with them, without a leash, and never looked back like he KNEW it was home) was working with the couple in our neighborhood that left their dog on a short chain in the backyard 24/7 -- even during the bitter cold winter and working with them so that now the dog is an inside dog that has a really good life.

It's truly a great joy...and we need all "dog people" to continue getting on board a making a difference little by little instead of asking the government to legislate us out of this.