Mandatory Spay/Neuter Part 1 of 3

Several cities in the area, most notibly Lee's Summit, are considering mandatory spay/neuter programs as a solution to the dog bite problems that are facing their city.  Kansas City, MO voted in a mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls back in August. 

There has been a lot of debate in several animal welfare circles that I'm in regarding whether Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) is good policy; is it just?  Is it fair?  Is it government's responsibility to regulate it?  Does it work?

I think the first question to ask is why do dogs bite?

According to the SPCA http://www.spca.bc.ca/animalissues/whydogsbite.asp, there are several reasons dogs bite:

1. Protect their territory or loved ones

2. Defensive/scared/cornered

3. Stray dogs

4. Dog is sick or injured

5. Older dogs that may have vision or hearing problems can be more easily startled

6. Inadequate Socialization

And according to the AVMA, 70-76% of all dog bites are by unneutered male dogs and according to the CDC an unaltered dog is 3x more likely to attack than an unaltered dog.  The CDC also notes that chained dogs are nearly 3x as likely to bite as unchained dogs -- and chained dogs have been involved in more fatalities (98, 92 of them children) than dog packs according Karen Delise's book "Fatal Dog Attacks".

Because of this information, many cities see MSN as a true solution to their problems.  Because fixed animals are not sexually active, they are less likely to escape fencing to seek out other dogs in heat.  Also, MSN helps to control a growing dog population that leads to over 40,000 animals (dogs and cats) getting put to sleep in Kansas City each year due to overpopulation and keeps the number of stray dogs off the streets.  By limiting the number of dogs running free, which in theory MSN should do,  it is felt that a community's citizens will be safer.

I would like to point out that in the case of unneutered dogs being responsible for more attacks and for more fatal attacks, there is a clear correlation between the two.  However, as with anything, it's inportant to note that correlation does not equal causation.  Most (not all)responsible dog owners (people with registered breeding dogs or show dogs are an exclusion here) spay and neuter their animals, and on the flip side, it is very rare to see an irresponsible dog owner that has an altered pet.  So while unneutered dogs appear to be more dangerous, this still may be an owner driven statistic vs anything truly biological.  MSN then would be used as a tool to "force" what is usually seen as responsible dog ownership.

Some opponents of MSN will say that the government has no right to mandate whether or not you alter your dog any more than they have the right to determine the paint color of your car, and that doing so basically criminalizes non-criminal activity.  It's hard to disagree with these statements.

Others will say that MSN is very difficult and costly to enforce.  Again, it's hard to disagree.

Others say that voluntary low cost spay/neuter programs are even more effective than MSN programs because it encourages people to do the right thing, without forcing rules down their throats.  And even though not everyone will "do the right thing", you will get the majority of people to do it, and thus solve your problem.

And yet, most communities are desperately looking for alternatives to help solve their dog overpopulation and dog biting problems.  They will argue that MSN will not negatively affect many people. Most responsible dog owners will already have their dogs fixed, and exceptions would be made for licensed show dogs, hunting dogs, and registered breeding dogs.  Thus, MSN would really have minimal effect other than to encourage good pet owners to go do the right thing and get their dog fixed, and give animal control more ability to get into puppy mills and really bad owners.

The bottom line is that even though this isn't an area I necessarily want government to play a role in my life, if they truly feel that they could make a difference in the safety of a community, with minimal impact on people who are "non problem owners", then I would entertain the compromsie.

But the problem is, there is very little evidence that MSN gets the results city council's desire, and in fact, can make communities less safe.  And that is a problem we will discuss in great detail tomorrow.

Comments

[Marla Stout]

Brent -

I think your comments are right on target. Like you, I don't want a "nanny government" telling me what I must and must not do.

I believe 90% or more of all dog owners are responsible, law-abiding people. But let's get real, laws are not created for responsible, reasonable and well-intentioned people. Do we really think gun laws, traffic laws, and pet laws were designed to make our lives harder? My belief is no, cause the majority of us already do what the laws mandate. We have our dogs vetted regularly, we make sure they are supervised and under our control the majority of the time, and we give them the care and attention that any living creature wants and needs to exist.

Resposible breeders, dog fanciers, and hunters should be protected by any law that mandates MSN as these are the very people that help keep dogs alive and well for future generations. Any compromise we make in this realm is not acceptable unless we insure that the livelihood of those mentioned above is allowed to remain intact. Personally, I think most of those that are responsible in any of those groups would applaud stiffer penalities for people that have no business with intact animals.

MSN is a dream that is relaly best left in a place called Utopia. It is hard to enforce and at the end of the day, I don't think you will have solved anything. As you said, the much better approach is low cost s/n programs that encourage people to alter their pets. Another key to communities becoming more proactive in preventing dog attacks and overbreeding is charging those who refuse to take responsiblity for their pets to the fullest extent of the law.