Yesterday we talked about Mandatory Spay/Neuter and what I think some of the legal political arguments are for and against the policy. While I think it's bad policy because I think it's beyond what government should be involved in, I also understand that it is a public safety issue and can see why the government is getting involved -- and could be persuaded to support MSN if it was truly effective. The problem is, there is little evidence that it works -- in fact, several cities have had major problems with MSN.
I do think that MSN can be effective at getting good people to fix their animals -- because you can teach them that this is the right thing to do, and mandating it will get them off their butts to actually do it. In just six generations, an unneutered male and female dog, which can reproduce twice a year, can be responsible for the birth of over 60,000 puppies. But the problem is, what happens to the people who absolutely don't want to fix their animal?
Fort Worth, Texas actually abandoned its MSN program when they saw after its passage a decrease in the number of licensed dogs because people didn't want to be caught with an unaltered dog. They also saw a decline in the number of rabies vaccinations and thus, an increase in the number of dogs found to have rabies. Clearly this was not an improvement to public safety.
In 2000, Los Angeles passed a law "spay or pay" that had higher licensing fees for unaltered dogs and additional fees for litters of puppies. To enforce the law, Los Angeles had to increase its animal control budget 269% -- over $11 million -- to enforce the new law.
Montgomery County, MD repealed MSN after they determined that licensing compliance fell approximatley 50%; and after they had estimated that there would be 550 breeders licenses requested, and yet, they averaged only 30 were issued each year.
Sadly, while it seems like MSN is a good idea, and that it should work to help control animal populations, and control animal aggression. Unfortunately, what it appears to do in reality is drive up animal control enforcement costs, lead to lowered compliance of animal registration, and in some cases, led to bigger problems such as increased instances of animals with rabies.
You can read about more cases at the most detailed research I've seen on MSN at this website: http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html . I don't know anything about Best friends, but their research seems to be very valid on this subject.
So there is evidence that controlling dog overpopulation will make communities safer -- and decrease the number of unwanted animals that are sadly killed in our shelters every year. There is other evidence, that at some level, that spaying and neutering dogs would control aggression and desire for escape. But there also is evidence that mandatory spay/neuter is not a good approach and can actually lead to negative consequences for a community.
So what is the right answer? I'm not 100% sure, but it will be the topic of conversation tomorrow.
Comments