California Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill could mean death to millions of animals

I honestly have no idea how this bill has made it this far....or how anyone who has looked at it at all objectively supports it.

But in California, SB 250 was heard today by the California Assembly Business and Professional Committee.  The bill passed through the committee and will now go to the Assembly Appropriations committee. If this bill passes it would essentially require mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in the state of California....and will most likely cost hundreds of thousands of animals their lives.

Last year, the city of Los Angeles began enforcing its law mandating the spay/neuter of all pets.

In the first year of the ordinance, Los Angeles had a 24% increase in euthanasia for dogs and 35% for cats in their city shelter --reversing a six year long decline in shelter euthanasia. One of the many problems that was exposed by their ordinance was that there was less supply of low-cost spay/neuter options than there was demand -- a problem that caused the head of animal control, Ed Boks, to temporarily cease giving out low-cost vouchers because the city had exceeded its limit to what it could afford.  Boks eventually resigned as the head of LA Animal Control.

So, the state of California is now looking at bringing this same "success" to the entire state of California?  Never mind that because of the struggles in funding, Governor Schwarzenegger offered up a plan to decrease the amount of time animals needed to stay in shelters from a minimum of 5 days to a minimum of 3 days because of financial struggles faces by many city shelters.  If many cities in the state are under such financial dire straights that they cannot even afford to keep animals for 5 days so they can find their original homes or new homes, how would we ever expect them to up their resources for low-cost spay/neuter programs that would help citizens comply with this new law?

We can't. And instead of just seeing what happened in Los Angeles, where thousands of animals were killed because of their new law, the state of California will be adding a huge multiplier and will literally see tens ofs thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more pets killed if this ordinance passes.

There is a lot more information out there on this topic from people who have been following it a lot more closely than me.  For starters, check out the Pet Conneciton -- who has covered the bill here and most recently here.  And more here from Save our Dogs.

Because more and more places have enacted mandator spay/neuter legislation -- and we've seen the massive negative impact of such laws -- such legislation is now opposed by nearly every mainstream animal welfare organization -- including Alley Cat Allies, the AVMA, the ASPCA, and the No Kill Advocacy Center -- and this bill in particular is opposed by the California State Department of Finance. 

The laws don't work. They don't save animal's lives. If only it were that easy.

But given the current financial situation in the state of California, the passing of this ordinance in committee today makes it all the more concerning.

Comments

[Rinalia]

Silly bill, sillier that it's flown through Senate.

Silliest is that the Hayden Act may be repealed, saving the state a measly 24 million buckaroos. That's it.

While I'd love to see most dogs spayed and neutered, a state-imposed mandate isn't the route, especially not amidst our significantly shocking inability to balance a fricking budget.

Still, I can't help but cringe every time the opposition comes out. I've sat through these hearings and it's painful to hear. Even more painful is when they decide to traipse into another hearing room to oppose your bill, on principle, not because it's a bad bill. So, I'm not a huge fan of the vocal opposition, as *my* general principle, but mandatory castration is not a fair, viable or effective method of reducing euthanasia or unwanted animals being born.

[JAL]

Rinalia

I can understand your point of view, but do not lump all the opposition together. While some of the vocal opponents may be there "on principal" plenty of others are opposed to specific bills because their own research has led them to believe that they need opposition.

And unfortunately as todays hearing and vote demonstrates, facts and logic don't always cut muster. "Shouting" together loudly and with many and varied voices, from people with many and varied ideologies, seems to sometimes get the right message through.

[JAL]

ACR 74 in California, and it's truly progressive author, need support.

This is a resolution to ask shelters in California to work towards the premise and policies of No-Kill.

Just a resolution! Not a law and yet the traditional sheltering regimes are hammering on it.

Please let the assemblyman know that there is wide spread growing support for No-Kill and if people are in California or work with organizations that work there or are National in nature or have supporters in CA, please let the B&P Committee know they can partially redeem themselves from todays fiasco by voting for something that truly represents a life saving reform.

Of course you should phrase your letters a bit more diplomatically!

ACR 74, as introduced, Portantino. Animal shelters: No Kill movement policies.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-.....portantino

Send your letters of support for ACR 74 to the Assembly B&P Committee and to Assemblymember Portantino. I did.
http://saveourdogs.net/wp/wp-c.....mittee.doc
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a44/

[EmilyS]

What would be wrong with opposing a bill "on principle"?
In this case the principle being that S/N is a medical decision that should be made by a pet owner, not by the state.

[MichelleD]

I think she means something like when people opposed the abolition of slavery, NOT because they supported slavery but because they opposed the Federal Govt telling the states what to do.

Some people think dogs are out property and the govt shouldn't tell us what to do with our property - taking it so far to oppose anti-cruelty laws. Ignoring the fact they can already make us mow our lawns or we get fined.

I'm not a big fan of govt intrusion in our lives, but I'm not an anarchist either. That being said I do oppose a lot of things 'on principle' although I like to think I have facts backing me up.

R - please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Nichole]

Thanks for this. I have sent this to my family and friends in CA.