Los Angeles Mandatory Spay Neuter Report

Christie over at the Pet Connection has a post that highlighted an independent review of the Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance that has an explanation for why the ordinance is failing and recommendations on how to fix it. The document is fairly long, but well worth the read to get an inside track on why MSN is failing in Los Angeles -- similar to how it has failed everywhere else it has been tried.

The committed provided several recommendations centered around building compliance for the spay/neuter law. The committee acknowledges that the city cannot possibly enforce their ordinance -- and thus, recommends the city focus on outreach programs, primarily targeted in low-income neighborhoods where compliance is lowest:

Low income persons and low income areas are targeted because this is where the most people who are out of compliance are not out of compliance by choice, but rather because they are unable to financially afford the price of spay/neuter. Humane workers in the low income areas of the city report many people who want to comply with the law but who cannot due to the cost and lack of availability of affordable or free spay/neuter services.

This is what people who are opposed to mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have said for years -- that most people, when provided with the information as to why they should alter their animals, WANT to have the animal altered -- but finances are a big barrier for compliance. (At least one Los Angeles Shelter is still chargeing between $240 and $350 for a 70 lbs dog -- which is completely not affordable for many low or fixed-income people). If you remove those barriers -- with low cost VOLUNTARY programs -- people will usually comply, without the mandatory laws. Los Angeles just happens to not have enough low-cost options available for people to be able to comply.  This recommendation sounds like successful voluntary spay/neuter programs that have been done so successfully out east by Peter Marsh.

It should also be noted that even though the city passed a mandatory ordinance, the number of spay/neuters that were performed by the shelter system remained stagnate to the number of alterations that have been done in the previous three years, without the mandatory ordinance.

Many of the failure to increase the number of alterations is the lack of availability of low- cost options. The document features a wealth of great ideas for generating more veterinarian support, neighborhood support, budget resource allocation, and increasing alteration capacity.

Interestingly, the higher number of animals entering the shelter drove up the costs for the city -- with each animal costing an average of $211 when it comes into the shelter. With 5,000 more animals entering the shelter last than in 2007, that's over $1 million in increased spend on animals entering the shelter.  That type of money would fund a lot (about 14,000) of $70 spay/neuter vouchers.

Unfortunately, the city opted to make altering mandatory, even though the city lacked the resources available to allow low-income people the ability to comply with the law.  One of the drawbacks of having a mandatory law is that it has forced a lot of people -- many of whom want to comply but could not financially afford to do so -- to relenquish their animals (or have them confiscated by animal control) -- which led to a Los Angeles to having a 24% increase in shelter killings in the first year of the ordinance -- ending nearly a decade of declines.

As Christie points out (emphasis mine):

They went on to suggest programs to improve community relations, provide spay/neuter and animal care information in the languages used in the area the shelter serves, to make alliances with veterinarians instead of alienating them — pretty much every single program and policy that opponents of mandatory spay/neuter have always suggested instead of a law. The very programs and policies espoused by the no-kill movement. The exact approaches that have worked in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of communities across this country, instead of and without mandatory spay/neuter laws.

The irony is, of course, that all those programs and policies will not only work without laws forcing sterilization of owned pets, but will work better that way.

As we continue to make progress in ending the unneccessary killing of dogs and cats in our shelters, I think it's really important for us to not just mirror programs that other cities have done -- but actually mirror programs that other cities have done that have HAD SUCCESS.  Most people in the animal welfare community don't oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws because they of part of some big lobby group -- the oppose them because of results like what Los Angeles is seeing in that they simply don't work.  And that if we are to make an impact with spay/neuter programs in our communities, we need to do so with the targeted outreach of low cost/no cost programs that target those neighborhoods with the most need of those programs with high volume, low cost altering.  Those programs have been proven over time to work -- so let's emulate those. And forget the laws that are only creating problems for those who implement them.

You can read the entire report here.

And Christie's comments here.

Comments

[JACQUELINE]

HELLO MY NAME IS JACQUELINE AND I JUST FOUND OUT MY BEST FRIEND DIED HE WAS MY DOG ............I WANT YOUR ADVICE AND FEED BACK OR EVEN COMMENT IF THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED TO U I WITHHELD $140. 00 DOLLARS OF RENT FROM MY LANDLORD TO MAKE REPAIRS DUE TO PIPE LEAKS AND ROACHES HE WAS UPSET AND AND OLD GROUCH WHO LACK THE KNOWLEDGE OF BEING A LAND LORD WHO DOSE EVERY THING ILLEGALLY. HE HAS HARRASTORY SED ME AND MY FAMILY AND TO MAKE A LONG SHORT HE REMOVED MY PETS FORM MY HOME WITHOUT PERMISSION AND ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL PICKED THEM UP..MY POINT IS HOW CAN THEY COME IN TO A PERSONS HOME WITHOUT EVEN ASKING FOR PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF YOUR ANIMAL AND JUST COME IN AND TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S DOGS AND THEN WANT ME TO PAY FOR IT? I ALSO RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND CONSIDERED LOW INCOME AS FOR THE SPY ANS NEUT. THEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST OFFERED ME A REASONABLE RATES AND CHARGES CONSIDERING THEY WHERE WRONGFULY TAKEN BY THEM AND TEH LANDLORD