SB 250 Reactivated, and why the California state legislature could learn a lot from Los Angeles

Last week, the California State Legislature revived SB 250 - a bill that would require all pets in the state to be spayed or neutered.

The bill was killed last year by the legislature, and a year later doesn't make it any better of an idea.

Mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) is just an awful idea. While proponents of the law seem to want to say that only breeders are against MSN, the reality is that most mainstream animal welfare organizations oppose it too, including the AVMA, the ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane Association, and the No Kill Advocacy Center.

MSN is bad on three fronts:

1) It creates blanket policies that doesn't take into the account the best health interests of the individual animal.

2) It often targets feral cat colonies and colony caretakers.

3) It targets low-income households. It has long been known that one of the primary reasons people don't spay/neuter their pet is because of the cost of doing so. This is why low cost spay/neuter options have been very successful in helping minimize the number of unwanted litters and thus, minimizing shetler killing.

And if the state of California needs further evidence of the failures of the legislation, it needs to look no further that its largest city, Los Angeles, which passed MSN 3 years ago and continues to fail.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Daily News ran an article noting that many veterinary clinics have started refusing to honor the city's low-cost vouchers. While the city continues to hand out vouchers so people can comply with the law, but the city has a backlog of paying vets back for the vouchers -- to the tune of $130,000 in backlogged payments -- with some vets having not been paid in over six months.

While the city acknowledges that low-income people are the ones that are having the toughest time complying with the ordinance, they continue to enforce the law. And after making tremendous strides over the past decade in reducing shelter kill rates, the city has seen increases in shelter killing two years in a row following the passing of the MSN law.

This isn't the first time Los Angeles has had a problem with their voucher system.  In March, 2009, the city temporarily discontinued their voucher system because it was not affordable at a time when the city was facing a $500 million budget deficite. The decision to discontinue the voucher system led to public outrage and the program being re-activated.

The new article in the Daily News alludes to many of the problems still remaining in Los Angeles, even after an audit of the department pointed out some much needed improvements. Those improvements have still not been made.  At the time of the audit,Christie keyed in on a couple of the audit's recommendations:

"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."

But instead, Los Angeles continues to alienate the veterinary community -- the very people whose help they need the most - by not reimbursing them for their voucher program.

The MSN law in Los Angeles has been financial disaster for the city. It has led to the increase in shelter killing, and continues to alienate the people who are most in a position to help the city succeed in reaching its goal of ending shelter killing.

And based on this, the state seems to want to force this very same law on every other city in the state? 

And here is the State Department of Finance's reaction to the bill (and yes, they think it's a financial disaster in waiting also).

SB 250 remains a bad idea. It's bad for pet owners and it's bad for pets. And the state has to look no further than its largest city to see that demonstrated in every sense.

Comments

[Nathan Winograd]

It is also worthwhile noting that Los Angeles veterinarians increased their prices after the mandatory sterilization law went into effect, expecting a windfall from the ordinance. This put sterilization further out of reach for those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. While admitting it to each other in e-mails ("we can't hide from the fact that vets are raising their prices to a point where people cannot afford the services regardless of vouchers or financial assistance"), they have not been forthright with legislators pushing SB 250 on their behalf.

[Brent]

I hadn't realized that many vets increased their rates. I do think it's worth mentioning also that even with the voucher system, these really aren't truly "low cost" spay/neuters. Most of the vouchers are only $30 off - -which would still put the cost of the proceedure at over $200 in LA. Even the $70 vouchers are over $150 for the proceedure. Compared to many places that are able to get the costs down to $50 or so (or free), it is still very expensive for someone who is in a tough financial situation.

[YesBiscuit!]

$30 off - are you serious? They need to do the surgery for $30, not give people a $30 discount. My Mom reminded me recently that we had a dog spayed in CT using a voucher (probably 25 years ago) for $15.

[PetDocsOnCall09]

@Yesbiscuit, I have to disagree with your statement that these surgeries need to be done for $30. The cost in supplies is close to that (if not higher, depending on types of anesthetics used, etc) and the cost of payroll needs to be factored in as well.

$30 might be a good price for neutering a cat or a dog, but when a 120lb, 5 yr old Rottweiler female (who is in heat) comes in for her surgery, that $30 isn't going to go very far!

We also don't view our pets in the same way as we did 25 years ago. 25 years ago, pain relief medication (another cost)for a spay or neuter was unheard of...now, it's almost malpractice NOT to use pain relieving drugs. 25 years ago, veterinarians could still be found doing surgeries without any attending assistants or technicians.

I agree with low cost spay/neuter options, but I feel that often veterinarians are asked to "donate" a much larger share than the pet owner or the public at large.

[Brent]

PetDoc,

I don't mean to talk for YB! when I answer this (she can fend for herself) but I don't think I would anticipate that the vets should have to endure the full brunt of the "donation".

We have a coupe of great low-cost spay/neuter clinic here in KC. One in particular offers spay/neuters from free to $75 or so, depending on the income level of the pet owner.

They have a couple of vets on their staff, but also do large MASH clinics each moth where they do high-volumes of spay/neuters. Many local vets donate their time, as well as some students from the two area veterinary schools. The organization donates all of the needed supplies and staffing to do cleanup/sterilization, etc.

Although the spay/neuter organization gets some funding from the city/county, they also rely heavily on donations from the public and grants.

I think the ability to get the costs WAY down really helps get spay/neuter compliance from low-income pet owners, but doesn't put an undue burden on our local veterinary community.

I would hope that vets and the animal welfare community can create mutually beneficial programs like this so no one is asked to give more than other groups -- but that they can work together to make improvements.

[PetDocsOnCall09]

Brent...you are absolutely correct...both animal welfare groups and veterinarians are needed to fight this fight. The AW groups often have marketing and publicity resources (as well as volunteers to help with check in, clean up, etc) and the veterinarians have the technical expertise and the surgical skills to make it happen.

There are good examples, like you cite, of this happening, but I also see examples where "low cost" spay neuter clinics are set up and little to no oversight happens to insure that low income families are truly served. One local example here in Indy never checked income levels and it quickly became a popular destination for affluent pet owners from areas to the north and west of the city.

Now, maybe I shouldn't be concerned about that, after all, the pet is getting neutered and that's the real issue. But, it just seems inappropriate for someone who makes more money than the veterinarian to be asking (and receiving) low cost subsidies for their pet.

After spending 14 years working in a group of veterinary hospitals and seeing the thin margins most veterinarians make on an annual basis, I might be a little defensive when I see things like "It should only cost $30). It could also be due to the fact that I saw far too many good technicians and even veterinarians leave the profession because many veterinary hospitals can't afford to provide any sort of benefits, like a retirement plan, good health insurance or even competitive wages at times.

Sorry for the highjack...the real point here is that low cost neutering services can be a great source of help for the entire community. I just wish we knew of a way to export the great job you are doing in KC to much of the rest of the US (and even beyond!!).

[YesBiscuit!]

I don't expect vets to donate all costs above $30 (or whatever the figure). As a personal example, we have a wealthy donor who gave our county money to get pets neutered. This is desperately needed in our poor, rural area of SC. I have been trying to get one of these vouchers to use on an abandoned dog in my neighborhood who has already had one litter of pups. I have yet to reach the conclusion to the story (and maybe ultimately it will work out) but so far it has been nothing but a runaround. I feel quite certain the donor did not give the county money in order for people to be hassled. I'm sure they gave the donation so people could get their pets neutered.
At any rate, there are people in the community (and grants, as Brent mentioned) available to subsidize cost. And perhaps it sounds ludicrous to someone who knows the actual cost for the vet, but charging much more than $30 for subsidized neuter in my area is going to add up to people not neutering their pets.
I'm glad I didn't mention FREE, hehe.