New Orleans is considering mandatory spay/neuter legislation (1 Viewer)

[The Unrest Cure]

I don't think that many of us would disagree that some regulations are needed to tackle pet overpopulation, really. But some of us who have been close to the situation as breeders and as shelter workers are just questioning the practicality of specifics surrounding the legislation, and how, realistically, it will actually help the problem. I just hate to see precious and already insufficient $$ and manpower resources spent on a potentially small return, when perhaps putting those same resources towards enforcing the laws on the books would be a better use of those resources. It's nice to say "require spay/neuter or a breeding license", but without a practical, effective plan of action to implement it, we'll just be spinning our wheels and not reaching those who are at the root of the problem. I'd like to see, in writing, how they plan to reach those who simply will not voluntarily comply (as with dog licensing; it's also a law but few comply) and how they plan to enforce compliance without sacrificing the manpower and $$ they're already so short of.

I totally agree that the ordinance would need to be entirely fleshed out with proper definitions and the steps necessary to enforce it as an ordinance. It should NOT be open-ended or vaguely defined; on that I think we will all agree. But contrary to the stance taken here by several intelligent posters, a mandatory spay/neuter law CAN be effective. On any given week, the Jefferson Parish animal shelters take in dozens of puppies and kittens from individuals. JP law allows any animal to be surrendered, and since there is no law against breeding your dog/cat (whether intelligently or negligently) thousands of young pets are surrendered to the shelters and often end up euthanized due to lack of space or lack of a permanent adoption. Either case is regrettable, but the important fact here is THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO FORCE NEGLIGENT, CARELESS OWNERS FROM CONTINUING TO DO THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN. Sure, we can recommend they alter their pet, but the choice is ultimately theirs. They can continue to churn out dogs/cats - and many do! - as the law allows them to. Is this an acceptable approach - to take in everything? That may be the letter of the law, but I cannot conceive that it is the spirit of the ordinance to allow such negligent owners such wide latitude in taxing the services of the parish.

Are all owners this type? No. As an analogy, most of us here wouldn't think of driving without automotive insurance. I can't conceive of not carrying it. Legally, I am compelled, but I would have anyways. But there are many people who would drop it in an instant. They have little to lose, and give little thought to the health, welfare, and security of others. But do we find mandatory car insurance onerous? I think most reasonable people don't. Is it possible, in any small amount, that spay/neuter legislation could be similar?

 

[SaintBeau]

Andre, if you have any evidence of successful mandatory s/n laws, I'd like to see it. As far as I know, it's been an utter failure--and an expensive one--in every city where it's been tried. Nowhere have I seen any evidence that it's a "breeder" problem; rather, it's a "backyard breeder" or "designer dog greeder" problem combined with an ignorant owner problem. Education and enforcement of existing laws still seems to be the key, unless these issues are clearly defined. The problem with many of these ordinances is that they are not written to protect animal instead of being written to punish breeders.

 

[The Unrest Cure]

Andre, if you have any evidence of successful mandatory s/n laws, I'd like to see it. As far as I know, it's been an utter failure--and an expensive one--in every city where it's been tried. Nowhere have I seen any evidence that it's a "breeder" problem; rather, it's a "backyard breeder" or "designer dog greeder" problem combined with an ignorant owner problem. Education and enforcement of existing laws still seems to be the key, unless these issues are clearly defined. The problem with many of these ordinances is that they are not written to protect animal instead of being written to punish breeders.

I'll attempt to engage this point of discussion, rather than disregard it: Honestly, I've seen data that can be used either way. Much of the hullabaloo regarding the failure of s/n laws focuses upon cost increases to perform animal control (i.e. increased budgets & capital expenditures) and diminished licensing (fewer animals licensed by county agents). On one hand, these are important and obvious causes of concern. On the other, I think most every municipality has had increases in the cost of animal control over the last 10-15 years (which isn't itself unusual, as most municipalities/counties have seen increases in the costs of performing basic services - just see water, sewerage, garbage, etc.), so tieing it directly to mandatory s/n laws is a contentious and far from clear connection. Does anyone know what the current rate of licensing % in New Orleans is? I don't. If it is similar to Jefferson Parish, the numbers are probably close to 20-30% of total owned pet population. My experience is, naturally, a bit cynical, as animal control generally responds to animals that already present a nuisance (thus the complaint to investigate); however, you are free to look through my log of warnings issued for violations of JP ordinance 7-66 (rabies vaccination and registration) to see how many people have FAILED to comply with a request to register their pet. From my perspective, registration is already a "rare" occurrence. Again, I admit an occupational bias, but that does not discredit my point.

I've read the ASPCA's position paper on mandatory s/n laws, and it is a sensibly - although a bit evasive - thought out piece. One part that struck me as notable is the recommendation that "In particular, the ASPCA supports voluntary, affordable spay/neuter programs for owned pets, Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs for feral cats and the mandatory sterilization of shelter animals and of certain individual, owned animals based on their or their owners’ behavior (such as animals deemed dangerous under local ordinances or those repeatedly caught at-large)." How do you determine which owned animals require mandatory sterilization? Legally, can you separate a small group for punitive action unrelated to their offenses? My questions certainly do not erase the appearance of a draconian law punishing all for the sins of a few, but, frankly, the situation as animal control officers see it daily is already overwhelming. Current laws (at least in JP) cannot remedy - and have not remedied - the problem. Would you agree as a hobbyist, voter, and animal lover?

I understand the concerns of professional and hobby breeders to this legislation. If a no-cost breeding license was required to escape the mandatory spay-neuter law, would you support it? You'd be amazed how many people would rather us take their "beloved" animal than pay for rabies vaccination. I heard it again just yesterday by a citizen watching tv on a brand-new 46" HDTV (the box it came in was on the curb!). Some owners are negligent, aggressive, and intractable. Should the law deal with them, or are their pets just *^&$ out of luck?

 

[primadox]

^^^ VERY well said. Again, as a hobby breeder of show dogs, the decision-making authority granted to those who don't fully understand our hobby/profession SCARES US TO DEATH. Especially since we're not the problem. And as very well stated above, if you can't get people to comply with licensing and rabies requirements, how are you going to get them to comply with mandatory S/N?

If there can be a cost effective way to allow show breeders to continue their hobby without fear of having our dogs taken to be sterilized as we fight bogus charges, while targeting those who are truly the problem because they have yet to comply with laws already on the books, I'm for it. The proposed laws aren't INTENDED to punish responsible show/hobby breeders, but they do in some ways, as illustrated so well above regarding how they determine mandatory sterilization. For example, an American Staffordshire Terrier breeder, under some dangerous dog laws, could have her purebred dogs determined to be a vicious breed, and they can be seized and sterilized, because they look like pit bulls. I saw this a lot in shelters; it was impossible for many of those workers to correctly identify proper breeds and mixes. Applying an arbitrary requirement such as "what they deem as requiring mandatory sterilization" and having people who aren't as knowledgeable as they should be regarding breeds, appropriate enclosures, etc., is scary to the breeder.

And realize that many breeders, with their vets' blessing, administer their own vaccines, basic health care, etc. There may not be complete vet records to back up their care, which an investigator, not knowing how most show breeders operate, would deem as "abuse". I have a dog right now who looks moth-eaten due to allergies. I've had the problem before, and we're treating it at home as we always have. I have no vet records showing that this mangy-looking dog is being treated by a vet, because I'm treating her as I do every year at this time (grass allergy). I know she'll be fine in a couple of weeks when the pollen levels drop off, and I'm handling her itching with shampoos and otc benadryl (which a vet told me to do years ago for situations like this). There's no need to bring her in for something I can handle, since I've handled it successfully before. Under some ordinances, she could be seized due to being "neglected", since she looks pretty moth-eaten and I have no vet records proving that she is under treatment. But, as a breeder, I deal with allergies, basic stomach upsets, whelping litters, simple health issues, etc., ALL the time. If my kids have a sniffle, I don't run to the doctor. Same with my dogs; I know how to treat their basic problems. But under some ordinances, this is NOT taken into consideration; the dog is simply seized, and it's up to me to provide that proof. Those out on the streets enforcing these laws need to know these nuances between a responsible breeder and someone who is truly neglecting their dogs, but unfortunately they are unable to recognize the differences without launching a full investigation first. And by this time, the seized dog may have already been sterilized...a blow to a breeder's breeding program, or the end of a show career for a promising prospect. Having arbitrary laws enforced by those who don't fully understand our profession/hobby...THAT'S what we fear.

And andregurov, your last paragraph is so true. People will turn in their dogs for stupid, selfish reasons already; how do we deal with them without the dog suffering as a result? They'll simply not comply, and turn in the dog instead of paying for the s/n. Then the dog usually pays the ultimate price...and the owner, in a year or so, will get another dog "from a friend" who is likely flying under the radar on these same laws, just as he/she has flown under the rader with mandatory licensing and rabies laws. We already deal with feral animals by capture followed by spay/neuter. We already s/n dogs turned in to shelters. We already have laws in place to deal with abuse, which results in dogs being confiscated from those who shouldn't have them and then being sterilized. What we need to do is find ways to punish repeat offenders of these laws, and get to the "average" dog owners who simply don't comply and will either hide from the law or dump their dog as a result. Let's give them an option besides relinquishment of their animal. I would still LOVE to see a 2x a year county/parish health fair, with vets providing vouchers for free/low cost S/N to all, free rabies clinics, and licensing opportunities with amnesty for those who had avoided licensing in the past. Instead of merely providing consequences that ultimately lead to the dog paying the price, let's offer SOLUTIONS, and combine that with enforcing laws already on the books. That's my .02 worth...