Does Government have the right to demand you spay or neuter your pet?
By cotruelove
@cotruelove (1016)
Denver, Colorado
October 8, 2007 3:23pm CST
I was in New Mexico last year when I heard a news report that Albuquerque had approved a new law demanding that pet owners spay or neuter their pets. I never got to read the entire law but I know there were a lot of angry people. But the city was trying to control a serious problem with strays of all types. They did not have enough shelters to take care of all the strays and not enough people to adopt strays. The strays outnumbered the population of Albuquerque according to the new report. The city council created this law and it was being enforced. The only people they were allowing to not follow the law had to be approve and then it was going to be only breeders. It was causing quite a stir and I'm sure it will here also. What do you think? Do you think that governments should be able to create a law that demands all cats and dogs be spayed or neutered, even if they aren't strays? Do you think only strays who are picked up by the government should be required to be spayed or neutered? Do you feel it is a violation of your rights to demand sterilization of your pet?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@dodoguy (1292)
• Australia
19 Jan 08
Hi cotruelove,
Managing an out-of-control stray animal problem in an urban environment surely demands decisive action, ESPECIALLY IF the problem has arisen through the failure of pet owners to responsibly manage their pets.
I'm all for such a mandated measure if it will help to curb a population explosion of cats and dogs on the city streets.
I do believe that the issue of pet owners' rights is inseparable from the corresponding obligation to manage their pets responsibly and in the best interests of the general community. Rights come with obligations - if people aren't living up to their obligations to prevent pets from propagating stray progeny, then on what basis can the "right" to have reproductive pets be sustained?
Obviously, each individual pet owner is a unique case, and may not be individually culpable in the situation that you described, but collective rather than individual case management may be the only viable solution in a crisis. So neutering laws which include the "feeder" population of domestic pets just might be the best approach to bringing a disastrous, run-away urban stray problem under control.
@cotruelove (1016)
• Denver, Colorado
19 Jan 08
Thanks for the comment, I agree there is a definite need for decisive action. After reading more about the situation in Albuquerque, it appears the stray pet situation outnumbers the people. With a population of 500,000 that is an extreme case. However, the enforcement of the law, is the truly huge problem. From what I understand, the cost of law enforcement is as bad as the cost of doing something about the strays. I can only imagine the problems and to think that is only the stray population that is that large. I'm sure the city council wanted to bring the situation to the attention of the people, but after that I wonder what hope they have of truly alleviating the problem. I doubt anyone has an estimate of the population of the animals that are not strays. Unfortunately, I do believe a lot of good potential pets will give their lives because of the carelessness and reckless abandon of the human population who irresponsibly created the problem. Since we are a democracy and not a dictatorship, laws that allow home invasion normally require a vote from the people. Unfortunately, I doubt people will vote for approval of the law even though it would help the situation greatly.
1 person likes this
@copperkitten (3473)
• United States
14 Nov 07
I think its a great idea. People will think twice about getting a pet then letting it become a stray. Its better for the animal to be spayed or neutered. It protects against cancers. Its sad that there are so many strays out there. If you cant care for it dont get it. I think they are in the right here.
1 person likes this
@rosie_123 (6113)
•
9 Oct 07
Well here in England it is required unless, of course, you are a breeder of pedigree animals under proper controlled conditions, and I don't see the problem with it at all. From what I hear from US posters here on myLot, there are far too many poor, unwanted strays in America - many of who will go those ghastly things you call "kill" shelters. Here, of course, no animal is ever euthanased unless too sick to treat. All have a right to life, and charities make sure that all kittens and puppies are apayed and neutered before they rehome them. Nearly all animals here are insured and microchipped too, so no animal with a home could ever be put into a shelter wrongly, because the microchip will show they have a real owner and where that owner lives. If your State are planning to do ths, I thinkit is a great idea, and hope the whole of America will fllow for the poor animals' sake.
@cotruelove (1016)
• Denver, Colorado
10 Oct 07
Thanks for your input. I'm always happy to see posts from people in other countries and how their countries deal with similar problems. America has always required rabies shots for pets that I know of. I know I for one would like to see all pets have microchips....even rabbits, horses......any of them that can be. There are so many reasons for being able to identify them that it is mind boggling. If they can demand spay or neuter before rabies shots are administered I think they might have a chance to make it effective. The problem is to find a way to make it affordable to everyone and affordable to taxpayers to enforce the laws. I believe the days of a family having pets and breeding an animal just to show their children what birthing is like are long over. You are correct, it will bring breeds in to abundance, but cross breeding may become difficult. The biggest issue for some is the invasion of a person's home in order to enforce the law. That will get the law thrown out as unconstitutional.
@angemac23 (2003)
• Canada
8 Oct 07
I beleive that the Gov does have a right since so many animals are homeless, etc. Spaying and neutering would cut down on this unneedless suffering...I do however think that the government should provide help to people with low incomes so they can spay and neuter their pets. The procedure is not cheap for a lot of people. There are too many people drowning newborn kittens and puppies becasue their pet had "an accident" and unfortunately, like everything in life, a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. I was late spaying my cat once and she got pregnant, but there was no way I was throwing those little darlings out, so I kept everyone of them who all had long happy lives! My message is, if you dont want any more animals running around...get them spayed or neutered!
@ellavemia (30)
• United States
8 Oct 07
I agree with your comments totally, but this brings to mind something else.
People who love the animals and can't afford the spaying or neutering but can't trust people to give good homes to kittens or puppies often find themselves in a position of animal hoarding. This can be a dangerous downward spiral if you have ever known anyone in the predicament. The hoarders are generally good people but are stuck in a situation.
If vets would just open their doors one day every three months and offer free spay and neutering, I think problems would be solved in a matter of time.
Maybe another solution would be a change in the laws which allows vet techs to perform the operations. Vet techs have to undergo quite a bit of schooling to get the credentials, and then all they do is clean cages for the most part. Put these educated people to use.
