Question by Buffy J: Why is California trying to pass a bill that would make spaying or neutering cats and dogs mandatory?
The only exception is if the owner has a permit that costs $ 100-150 per animal and is not available to everyone. Isn’t this CLEARLY unconstitutional? People have a right to leave their animals unaltered if they choose to do so. A better strategy would be what they do in San Francisco. They offer cheap spaying and neutering for cats and dogs, and owner education to people who want it, neither of which are required, but have reduced the number of animals in shelters. I am well aware of the dog and cat overpopulation and euthanasia rate, but if the San Francisco program works, why not use that instead? I remember when I got my dog at the age of 8, I asked my mom if the dog could have puppies. She said yes if an x-ray taken when the dog was 2 showed that she had good hips. When I was told that she had bad hips and would have to be spayed, I was devastated. Now I would understand, but a 14 year old thinks differently than a 10 year old. Still, legally forcing people isn’t right.
Also, wouldn’t extra animals make good test animals for scientific experiments? If the animals would be put to sleep otherwise, why not use them for something useful? Animal testing has produced many scientific breakthroughs.
MariJune, just so you know, if people want something badly enough, they will get it, illegally if they are that determined. If this law is passed, many breeders who can’t get a permit will go underground and breed animals illegally. Kind of like with alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s. I don’t think this would be quite as bad, but gangs distributing illegally raised puppies and kittens could pop up. Because of underground breeding, there could still be strays. I am by no means ashamed of my belief that benefitting people is more important than rights of common animals.
I said it was unconstitutional for the government to force owners to spay or neuter their animals. I never said it wasn’t a good idea that owners of animals not kept indoors or in fenced yards to do so and be advised to do so voluntarily. If the public is made more aware of the problem, more people would do so voluntarily.
John F, I do have a clue. Most of the people who will have a problem with this would be breeders who can’t pay the fees easily so would have to raise the price of their animals to cover that extra expense. The extra $ 100 or so would make far fewer people want to buy the animals from people who breed them legally (the healthier animals) and more buy them from the underground breeders (the animals probably not as healthy) so then people are buying animals not as healthy, in the long run, this could end up lowering the quality of the animals, possibly lowering the demand even more. Why doesn’t everyone in favor of this bill rethink their views and please, support the constitution, not those trying to destroy it.
Answer by MariJune
I wish they would adopt this policy nationally. I see a few benefits in it. (1) no more throw away pets – tired of having my heart broken everytime I see another homeless animal out there. (2) I’m tired of people breeding pit bulls for the sake of game. This would cut down on that too. Do you think it’s fair for animals to be brought into the world just to be “used” and eventually destroyed? I certainly don’t. How about the people who mix breed. They are so adorable as puppies but once grown up, they don’t think so any more so guess what? Fido has to be kicked to the curb. The neighborhood kids torture the dog/cat and it’s extremely unfortunately.
Summary: you are worried about your ownership rights. If you were a true advocate for animals, which I can see that you’re not, then you would support this policy. ANIMALS DESERVE RIGHTS TOO YOU KNOW!!! Kudos to the state of California.
What do you think? Answer below!