Spay/ neuter law

[korbbec]

Would you support a law requiring all house pets to be spayed/neutered?

 

[VSL]

I don't understand why/the reasoning for it. I'm not voting until more people respond (and I'm more informed).

 

[Anewman]

No not an "all" law.

Maybe if it only included households that have have more than a certian number of animals. If I have ONE or TWO dogs, I am obviously already providing proper care and I dont need LAWS telling me what to do with them. But I can see if a person has 14 indoor/outdoor cats running around doing what comes naturally.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

I support the law IF there are low-cost spay/neutering programs available. My city, with the cooperation of the area veterinarians, pet rescue groups, shelter, etc. has numerous free and low-cost spay/neuter programs, including one that involves scooping up feral cats, neutering them, and returning them to the places they are found!

The goal is to end the unnecessary killing of animals at the county pound/shelter. I live in a college town and the number of animals killed in our shelter is just shameful (about 5000 cats and dogs are euthanized each year in a town of 100,000). The numbers spike when students leave town for the semester.

Most people who let their animals remain unspayed/unneutered do not realize the implications of their decision. There are too many unwanted animals and it's better to stop them at the source than to have to pick them up off the street, starving or injured, and euthanize them.

 

[Hannathy]

While I fully support all pets being spayed/neut. I voted no because I don't like all these laws being implemented that infringe on my individual rights.

I have never had an animal that wasn't.

 

[minnieandmickeymouse]

No

 

[Pea-n-Me]

In theory, I like the idea of spay/neutering for all. However, a law such as that would likely be much more complicated than it at first appears.

For example, if it's a requirement, wouldn't they'd have to make provisions for low or no cost spay/neutering since there would be some who could not afford it? How would that work? Who would do them, and at what cost to these veterinarians and their practices? Should we lower the standards and let veterinary para-professionals (ie techs) do the surgeries in state operated facilities? We'd be talking about thousands and thousands of cases. Would the state having the requirement pay costs?

Also, what would happen with pure dog breeds? Would owners with purebreds be exempt, in case they decided to breed them at some point? It is their right, after all. Same with the owners of the new "designer mutts" - should they be exempt for the same reasons?

Like criminals having guns, it could also be conceivable that responsible owners spay, while irresponsible owners don't.

I think the reason we don't currently have laws for spay/neuter now is because of issues like these. It opens a huge can of worms.

I do wish more people would spay/neuter responsibly without being forced to. My animals have always been fixed too.

 

[hucifer]

While I fully support all pets being spayed/neut. I voted no because I don't like all these laws being implemented that infringe on my individual rights.

What they said.

 

[goofy!]

Although I am a huge advocate of spaying and neutering all pets and I believe backyard breeding and breeding of designer mutts is abhorrent, I still had to vote no. As everybody else said, we don't need another law infringing on individual rights.

Also, it would personally cause us and many other show people lots of headaches. We show our dogs and you can not show a spayed or neutered dog. So, having to fight to keep my very expensive show dogs intact (even though we are not breeding), would be too much infringement on my rights.