Drastic Overreach: Pet Sterilization Measure Should Be Scrapped
San Diego Union Tribune - Editorial
Apr 26, 2007
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's bill to require the vast majority of California's dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old – which took its first step toward passage this week with the approval of an Assembly committee – is best described as a well-intentioned mess.
Levine, D-Van Nuys, is on solid ground in saying there are far too many unwanted, abandoned dogs and cats, and that it is both disturbing and costly that 300,000 to 500,000 animals have to be euthanized in California each year at a cost of $250 million. But his bill would punish millions of responsible pet owners while actually encouraging more irresponsibility from the minority of pet owners who are causing the problem in the first place.
Under AB 1634, any dog or cat that had not been spayed or neutered could be impounded. Owners could only recover their pets if they agreed to have their animals fixed or if they paid a $500 fine. Given these owners couldn't be bothered to spend $50 to $150 for the procedure in the first place, it's highly likely that many would never try to get back their pets – who then would join other abandoned animals at shelters as likely candidates for euthanasia.
It's also likely that many responsible pet owners – and breeders who would have to pay for permits on a pet-by-pet basis to stay in business – would see the law as a governmental overreach and ignore its requirements. Such laws often lead to black markets and unexpected new headaches.
Beyond these shortcomings, there is an angle to this debate that deserves far more attention: the fact that fixing dogs at such a young age can cause many long-term health problems. For one example, sterilizing dogs before maturity more than triples their risk of bone cancer.
Unfortunately, Levine brushes aside these concerns and says the choice is adopting his bill or doing nothing. We strongly disagree.
Before following Levine's prescription, why not first act to fully subsidize all spaying and neutering? Or offer a tax credit to pet owners who can document their animals are sterilized? Or provide tax credits to veterinarians based on how many of their clients they get to fix their pets?
This is much more practical and defensible than Levine's drastic overreach – especially considering one minor detail that supporters of his bill never bring up: The number of unwanted pets at state animal shelters has declined over the past decade. This suggests that existing subsidies and public education efforts have worked – and that there's promise in expanding them.
A final note: It's dismaying that Levine's bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee thanks to unanimous support from the panel's Democrats. We hope that every Assembly Democrat takes an independent, fresh look at AB 1634 and not just go along with Levine because of that “D” after his name.
Pet overpopulation is a complex issue. Decisions on how to deal with it shouldn't be driven by partisanship.
