Spay Law Not a Solution

Visalia Times-Delta (Editorial)
May 25, 2007

Pet overpopulation is a severe problem in Tulare County.

Valley Oak SPCA alone euthanizes as many as 5,000 unwanted animals a year, although not all are pets in the traditional sense. The number of stray animals, both dogs and cats, roaming Tulare County is in the tens of thousands.

Other parts of California have similar problems too.

Despite that, the solution is not the extreme measure being considered in the California Legislature.

Bill AB 1634 in the state Assembly would require all animal owners, except those with licenses to breed, to spay or neuter their pets within four months of birth.

Although this bill sounds like it would address the problem of unwanted pets, it actually won't. As those who breed their pets responsibly point out, it will drive the demand for puppies toward unscrupulous breeders, puppy mills and other illegal outlets. And the law would be so unenforceable that irresponsible pet owners would not comply anyway.

We urge legislators not to be swayed by the specious arguments of the supporters of AB 1634.

AB 1634 is another example of the Legislature's intrusion into areas where it has no business. California has become the poster child for top-down solutions to problems: Rather than educate the public and develop a culture that provides incentives for responsible conduct, the state imposes rules and restrictions. The result are laws that restrict behavior, whether it is use of seat belts or helmets, smoking, the contents of food, etc.

Some of the laws passed by the Legislature, or attempted to be passed, make a good case for a part-time Legislature, because lawmakers obviously have too much time on their hands.

AB 1634 is not the first time that the Legislature has attempted to impose controls on pet owners. The Legislature has also tried unsuccessfully to pass a law that would require spaying and neutering of certain breeds that are considered dangerous or troublesome.

Pet owners should be encouraged to spay and neuter their animals as soon as it is healthy to do so. But it's not necessary in every case, and it does deprive some pet owners of a valuable asset for their animal. Those who intend to breed their pets responsibly and safely don't need those restrictions.

The real problem with AB1634 is that, like so many other kinds of top-down legislating, it provides a false sense of a solution. The bill presumes that all pet owners would comply and that enforcement would be practical. In fact, both presumptions are wildly inaccurate.

The reason there are so many unwanted pets now are that there are so many irresponsible owners. They neither license nor care for their pets properly. They don't confine them or provide for their health care. What makes the Legislature think they would become responsible pet owners overnight if they were threatened with an additional fine? That doesn't work now.

The Legislature ought to recruit those who are interested and invested in companion animals to develop a public education effort. They ought to make some provision for enforcement of laws that already exist. And they ought to go after puppy mills and those who breed pets indiscriminately.

There are many things that can be done to reduce the number of unwanted pets. AB1634 isn't one of them.