Redding Record Searchlight:
Spay-and-Neuter Bill Sics New Fees on Lawful Owners

Redding Record Searchlight (Editorial
Jun 20, 2007

Sometimes good intentions, like bored retrievers, sneak under the fence and go astray. For instance, take the "California Healthy Pets Act."

This bill, which the state Assembly narrowly passed last week, would require all dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets, with $500 fines for violations. The legislation includes exceptions for breeders and service and police dogs, but owners would need to pay for a county "intact permit" -- a license to leave the critter alone.

For both the animals' sakes and our own, it's certainly worth working to reduce the number of freely breeding animals that all too often go feral or end up crowding the pounds until they're put down. But is the solution more fees, permits and paperwork for law-abiding pet owners?

Responsible people already either spay or neuter their animals or keep them under close watch. The troubles largely come from their thoughtless neighbors who let dogs run wild until they breed whole packs.

But those irresponsible owners are already, likely as not, ignoring requirements to license and control their animals. Is there any reason to think they'll be more diligent about spaying and neutering?

In Santa Cruz County, which made fixing mandatory in the mid-1990s, the number of animals arriving in shelters has fallen by more than half since the law took effect. How do you argue with success?

Well, the numbers have also dropped in Shasta County -- not as much, but about 20 percent in five years, says shelter manager Mayra Morris. She credits education and vouchers for discount neutering. With a little more money devoted to the job, there could be even fewer unwanted animals.

What's more, attitudes and conditions vary enormously around the state. What might make sense to residents of liberal Santa Cruz or crowded Los Angeles (where the county passed a spay-and-neuter ordinance for dogs last year) can look senselessly intrusive in the north state. Why not let cities and counties decide the plainly local issue of animal regulation for themselves?

If the state wants to encourage altering dogs and cats, great. But a plan based on incentives -- more liver treat, less rolled-up newspaper -- is likely to be just as effective and provoke far less growling by the public.