|
The Facts about Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws
|
|
|
|
Animal lovers everywhere are saddened by the number of pets that enter shelters every year. To these animal lovers, mandatory spay/neuter laws appear to make sense: if people were required by law to alter their pets or pay higher licensing fees for unaltered pets, fewer pets would enter shelters. While on the surface this sounds logical, further investigation into the results of such legislation proves the opposite. |
|
Animal welfare professionals recognize that spaying and neutering is the best method for reducing unwanted litters. How to achieve this goal is the topic of much debate. One method employed by cities is to pass legislation mandating all owned animals be spayed or neutered. In the last decade, cities across the country have attempted this method. It has been determined that this type of legislation actually increases shelter intake and shelter euthanasia. The results are as follows: faced with the decision of having to pay a large fine for possessing an unaltered animal, lower-income people will relinquish ownership of the pet rather than pay the fine. The people then replace the pet with another animal, but this pet is hidden from authority for fear of the same result. The new pet is often unlicensed, unaltered, does not receive veterinary care, and the families fear animal control officers who will cause them to lose yet another companion. This creates an endless cycle of animal confiscation, never actually accomplishing the goal of reducing shelter intake.
|
|
The City of St. Louis is proposing legislation requiring the mandatory spay/neuter of all companion animals and has plans to employ aggressive high- fine citation methods in its attempts to reduce euthanasia at area shelters. Because the City of St. Louis has closed its animal control facility, and because these laws cause higher relinquishment rates, the burden of the increase in animals received will be felt by the APA and other area shelters. City residents should educate themselves on what the results of such legislation has been in other communities and urge their Aldermen to vote against this proposition. |
|
| The following is only a partial list of the numerous studies and articles from reputable animal welfare and animal rights agencies regarding Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws (“MSNL”). Regardless of your position on animal rights or animal welfare, please click on the links below and share this information with others who are interested in reducing the amount of euthanasia that occurs in the St. Louis area. |
|
|
ASPCA:
The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law. |
|
Alley Cat Allies:
In addition to being ineffective, MSN imposes a financial burden on taxpayers and existing government budgets. MSN attempts to increase the spay/neuter rate by imposing penalties on pet owners. Generally, punishment is the most costly way to accomplish any legislative goal. |
|
FixAustin:
Every single data-based study of mandatory spay/neuter laws has demonstrated that such laws do not increase spay-neuter compliance rates, nor do they reduce shelter intake, nor are they cost-effective, nor do they save lives. In fact, the opposite is true: in community after community that has passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, shelter killing and intake actually increase because in poor communities, families who cannot afford the money or time to have their pets surgically altered are forced to surrender their pets (or the pets are seized). These pets are quickly replaced in the communities with additional unaltered animals, creating an enhanced cycle of killing. These laws do not work, have never worked in any community, and will not work. |
|
Best Friends Animal Sanctuary:
Best Friends does not support mandatory spay-neuter legislation as a method of pet population control, says Judah Battista, associate director for Best Friends Community Programs and Services. |
|
Nathan Winograd from The No-Kill Advocacy Center:
Let me set the record straight, again:
I am against mandatory spay/neuter laws because they do not work, because they kill animals. I am also against puppy mills.
I was against mandatory spay/neuter when I was the lone voice on that score arguing from the point of view that they lead to increased impounds and killing. I have never shied away from taking an unpopular view when the lives of animals were threatened. Now, there are a lot of animal lovers and even the ASPCA which are against them for the same reason. |
|
American Veterinary Medical Association:
The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences. |
|
No-Kill Houston:
MSNL have been in effect in various communities for some time, so we now have ample opportunity to ascertain whether they reduce shelter killing. When we research these communities, we find that while increased voluntary sterilization does help reduce the number of animals entering shelters, MSNL do not decrease the number of animals entering or being killed in shelters. MSNL have backfired. |
|
No-Kill Iowa:
The simple, and obvious, alternative to mandating spay /neuter is to offer reduced or free spay / neuter. Supporters of these programs approach the issue with the understanding most people want to do the right thing for their pets, and work to help these owners, instead of criminalizing them. |
|
Nevada Humane Society:
Another mistake some people make is putting a lot of effort into mandatory spay/neuter legislation. While it can be a good idea to require shelters and pet stores to neuter all pets, the effort and energy that goes into passing legislation that focuses on individual pet owners can almost always be better spent ensuring that low-cost and free spay/neuter services are readily available and accessible to the people who need them most. |
|
Pet Connection featuring Dr. Marty Becker and Christy Keith:
But if you do use your brain instead, by which I mean you actually investigate those communities that have succeeded or failed in ending the killing of homeless pets, or are very close to succeeding, you’ll see a clear pattern.
|
|
| None of the successful communities have mandatory spay/neuter laws in place. They have a similar set of programs — low cost or free spay/neuter, trap-neuter-return for feral cats, foster programs, thriving volunteer programs, and a great relationship with rescue groups, local businesses, and the regular members of their community. |
|
|
| The APA is committed to putting people and pets together and has successfully done so for nearly 90 years. If these laws are enacted in the City of St. Louis they will not affect County residents, but the effects of this legislation will have a direct impact on our operations in the County. Alternative options are available and are cited in the above articles. We must recognize that there are no short-term solutions to long-term problems. Efforts to reduce euthanasia must be done through credible research, programs that reflect that research, and measurable benchmarks. Please educate yourself and others and speak out about this issue. |
|
|
Steve Kaufman
Executive Director
Animal Protective Association of Missouri |
|