Somehow, I always thought better of Chicago …
By Gina Spadafori
July 29, 2008
I guess I tend to overestimate the level of common sense I credit Midwesterners with having. But no … today Chicago will be entertaining a forced spay-neuter ordinance, with all the usual lack of understanding of the dynamics of the situation:
Aldermen Burke and Rugai introduced the measure last May after a pack of five pit bulls attacked a woman while she was walking in the 6600 block of South Richmond Avenue on the Southwest Side.
[...]
In addition, the aldermen said the proposal takes aim at Chicago gang members who operate dog-fighting rings. Under the legislation, individuals seeking an exemption to the sterilization requirement would be forced to apply for a breeder’s license, a step that would require a criminal background check.
“I don’t know of too many gang members that would be willing to subject themselves to this type of scrutiny by law enforcement authorities,” Burke said.
I would agree that dog-fighters are not going to be applying for a breeder’s license. But to think that’s going to stop them from doing anything is beyond ridiculous.
And as usual, forced spay-neuter will do nothing to deal with the largest number of animals needing help — feral cats, who also don’t check with authorities before breeding. And as usual, such legislation will hit reputable, ethical breeders the hardest, making it difficult to continue the work of preserving healthy, well-socialized examples of our heritage breeds going forward. (For those of you just dropping in with “all breeders are the same” beliefs, reputable, ethical breeders take responsibility for the animals they bring into this world for life. All breeders are not the same.) … As usual, the proposal exempts “federally licensed breeders,” a/k/a puppy-millers.
Out-of-city puppy-mill scum and careless, clueless backyard breeders either won’t be affected or won’t pay attention to any new laws.
Simple, sound-bite solutions don’t work, kids. Trap-neuter-release and no-kill communities do.
More:
“When we come to this wall which is seemingly impossible to get over, the only answer is legislation….It’s the obvious answer. …The movement for spay and neuter legislation is sweeping across this country. It’s been compared to a tsunami,” [retired game show host Bob] Barker said.
When last I checked, a tsunami wasn’t consdered a good thing.
Pat Howard, 29, of Lake View: “The permits are a good idea because any person not willing to pay for a breeding permit is typically the kind that won’t pay to get them spayed or neutered.”
Ohhhhhhkaayyyyyyy …. so the person who isn’t going to pay for spaying or neutering is going to pay get a breeding permit? Goes back to the dog-fighters, saying: “Oh gosh! I don’t mind that what I’m doing is a felony, but oh my goodness I’d better get a breeding permit or I might get a ticket!”
:::head exploding:::
On a lighter note: A Labrador is running for mayor of an Alaskabama town. I’d vote for him over many of the people in office now, that’s for sure. (Thanks, Pat.) … and a personal note: The wonder kitten Ilario (five months old and change) just realized yesterday that he can jump onto the kitchen counters … now where did I put that spray bottle?
I absolutely understand and agree that this type of legislation is a band-aid and a germy used band-aid at that. But if one already had a breeder’s license (in this case) how would it hurt the reputable breeders?
Honest question, not accusatory or sarcastic (I always get worried when tone of voice is missing).
Comment by Lori — July 29, 2008 @ 8:19 am
It’s a great question.
How do you set the standards for “licensing”? Do you think the government is capable of determining what is the proper way to breed and raise animals? Or do you just give a “breeder’s license” to anyone who puts down the money?
When the gov’t has set standards, they haven’t done a good job.
Currently, the words “licensed breeder” in reference to puppy sales refers to “USDA certified” breeders, which are often high-volume commercial breeders.
The USDA kennel regulations are better suited to the production of food animals, not family members. The focus is on minimum standards of care that won’t get in the way of maximum production and profit … which is not the way reputable, ethical breeders do things.
Reputable, responsible breeders choose animals who have been tested clear of congenital defeats, have sound temperaments and attributes that define what the breed should be, such as working ability or an appearance that says “golden” over “dachshund.” They raise the puppies in house, under foot and with attention to scientifically long-established standards for socializing the puppies.
They are about protecting and preserving their breeds, not producing a profit. How can a government entity set regulations for what’s a labor of love?
Aside from that … isn’t it better to promote what works rather than keep trying harder to tweak what doesn’t … and won’t work no matter how hard you keep slamming it?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 29, 2008 @ 8:42 am
As I understand it - if one doesn’t want to spay or neuter their pets they have to buy a more expensive breeders license. And as far as I know - there aren’t any standards for the license.
Most of the animal shelters in Chicago are supporting it; the thinking being that since the breeder’s license costs more than the low/no cost neutering services widely available in the city its an incentive to neuter.
Personally, I don’t agree (people who don’t license are still not going to license). As for our Aldermen, they regularly demonstrate that they received their training at Ringling Brothers Barum and Bailey clown school.
I’ve said this at numerous animal group meetings - you want people to neuter their animals, give them $25 gift certificates to Target. The costs of holding an animal by the city, as well as the cost to shelters to keep or euthanize these animals is a lot more.
Last week they had a gun buy-back in the city -giving out $100 gift certificates for every gun turned in, no questions asked. They collected over 6,000 guns. Since Chicago has an anti-gun ordinance, everyone of the folks with those 6,000 guns could have been fined, prosecuted, etc, but that didn’t get them to turn in their guns. But for $100 bucks, why not.
Comment by 2CatMom — July 29, 2008 @ 9:00 am
So gang members, who are no doubt already breaking numerous laws, are just gonna throw up their hands and say “Drat! Now I have to get all my fighting dogs neutered.” Are politicians now required to check their brains at the door before heading into their offices? Nothing else explains this.
Comment by Dutch — July 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association issued a strong position statement yesterday in opposition to the proposed Chicago MSN ordinance. If the California Veterinary Medical Association had half as much common sense as their Illinois counterpart, we would have killed AB 1634 over a year ago, and MSN would not have passed in Los Angeles. The ISVMA position statement is well worth a read
http://www.isvma.org/member_co.....neuter.doc
Comment by LauraS — July 29, 2008 @ 10:10 am
I don’t understand…why don’t they KNOW that this kind of legislation DOESN’T WORK?
Are they just going with what sounds good? Does anyone do any sort of research before they put this sort of thing into motion?
Comment by mikken — July 29, 2008 @ 10:19 am
I don’t think they care if it works. They care if it sounds good, so around next election time they can say they tried to do _something_, but their friends across the isle…. Pretty SOP for politics in general.
Comment by Lori — July 29, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Chicago is a “world city” that has more in common with LA, NYC or even London than the rural Midwest. Aside from the constant of major league corruption, it bears little resemblance to the city that was ruled by the current mayor’s father.
Comment by icr — July 29, 2008 @ 10:35 am
oh, and @2catmom: When we got our puppy from a shelter they “charged” us $80, to be fully refunded upon certification that we’d had him neutered within a certain time frame. It worked…
Trouble is, from what I’ve been reading, it might not have been the best idea to neuter him at 3 months. Still, it had it’s intended effect.
Comment by Lori — July 29, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Apparently Alaska has a statewide problem of political corruption. The Lab may be the only honest man left to run for office!
Comment by slt — July 29, 2008 @ 10:45 am
My impression from 17 months of AB 1634 is that most of the politicians who jump on the MSN bandwagon are impervious to appeals based on facts, logic, subject matter experts, our rights under the US Constitution, or the public good. Partisan politics, knee-jerk feel good “solutions”, an extraordinarily superficial understanding of the subject matter, flagrant lies and distortions from the other side, and shameless appeals to pity seem to predominate.
Comment by LauraS — July 29, 2008 @ 10:48 am
The Lab is running in Alabama :) Looks like Sen Stevens of Alaska has been indicted, so someone may want to get their dog on the ballot there ;)
Comment by straybaby — July 29, 2008 @ 11:15 am
oops, fixed. I’ve BEEN to Fairhope, Alabama, so I should have known better.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 29, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Gina,
Is there any form of mandatory spay/neuter you’d find viable
and useful? I ask because I’d like to find one and, after having
just reviewed ISAR’s “Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statute” and
plowed thru their explanatory monograph, I still haven’t.
The problem I keep running into is “enforcement”. If enforcement
is to be against the “public”, such laws have no more effectiveness
than zoning ordinances — effective against the highly visible and
in responding to neighbor complaints.
But why can’t such a law be enforced against breeders (and importers)? (I ask that seriously as I lack a breeder’s viewpoint or experience.) Anyone wanting to sell (or even give away) anything
must make themselves “visible” — and it seems that visibility,
coupled with their finite numbers, could make enforcement practical.
When we’re killing around 5 million companion animals each year,
doesn’t it make sense to try to limit supply at its original source?
(Obviously this would do nothing about the feral cat problem — but
one doesn’t need a “complete” solution to be useful.) Is there
nothing that can be done to regulate the irresponsible sources
(including the unlicensed sources placing classifieds) without unduly
impacting the responsible sources?
What I’m trying to get a handle on is whether the issue of mandatory
spay/neuter is a matter of “practicality” or “will”.
Comment by Ed Zimmer — July 29, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
No, there isn’t, because there’s no reason to expect that it will work to reduce shelter killing. In fact, there’s good reason to expect that shelter kill rates will go UP in forced spay-neuter communities … because they are, already.
Forced spay-neuter laws do not address the problems. They “feel good” but cause more harm than good.
Not to mention, I firmly believe that spaying/neutering is a medical decision that should be discussed between a pet owner and a veterinarian.
The International Society for Animals Rights “model” forced spay-neuter proposal is a model proposal for the elimination of all pets.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 29, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
What bothers me the most is that PAWS - a very large ‘no kill’ shelter is supporting this measure. They are the same shelter that Nathan Winogrod spoke at in Chicago. The PAWS board was there - but apparently not listening to what he had to say. Irresponsible people will continue to be irresposible, law or no law. Winogrod also raised the idea of paying people to have their pets neutered (but I SWEAR, I had it first, LOL).
We may or may not be a world-class city, but this year there’s been a world-class outbreak of school age kids being murdered by other kids. I certainly hope that law enforcement uses their energy working on that problem rather than someone who doesn’t want to neuter their dog.
Comment by 2CatMom — July 29, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Ed,
One problem with trying to regulate the irresponsible sources such as puppy mills and pet shops is that they have money, and money talks. The pet shops managed to get themselves off our MSN bill at the last minute. So now, the only folks (iirc) who are required to S/N are the responsible folks. Shelters and rescues who were already doing it. It did stop one major shelter from bringing in van loads of adoptable unneutered pets every week for mobile adoptions. They didn’t take the pets back if the owners no longer wanted them, so we would get them in thew city shelter system. Eventually they got with the program and started working within the no-kill guidelines here. Unfortunately, they still don’t take the pets back after a couple months. Right about the time they all become rambunctious teens and the owners are going nuts. Luckily, we have more help in place for them now.
The pet owning public at large doesn’t have the big bucks and has to work harder to fight MSN, so easier to lay the responsibility on them, is how I’m guessing some of these politicians see it.
As far as I’m concerned, I don’t need anyone telling me to/when to neuter my pets. Especially clueless politicians ;)
Comment by straybaby — July 29, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Straybaby,
Gina states flatly that MSN *can’t* work — you’re indicating that
maybe it could if the political will were there. I’ve read everything
I’ve been able to find on the subject — lots of emotions, but a
paucity of logic. I remain anti-MSN on emotional grounds — but
I wish I could buttress that with a little logic.
Comment by Ed Zimmer — July 29, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
I don’t think it could work even if there was political will. Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that :) I just think the only way they can pass it is to put it on the pet owners vs the businesses. Not enough pet owners are aware of what’s going on out there with new laws. Easier target. Most figure it out after the fact. PETA just got involved with a couple proposals here, so I image they will be much harder to pass now, lol!~
I personally feel the answer to overpopulation is education, not forcing responsible pet owners to S/N. And let’s get real, only responsible pet owners will obey the law. Who’s got the time and people power to enforce it? We have a few million pets here in NYC and I imagine there’s just as many in LA. Here, they only enforce leash laws when it becomes a “problem”. Same with licensing and Rabies vacs. So getting responsible pet owners to S/N is just not a solution, imo. Most do anyway, so how does that cut down on overpopulation? Even if we had gotten the MSN on pet shops, I don’t think it would have helped a whole lot as people who buy to breed, would only have to go outside of city limits or the internet. I do think it would have closed down more than a few pet stores though :)
One thing that would help with overpopulation is less limit, breed and size restrictions. Especially now with many people having to move and give up their pets because they can’t find affordable housing with them. I’m over the “limit” in many places and my dog is “too big” for a lot of places also. She’s all of 47lbs.
I would start looking at stats in places where they have MSN and do your own comparisons. I’ve seen them skewed both ways, so I go straight to the AC stats etc. I also look for trends and lately, I think the housing crisis is having an impact in certain areas, so that needs to be looked at when looking at trends.
Comment by straybaby — July 29, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Gina,
Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association has issued a press release opposing the proposal. You can download the word doc at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/6dyctt
it’s 3 pages
Comment by straybaby — July 30, 2008 @ 11:07 am
On a lighter note, I hope that Ilario doesn’t like water as much as my cat does. I tried the spray bottle with water method and he sat on the counter and stared at me while I sprayed and sprayed and sprayed. Then when I stopped, he shook himself off and made it very clear that he was going to get off the counter now because he decided to.
Just wait until he learns to open cabinets and helps himself to toys and catnip.
Comment by 2CatMom — July 30, 2008 @ 1:04 pm