Illinois state veterinary association opposes forced spay-neuter
By Gina Spadafori
July 30, 2008
Hat tip to straybaby for the link to the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, opposing forced spay-neuter for Chicago. From the ISVMA:
The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA) opposes the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance being proposed for the City of Chicago. Although the ordinance’s stated goals to reduce the number of unwanted pets and gang activity are laudable, the reality is that it will have no effect on these problems. Instead, it will create some serious public health concerns, cause many animals to be denied necessary health care, and will trample on the personal property rights of conscientious pet owners.
The ISVMA opposes this proposed ordinance for the following reasons: (explanations below)
• The ordinance implies that dog bites will vanish because of a simplistic, and non-scientifically based assumption that only intact animals bite.
• There is no conclusive evidence that mandatory spay/neuter programs work.
• This mandate would discourage pet owners from seeking rabies immunization if they are opposed to neutering/spaying and fear they will be reported. Currently, we struggle to ensure the proper safeguards are in place to protect the public from rabies. Rabies is essentially a 100% fatal disease to humans, dogs and cats.
• There are not enough resources in Chicago to enforce this law in a meaningful way.
• With regard to creating a healthier pet, there are both positive and negative affects accrued from sterilization. It appears that benefits outweigh risks; however, there are many breed and individual dog variants, suggesting that professional judgment is required to determine whether and when to neuter/spay pets.
Read the entire document; it’s well worth your time. Should we paying attention to a retired TV game-show host or the detailed explanation of peer-reviewed work of general practice veterinarians, public-health veterinarians and veterinary behaviorists? Let’s put a cork in Bob Barker’s forced spay-neuter “tsunami” and work on community-wide, progressive, carrot-not-stick approaches to getting pets into homes and keeping them there.
I take back what I wrote yesterday. Illinois does have more common sense than California. The best the California Veterinary Medical Association could do on forced spay-neuter here (AB 1634, in its new and arguably worse incarnation coming to the California State Senate floor as early as Monday) is back away from “support” to “neutral” after its members went ballistic.
At least in Illinois, they’ll look at the issues, the facts and the science and speak up for what works … and what doesn’t.
When you’re right, you’re right: Bob Barker is right about one thing … forced spay-neuter laws are indeed a tsunami, as in a wave that wipes out and kills everything in its path. Check out the killing and the costs that come in the wake of forced spay-neuter legislation, most recently in L.A. (Thanks to SaveOurDogs for the research and for putting it all in one place.)
Why is this even being discussed anywhere?
Yes! I never thought about bullet 3. People wouldn’t bring sick pets in for care if they thought they were going to get fined.
A bit OT: did you see that PETA issued a statement urging Obama to adopt a shelter dog because so many animals are killed in shelters every year? …the many faces of PETA…
I keep getting in first lately, it must say something about my desire to be editing these reports…
Comment by Lori — July 30, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Anecdotal information from Los Angeles’ new post forced spay-neuter world also suggests some people will just give up their pet to animal control to be killed rather than be fined. Especially if they already can’t afford spay-neuter.
And then get a new pet, many of which can be had for free. Not from a shelter. Wash, rinse, repeat.
To be sure, I’m uncomfortable with “unnamed sources.” Anyone in L.A. want to come up with some names to go with these stories?
But still … people giving up pets instead of paying a fine is a plausible — if undocumented — consequence of forced spay-neuter, albeit certainly not one intended by proponents of forced spay-neuter, who probably weren’t much thinking through the possibility of people not getting rabies shots for their pets, either.
That’s the problem with feel-good, sound-bite legislation … the unintended consequences are a bitch. More dead pets, not fewer.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 30, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
The California State Department of Finance has just released an analysis of AB 1634. They are opposing the bill because it will increase costs to the State under the Hayden Mandate and will likely increase euthanasia in the shelters.
This is the same thing the AB 1634 opposition has been saying since day one.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Legislat.....B01634.pdf
Comment by Sharpei Lover — July 30, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Thanks SL … pretty much tells you why the forced spay-neuter forces have been in such a hurry. Time is not on their side. Anyone who looks at these ordinances can tell they are disasters in the making, with increased kill rates in shelters and more costs for taxpayers.
Wishing something works doesn’t make it so …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 30, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
te next time I need medical attention and need to make a decision.. I am calling Alex Trebeck for advice to see how much “Jeopardy” I will be in.
Category:
Dogs and cats
Answer:
What law has failed to work every time it was passed, has cost the citizens more money where is has been enacted and killed more animals
Qusetion:
What is mandatory spay/castrate?
Congratulations you have won the final Jeopardy question
The sad thing is this will be the FINAL answer for millions of animals.
Comment by bestuvall — July 30, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Oh good! Glad you saw it :)
I was happy they noted there weren’t enough resources to enforce the law (among other things). It’s like “HELLO?!” what are these people thinking?! Our law makers need to start employing a bit of creativity and perhaps they could actually come up with some real solutions, not ones they have no hope in heck of being able to execute.
Comment by straybaby — July 30, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
18 million spent in Los Angeles now?
And the City is cutting back on vital programs helping the city’s vulnerable populations!
I tell you…it just doesn’t make sense. Bad management, if you ask me…IMHO.
Comment by Marcy — July 31, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
I hadn’t read this post when I commented on the newer one about how people hide when these laws are enacted.
Sorry for the duplication.
Comment by Caveat — August 1, 2008 @ 8:29 am
It’s because the AR agenda never sleeps. They are hatching more animal rights attys daily. The emotional ploy of those poor killed shelter animals stops the ability to think rationally.
Comment by Lisa Grant — August 11, 2008 @ 1:45 am
I am assuming none of you who oppose this have volunteered your time to see how many animals on a daily basis are being euthanized do to overcrowding and no humans wanting to take on the responsiblities of the pet overpopulation. I suggest before you condem this you go to your local dog pound and/or humane society and hold the dog or cat that is being euthanized simply because there are to many of them and not enough homes. Pretty basic to figure out.
Comment by Anne — September 3, 2008 @ 10:56 am
You would be assuming wrong, both on what we have seen and done, and on how those animals got in there and how they’re getting out.
We oppose forced spay-neuter because it flat-out doesn’t work, and in fact has killed MORE animals and cost MORE money everywhere it has been tried.
And we oppose it because it puts the state into a medical decision that should be between a veterinarian and a pet-owner.
You want something that’s “pretty basic to figure out”? Look at the facts, not the sound-good BS served up to you by animal-rights groups that fight tooth and nail any ideas to help get and keep more pets into more homes.
Groups like PETA, which kills more than 90 percent of the animals taken into its shelter, according to reports the group is required to file with the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 3, 2008 @ 11:11 am