Comments on: Illinois state veterinary association opposes forced spay-neuter

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:11:03 +0000

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.

By: Anne

Anne — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:56:38 +0000

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.

By: Lisa Grant

Lisa Grant — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:45:41 +0000

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.

By: Caveat

Caveat — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:29:53 +0000

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.

By: Marcy

Marcy — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:47:10 +0000

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.

By: straybaby

straybaby — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:11:35 +0000

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.

By: bestuvall

bestuvall — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:05:41 +0000

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.

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:03:52 +0000

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 …

By: Sharpei Lover

Sharpei Lover — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:27:45 +0000

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

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:55:14 +0000

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.