More forced spay-neuter: Delusional thinking ad naseum
By Gina Spadafori
November 8, 2009
Problem: Unowned cats are “out of control” in Las Vegas.
Not a Solution: Mandatory spay-neuter of owned pets, four months of age or older.
Wha?
Too bad no one was paying attention when the No Kill folks were in Vegas recently offering actual, you know, solutions. Instead, we get the same old batch of “We have no proof mandatory spay-neuter helps, nothing but proof that it kills more pets, but we gotta punish us some people we hate, so … we’re good with that!”
From the Las Vegas Review Journal:
[E]uthanasia is not a solution to pet overpopulation, animal officials say. That’s why the city of Las Vegas is seeking to follow North Las Vegas in adopting a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for dogs and cats as a way to break the cycle of rampant reproduction.
The measure has its critics, though, and even supporters acknowledge that the approach isn’t a magic bullet.
“A mandatory spay/neuter (ordinance) is a good place to start,” said Karen Coyne, head of Las Vegas’ Detention and Enforcement department, which includes animal control.
A good place to start would be with policies that work. Be nice if someone actually considered that. Instead, more pets will die everywhere these ordinances pass, instead of people working together for communities supporting progressive, proven shelter policies that are pro-people and pro-pet.
Hey Vegas, why don’t you call Reno? You might learn something.
Why? Why don’t they know? Why don’t they learn?
MSN doesn’t work, that has been proven! More animals will die, more money will be spent. What’s wrong with us that we can’t see this and figure this out? Is it really as simple and ugly as they want to punish people?
Comment by LynnO — November 8, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
It’s so politically popular, though… sounds great on paper as long as you don’t actually research the issue, politicians look like they’re doing something, and organizations like Ms. Coyne’s will need larger budgets allocated for enforcement - so of course they’re in favor!
Particularly absurd that it’s being proposed as a solution to a feral cat “problem” as per the R-J article. If owned cats are not the issue, applying a law to their owners to stop something non-feral cats are not involved in is… incredibly stupid. How do they plan on enforcing MSN laws on wild animals, other than obviously killing as many as they can get their hands on - which they’re already doing? How does a new help with that or solve anything?
Ms. Coyne’s agency needs to start an Office of TNR - and get THAT funded.
Comment by John — November 8, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Horrible disasters, like MSN, often sound good on paper to uninformed, ignorant politician-type folks.
Comment by Animal Wise Radio — November 8, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
@Lynn - I notice for a lot of people involved in Animal Welfare, there IS NO OTHER STRATEGY besides “More S/N! More S/N even if we have to force it! Nothing else is as important as more S/N!”
…it’s like the honestly can’t comprehend that there are other, effective ways of reducing shelter killing besides just sterilizing more and more animals… regardless of the fact that 80% of owned cats and around 75% of all owned pets in general ARE ALREADY S/N. Saturation-level sterilization is ALREADY HERE, it’s time to move on and start deiversifying their coping strategies…
Comment by Pai — November 9, 2009 @ 10:49 am