Mandatory dog and cat spay/neuter in Palm Beach

[Mushroom Spore]

Dianne Sauve began her day Tuesday much as she has for six years: facing a list of 50 animals — the unwanted pets killed just after sunrise at the county-run animal shelter.

"I go to sleep with the knowledge of that list, and I wake up with that list," said Sauve, director of Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control.

But now, an ordinance that commissioners approved Tuesday after an emotional public hearing presents Sauve and other officials with hope that the number of animals placed on the daily death list will decline.

The ordinance, approved 5-1 and strenuously opposed by many dog breeders and their national associations, would require all pet owners to sterilize their animals unless they sign an affidavit agreeing not to breed them. They would be required to buy a $75 "unaltered" tag, and the permit must be renewed each year.

The measure takes effect in April and is one of the few of its kind in the nation. It's unique because it urges all owners of dogs and cats to have their pets spayed, but leaves them the option of keeping intact animals if they pay the extra charge.

Tuesday's vote was made before a packed audience of more than 100 activists on both sides of the issue. At times the hearing was broken with long rounds of applause. During much of the meeting, opponents held yellow sheets reading "Bad Ordinance."

It isn't the county's first attempt at dealing with the issue. Similar proposals have been debated and rejected, most recently about a decade ago.

Officials said the new ordinance is the most intense effort in three decades of study in the county of methods for controlling the dog and cat population. Official statistics show that more than 16,000 dogs and cats are being destroyed annually at the county-run shelter in West Palm Beach.

Commissioner Burt Aaronson made the motion to pass the ordinance. "I can't see killing one animal," he said. "Dogs are man's best friend. And I don't know anybody in this audience who would want to kill their best friend."

Commissioner Bob Kanjian cast the sole dissenting vote.

"Today, our decision is not whether or not something is wrong. There is a problem [with too many unwanted animals]," Kanjian said before voting. "The choice is whether you think this ordinance will solve our problem. … And I think our government can do better than this ordinance."

Lake Worth's Frank Lennon the owner of a Fort Lauderdale-based airplane-manufacturing company and a hobby pet breeder, was among the dozens of opponents who spoke. He said the ordinance will discourage breeders from holding pet shows and other events in the county. He argued that it will be ineffective and intrusive in the lives of pet owners.

"What happens if all the animal people start to leave the county?" Lennon said.

Maurie Zwicker, of Lake Worth, said pet breeders are contributing to the pet overpopulation problem, and their concerns about the ordinance are unwarranted.

"This is not an issue of owners' rights, but animals' right to have a life," Zwicker said. "Being allowed to breed more and more animals, in a climate where thousands of them are put to death … is a very big wrong. It's illogical and immoral."

Jeanette Christos, the founder of the Tri County Humane Society in Boca Raton, a privately run shelter, said the ordinance will ease the number of unwanted pets they have to take in and destroy.

She described the chore of "walking pets with their tails wagging and thinking they're going on a walk, not knowing they are going to a euthanasia room."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-flpspay0206pnfeb06,0,1153473.story

Personally, I applaud this, and hope more counties follow the example.

 

[desertdweller]

Thanks for this post. There is such a positive movement in many directions to abate the overpopulation of cats and dogs. I too applaud this. It will be a happy day for all when there are not more shelters for unwanted animals simply because there are no unwanted pets. Most of us on this board value life of all kinds, not just human.

 

[vvx]

Well I'm gonna go the other way, someone's gotta!

Just because most people are irresponsible and allow their pets to breed and or intentionally breed them without being able to place those pets doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to. Why punish the responsible ones for the misdeeds of others?

I'd rather see a "kill all caught" policy where stray cats/dogs are immediately killed. The whole idea of "well if I can't place them the animal shelter can take them" is why you get a lot of those excess pets in the first place. If the person knew anything they didn't place would be killed there would be fewer people breeding that can't support the pets until placed. I've been called cold and heartless but the reality is as long as you try to save something it just lets those who produce continue to produce without worry. "Rescue" a mistreated tarantula from a pet store and all you're doing is encouraging that store to purchase more spiders. After all they made money off the one you bought...

 

[RoachGirlRen]

^ That logic is pretty dramatically flawed because it assumes that all breeding is intentional, that all dogs in shelters are the result of an intentional breeding and are being surrendered as unsold puppies, and that people take into account the fact that they might not be able to place the dogs that they breed. Most byb idiots I've talked to have a mentality of "Oh, my dog is special and wonderful and cute and everyone will surely want its mutt puppies. I'll probably make money off of it too!" Few people breed thinking "Well, I can always dump the surplus off at a rescue." And frankly, a huge number of shelter dogs are from unplanned, accidental breedings of ferals, strays, roaming dogs, or simply idiots too irresponsible to spay/neuter and contain their dog properly. Plus, many dogs already had homes but were surrendered for reasons ranging from incompatibility to moving to allergies to people just being too lazy to work through problems they are having with their pets.
Furthermore, only recently did shelters go no-kill; in the past, dogs were killed within a week of coming in if there was no home (and this is still the case in most animal control shelters). If "kill 'em all" worked, we wouldn't have the pet homelessness problem we have today; back when most shelters were killed, we had a good 15-18 million pets being euthanized yearly. Now that number is more like 7-10 million largely due to comprehensive spay/neuter programs, public education, promotion of shelter adoptions, etc.

That said, I'm not sure if I agree with manditory spay/neuter. I have to wonder who is going to pay for it, since many people of a low SES may have trouble paying for it (is the shelter going to offer discount spay/neuter?). I think ALL animals caught straying or brought into shelters should have to be spayed or neuthered, as well as all animals implicated in bites/attacks on humans or other animals. I would even be OK with manditory spay/neuter unless you get a permit, but I could see a $75 fee for each breeding animal being an issue even for responsible AKC breeders (I don't care so much about it being an issue for puppy mills and bybs, as they have no place breeding anyways since they contribute nothing to healthy lines or breed preservation). Dog breeding isn't my cup of tea, but I get a little queasy every time big government steps in to impose more laws and restrictions.

 

[halfwaynowhere]

I support the mandatory spay/neuter ordinances. I am active in a cat rescue, and have bottlefed too many kittens that never needed to exist. The problem with cats is that people have them outdoors, without spaying/neutering. Then when their cat has kittens, they leave the kittens outdoors, and contribute to the feral population. Its a lot harder to enforce these types of ordinances with cats than with dogs, though, so I don't know how big of a difference it will make.
As for dogs, I know that there really isn't any money to be made from responsible breeding practices. But seriously, if you have a quality dog and plan on breeding it, you can sell those puppies for several hundred dollars each. $75 a year really isn't much if its something you are passionate about. If it can help cut down on the number of unwanted dogs being put down each day, than I'm all for it.

 

[Scott C.]

I will never support a thing such as this. Breed them if you want.

Too many dogs in shelters already? "Oh!! The humanity!!"

Bet that problem could be solved in a matter of days if it weren't for the mass of people that would be screaming.... you guessed it.... "Oh!! The humanity!!"

Meat, and fur are useful... If people would just live by their moral compass rather than smack others over the head with it, then there wouldn't be any stigma... or a surplus of mammals that "have nowhere to go".

 

[mindlessvw]

I don't really see a problem with it. If someone desires to breed an animal they will have to de-worm, shots, and all the other fun stuff for a puppy. If they are unwilling to even pay $75 dollars a year then perhaps they are not financially capable or willing to care for the animals properly. It may help weed out back yard breeders. just a thought.

 

[halfwaynowhere]

I don't really see a problem with it. If someone desires to breed an animal they will have to de-worm, shots, and all the other fun stuff for a puppy. If they are unwilling to even pay $75 dollars a year then perhaps they are not financially capable or willing to care for the animals properly. It may help weed out back yard breeders. just a thought.

unless animal control officers start going door to door asking to see proof of registration, spay/neuter, etc., it won't do a thing about backyard breeders, because these people generally don't license their dogs, anyways.
And even if animal control did start going door to door, there are still ways around getting caught.

 

[bugmankeith]

I like the idea, there are too many bad people out there that go unnoticed abusing/neglecting animals. If preventing more cats/dogs from being born is a law it will at least help a little.

Some people just dont care, but now this law should scare them a bit.

 

[Scott C.]

People who don't care generally don't care about the law too.... and then there are the people who do care, just not about the law.... To top it off, those people who don't care about the law and breed anyway are going to avoid proper channels for excess offspring to avoid repercussion which means more work to get worse off animals off the streets, and into shelters.... Where Ms. Zwicker will still be losing sleep over the excess pet animals she must exterminate.

 

[RoachGirlRen]

Bet that problem could be solved in a matter of days if it weren't for the mass of people that would be screaming.... you guessed it.... "Oh!! The humanity!!"

Unfortunately, pet homelessness isn't just a fabricated problem that only effects bleeding hearts concerned about puppies and kittens dying in the streets and in shelters. It is a serious public health concern. Case in point? Just about every country in the world where stray dogs and cats breed out of control and are not dealt with by animal control, shelters, concentrated spay/neuter programs, licensure laws, etc. Stray dogs and cats spread parasites disease, kill wildlife, injure and kill livestock, harm humans, cause car accidents, and in places where there is municipal animal control, cost tax payers money. Consistently, annual dog bite statistics indicate that the majority of fatal dog attacks are from individual or groups of intact roaming male dogs. We'd see a whole lot more of that if we just ignored the stray issue.
What's more, we live in a happy sheltered world where only a handful of people die of rabies annually in our country largely due to pet licensure laws and rigid control of stray populations; in the third world, rabies is considered an epidemic and kills somewhere in the range of 55,000 people per year. The number one vector? Stray dogs. And if killing people with a completely horrible and preventable disease wasn't bad enough, several endangered species are also being whiped out from rabies spread by feral and stray dogs (the ethiopian wolf is expected to be extinct within the next 5 years or so largely due to the last remaining populations suffering massive rabies epidemics).
We create laws to protect the public, and stray/feral animals are a serious risk to public safety and natural resources. While I do not wholeheartedly agree with manditory spay/neuter laws, I can at least appreciate the reasoning behind it. So, I don't think this is a cut and dry issue of people "imposing their moral compass." And frankly, though it is a pleasant pipe dream, the civilized world doesn't exactly work out when everyone follows their own individual moral code, because some people's moral codes are fine with rape, murder, larceny, etc.

 

[Galadriel]

These are popping up all over the US and I can guarantee you it will be re-worded before it's all said and done with. People who prove they show (animals MUST be intact to show) and licensed breeders will be exempt from the speuter laws. That is, of course, assuming they can get it passed in the first place. In reality, even if it passes, how in the HELL do they think they'll be able to enforce it?! Animal control doesn't have the man power to send people door to door of every pet owner to make sure they're having their pets fixed. In fact, THEY CAN'T! How many judges are going to sit all day and sign warrants?
Because I tell ya what...that's what it would take for me to let an AC officer in my home.

One more thing that REALLY bothers me. There was mention in the article about "animals having the right to life"...ummmm....ANIMALS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS!!!! That is reserved strictly for humans. Humans have RIGHTS, animals have welfare. The day my dog starts to vote is the day I check out.

 

[Scott C.]

.....

You, and I have very different opinions, on "civilized".

You think some program such as this is gonna alleviate the drain on tax dollars? I'd say exasperate.

You may be able to pull reasons why it could be beneficial out, because you happen to be quick witted, but if you think this isn't about people like Ms. Zwicker, I'd say you're a bit naive.

Anyway, I suppose none of it matters, because if I personally felt like breeding a dog I'd do it regardless of some nonsensical regulations made more to ease minds, and add to the bureaucracy, than anything else.... and I'm not a bleeding heart, nor irresponsible.... I guarantee no animals will become strays due my tinkering.

 

[RoachGirlRen]

You may be able to pull reasons why it could be beneficial out, because you happen to be quick witted, but if you think this isn't about people like Ms. Zwicker, I'd say you're a bit naive.

I think it's happening because of people like Ms. Zwicker, but I think the benefits of having fewer intact animals and fewer strays/ferals extend beyond those people like her are specifically looking for. Which is why I brought up the issues caused by large stray/feral populations; it isn't like the only positive is "we don't have to put down as many dogs." (And lets not forget that cats are included in this - feral cats are a big freakin' problem for Florida's wildlife, and are becoming an alarming common rabies vector. I am ALL for as many cats as possible being spayed & neutered, even if manditory.) Nice pragmatic benefits can occur at the same time as more emotional ones, after all. I could just as easily argue contrarily, of course, if I had the motivation. The biggest issue I see, as others have said, is that it is utterly unenforceable until the dogs already do garner attention from animal control or stray, and is more likely to effect lawful, concerned citizens who abide by the laws to begin with and thus are arguably less likely to have roaming dogs running around causing unwanted litters.

 

[bugmankeith]

"Bet that problem could be solved in a matter of days if it weren't for the mass of people that would be screaming.... you guessed it.... "Oh!! The humanity!!" "


I think what he means is why not put to sleep a mass amount of dogs/cats in shelters around the country, that will surely decrease the amount of homeless pets fairly quickly. Problem with that is I doubt anyone would like to see that.

We contributed to the problem of overpopulation in many ways, and killing innocent animals in shelters who at least are being fed and cared for is wrong, they are better off in shelters than on the streets.

There not better off dead!

Second, do you know what happens to the animals after they are PTS ?(put to sleep)

There bodies must be disposed of properly. How on earth do you dispose of hundreds of animals before they start to decompose? They need to be cremated or sent to labs where some are used for dissection.

It also takes more of the drugs used to put the animal to sleep, and more workers to do it, and those drugs aint cheap either and you have to pay the workers extra!

It would cost more to PTS all the animals than to feed/care for each one.

It will never happen like that.

 

[Choobaine]

If it were not for the potential diseases I'd happily eat strays or wear them as fur. I think dog fur would be quite nice. I'd like a hat made out of kitten.

After the whole foot and mouth crisis it seems Britain is pretty efficient at disposing of large amounds of diseased animals however I'm not entirely sure how that adds up money wise. But then strays aren't a real problem here. The chavs eat them first.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to use both methods? Neuter/spay the ones that look pretty and don't bite too much and put them up for adoption then euthanise all the mutts with bald patches and cremate them? Or am I thinking too simply about this? Either way it's going to cost money, and recources. How bad is the problem in your area in comparison with other issues like homelessness or schools? It would be interesting to see what the gorvernment's priority list is like and where it sits in their to do list.

 

[Scott C.]

....It will never happen like that.

I agree with that part....

but I think they should be used, not just disposed of. No need to be wasteful. Enterprising minds given the opportunity could probably make legitimate jobs out of it rather than the official ones due an increase to an already overgrown blob.

You're right, we made the problem. We should clean up our mess.... for our sake, because that's what it's really about. Animals aren't innocent, they just are. And if you think our tinkering with their population should only go one way, and not the other, then I disagree with your sentiments.

 

[bugmankeith]

We should clean up our mess.... for our sake, because that's what it's really about.

Honestly, that really sounds conceited and selfish. Whether thats your opinion or if you think every human should feel that way.

I really dont feel "threatened" if animals overpopulate, I feel bad for the animals that are starving and dying because of it, I dont feel bad for myself... nor is decreasing the population of cats/dogs going to help me in any way.

My pets are fixed and vaccinated so I know i'm not contributing to pet overpopulation, and that makes me feel good. I also do cat rescue and find homes for stray cats, and fix as many cats as I can to decrease the amount of new cats in the neighborhood.

If you've heard of TNR that's what I do, it's a good start to try and decrease pet overpopulation.

At least in my area, the cats and dogs have no predators, so there is an over abundance of them. But there are also alot of programs for spay/neuter, and many animal shelters, the overpopulation has slowly decreased over the years.

There is also many rabies programs, to prevent the spread of it, rabies is rare here, very rare. Laws in NY are fairly strict, and I think it's for the good.

I see nothing wrong with trying to prevent more animals being born which slowly would help prevent overpopulation.

Pregnant pets can happen accidently by owners who chose not to fix there pets, and mabye they escaped outside and mated, or on purpose for those people who breed to sell animals for money or just dont care if there animals keep getting pregnant.

But tell the people now you cant have unaltered pets, if they follow that, less unwanted pets.

I wouldnt depend on the public to always do the right thing, this law should teach those people (or at least make them aware) that what they are doing is making things worse by making more animals people just cant find homes for.

Not to mention animal hoarders violate health codes and can put themselves in danger, more of them need to be dealt with to prevent more hoarding.

Sometimes awareness is all people need to wake up and realize what they are doing can be bad or good. So not only will the law create new awareness, awareness will spread by word of mouth.

 

[Rich65]

C'mon, why stop at dogs and cats?

Lets spay and nueter a few humans while were at it, that would fix alot of these problems. But I bet that law would not win as many votes.

If laws like this pass, what will be next?? We have too many damn laws as it is.

Awareness?? I don't think so, we are all aware that it's a law not to speed but we all do. We are aware that you will go to prison for crimes but the prisons are filling at alarming rates. Prisoners now have rights, its almost like clubmed for some.(3 hots and a cot) tv, wieght lifting, dental, ect....

This is a society problem, too many things in our modern world are disposable and its to easy for people to just abandon or turn in these pets, if they had to care for them birth till death they might have a different understanding of a responsible pet care.

Education is by far the most important but the states cut more and more funding from schools. If we can educate the youth about these problems and teach them responsibilities, to care for pets, the environment and nature maybe we wouldn't have this overworked underpaid county animal shelter employee complaining.

By the way alot of unwanted pets, roadkill, old horses and such go to rendering plants where the fats and oils are extracted and used in alot pet foods and other products.!!

I have so many thoughts on this that I'm losing focus and starting to just ramble on.

 

[Galadriel]

Honestly, that really sounds conceited and selfish. Whether thats your opinion or if you think every human should feel that way.


Selfish and conceited? Domestic dogs and cats were CREATED because humans are selfish and conceited! 98% of domestic dogs were created my man, not nature. You never would have seen packs of wild chihuahuas taking down an elk.

The majority of dogs are bred either by "ooops" litters by irresponsible owners who shouldn't have them in the first place, or by people looking to turn a quick buck. They try to sell their mutt pappies in at flea markets and in the wal-mart parking lot, people buy them on a whim or because they want a "tough dog" (pit bull breeds are the hot ticket item right now) and then either dump them off when they decide it was a bad idea to get one, or wait until the first heat and breed their one year old pups to get on the money making band wagon.
It's not a lack of education, it's a matter of seeing dollar signs more important than anything else, and good old fashioned not caring.
So yes, maybe people who don't confirmation show and those who are not licensed breeders SHOULD speuter their pets. But they won't. And forcing that type of law on us is an infringement on our rights. Pets are property in the eyes of the law, AND DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS!
Jeez, I feel like a broken record!