Los Angeles recently passed mandatory spay/neuter legislation and lots of cities plan to follow. What seems like a good idea on the surface - decidedly is not. After all, I’ve written, and shouted as loud as microphones allow in broadcasts about the benefits of spaying and neutering.  Yet, I don’t believe there’s a single advantage to the array of mandatory spay/neuter proposals cities are looking at.

            In Chicago, Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai are teaming with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and a local shelter, PAWS Chicago to forward a spay/neuter mandate into law. If it passes, all dogs and cats over six months will need to be “fixed.”

            But what really do mandated spay/neuter laws fix? The Aldermen in Chicago and public officials who are proponents in other cities contend they’re interested in fixing the problem of dangerous dogs, and serious dog attacks.

            I have news for these folks, and any behaviorist will confirm: Dog aggression is caused by any number of factors. While hormones do matter, spay/neuter does not guarantee ‘nice dogs.’ I wish it was that simple.

            Lots of factors contribute to create aggression, beginning with genetics and a lack of socialization. Abuse, dogs who are tethered (chained to stakes or fences in yards), and actually training dogs to be aggressive are among additional explanations.

            Rugai says her main concern is to provide police a tool to deal with dangerous dogs, and gangs who use dogs as weapons. At City Hall, she said that spaying/neutering will make dogs less dangerous and give police justification for inspecting gang members’ homes to check for suspected guns, drugs, dog fighting paraphernalia, etc.

            Neutering dangerous dogs – a good idea. But neutering alone doesn’t change a dog’s attitude without behavior modification as overseen by a professional dog behavior consultant, dog trainer or veterinary behaviorist. I’m thinking the population the Alderman is speaking about isn’t about to fill a prescription for Prozac for their dog, and then pay for expert consultation.

            And who really believes that gang members who think nothing of committing a wide range of felonies, from selling drugs to kids to murder – not to mention fighting dogs, are going to stop and say, ‘Good gracious, we need to spay or neuter or we’ll be fined.’

            Good gracious, hardly the language I heard when I asked several Chicago police officers their views. One detective told me, “You don’t think we have enough to do? And I’m going to **** worry about the dog’s parts?”

            If law enforcement does seek a tool to search and enter, they can do so to determine if the dogs are wearing rabies tags.

            Enforcement is a huge question mark. According to a published report in a Chicago newspaper, Burke suggests that police lift dogs by their tails and simply took to see what their ‘status is.’

            Well, for sure, by lifting the dog by the tail, you can tell pretty fast if the dog might be dangerous. While you can determine by ‘spot checking’ if a male dog’s been neutered, it’s often difficult for even veterinarians to ascertain that females are spayed. And what about cats? Will there be a sexual status task force that goes door to door? In most major cities, the overwhelming majority of pet cats are indoors.

            The animal welfare proponents of mandated spay/neuter say that overpopulation is their primary motivation for supporting such ordinances. Best Friends Animal Society conducted a survey of shelters in 1992, and determined that 15 million pets were euthanized nationwide that year. The good news is that due to spay/neuter, breed rescue and the ‘no kill’ movement that number is now down to five million annually. National experts are 100 per cent in absolute agreement, the problem of over-population is today greatly all about too many cats. Increasingly, communities have less a problem with over burgeoning dog numbers, and Chicago is among them.

Here’s a dirty little secret: Many shelters around the country, including the big ones in Chicago, actually ‘import’ dogs from other communities. Often this is because the available large dogs within that city – often Pit Bull-types – over overabundant, and less sought after by the public. The shelters feel the need for more suitable, adoptable, marketable cuties.

            The cat overpopulation issue is real, through the establishment of trap, neuter, return (TNR) programs is beginning to make a positive impact. TNR is when volunteers trap stray/feral cats (who are often living in colonies), take them to a participating shelter or veterinary clinic for a low cost spay/neuter and rabies vaccines. The cats are ear-notched for identification, and then released back where they were trapped. Young kitties and friendly cats are adopted into homes, and any very sick cats are humanely euthanized. Obviously, unable to continue prolific reproduction, populations, in time, diminish.

            Proponents of TNR are staunchly against mandated spay/neuter. The two ideas are in contradiction; actually mandated spay/neuter can increase the population of shelter cats. 

            The HSUS still hasn’t answered how on one paw they can support TNR and at the same time push their mandated spay/neuter agenda. We know TNR works. Mandatory/spay neuter is, at best, far more questionable.

            And that’s leads to the huge philosophical issue: Do legal mandates really work? Today, in Chicago (like most major cities) well over half the dogs and cats are spayed/neutered, and that’s without a mandate. Rabies vaccine compliance, which is mandated, falls far under half of dogs and cats. Dog licensing, another law, has an even smaller number of who conform.

            The presumption by proponents is that all people who don’t spay or neuter are irresponsible pet owners. That’s totally untrue. People who love their pets, and offer excellent veterinary care have their own set of personal reasons for not ‘fixing’ them. There are a myriad of explanations, and I may disagree with all of them. But it’s really not my business. And certainly it’s not government’s business? Some people have religious objections, such as Catholics who personally don’t believe in birth control for all family members – and pets are members of the family. A daughter of a holocaust survivor emailed saying she isn’t the only person of Jewish faith who “just can’t fathom sterilization.”

            I may think ‘macho’ guys who won’t consider cutting off parts of males dogs are actually being ignorant, squeamish or both. But should the decision belong to government?

            Actually, the decision to spay/neuter is a medical judgment, between the veterinarian and the client, not veterinarian, client and city employee. Proponents of the mandate point out veterinarians may offer an explanation as to why they don’t want to spay/neuter that pet, applying for a waiver. I maintain veterinarians didn’t attend school all those years to report back to government about their decisions. And look what’s happened since government has become involved in human medical care. It’s not a good idea. It’s not necessary.

            Besides, according to new medical research, it turns out – depending on the breed and lifestyle – later spay/neuter may increasingly be a good idea.

            Clearly, if the proposed mandatory spay/neuter proposal succeeds, people will worry a visit to the vet office means they’ll be pushed to spay or neuter their pets.  As a result veterinary visits for routine care could plummet. The impact on care will be significant. With fewer vet visits, there will be fewer rabies vaccines. With already too few rabies vaccines given in most places, this may cause a public health risk. It turns out that this unintended consequence is exactly what’s happened in San Mateo, CA where mandatory spay/neuter has been the law since 1991. As a direct result their mandatory spay/neuter law, compliance for rabies vaccines has significantly dropped as has dog licensing. In many communities, dollars for dog licensing is earmarked for animal control.

            The only people who will pay for the program – through fees assessed for the privilege to breed are the responsible breeders. Yet, it’s unlikely that the responsible dog and cat breeders are contributing to overpopulation issues or dangerous dogs. I believe it’s outrageous breeders are being asked to literally pay a price to solve a problem they did not create. Tell me how many gang members have attack Persian cats used by gang members?

Responsible breeders are, in fact, a part of the solution. In their contracts they already mandate clients spay or neuter, and guarantee to take back any unwanted pets (keeping them out of the potentially overburdened shelter system).

            I have no clue as to how punishing those who go the speed limit will eliminate those who speed

            Timing is everything, and as it turns out, at this moment Chicago is in line for millions of dollars from Maddie’s Fund. The Fund is a private agency which grants cities millions for incentivizing adoptions and spay/neuter with an objective of ultimately becoming ‘no kill.'

            New York received $19 million. I don’t know how much Chicago would receive – but it’s likely to be close to the bite that went to the Big Apple. However, according to Maddie’s policy about not participating with government mandates –  if the proposed mandate of spay/neuter passes, at least the Maddie’s portion for spay/neuter will not make it to the Windy City, that’s 40 percent.  Again, that’s 40 percent of many millions of dollars. Chicago, like many major cities, is suffering a major budget deficit. A part of this significant dollar figure would go to the city’s municipal animal control agency to reimburse spay/neuters.

            Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your muzzle. At best we know mandatory spay/neuter will cost money to start up (a challenge for Los Angeles, at this moment, according to printed reports) and may or may not work. We do know incentivizing citizens through Maddie’s fund does work.

            Don’t get me wrong – I firmly believe spaying and neutering is the right thing think to do, the responsible thing to do.

            Culture moves government. Government does change culture. You can change culture over time, through education, particularly reaching young people. It’s ironic, Chicago offers a leading program in the nation to the end, Safe Humane Chicago. (Read about Safe Humane Chicago).  My hope. My belief. Good old-fashioned Midwestern common sense will prevail in Chicago, and the rest of the nation will follow.

©Steve Dale