California's Senate Bill 250 (SB250) relates to the mandatory spaying and neutering of cats and dogs in California. All dogs and cats must be neutered or spayed unless the owner holds a special license. Under the language as introduced any leash law, licensing, tethering or other animal law violation is sufficient to deny or revoke that license. There are no provisions for performance or competition animals. There are no provisions for travelers, tourists, visitors or other such temporary presence in the state. Enforcement of the provisions must be done "concurrent" to another violation (similar list to denial or revocation of permit). That affects when the provision is enforced, not the mandatory nature of the spay and neuter.
On April 15th, 2009 the bill passed out of the Local Government Committee. Next moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee where the May 5 version was heard on May 11. On May 28th SB 250 was sent to the full Senate for vote after May 28th amendments. On June 1, SB 250 failed passage before the full Senate by a vote of 16-15. The bill was granted reconsideration and was reheard. On June 2, it was approved by a bare majority vote of 21-16. The Assembly Appropriations Committee place the bill on suspense, but it is expected to be taken out of suspense after August 17, 2009.
My opinion:
SB250 is mandatory spay and neuter with no provision for show, competition or working animals. It applies to all cats and dogs including law enforcement, stock dogs, search and rescue, and service dogs. Availability of the required intact license is entirely up to the local government. If local agencies follow the recommendations of the Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee Report there will not be intact licensing available for any AKC dogs. Only a limited number of registries might be deemed acceptable under their standards. One of the stated goals is to reduce breeding permit applications by increasing prices and raising standards. Another goal is to restrict approved registries e.g. "Registries should be investigated and found to have standards for registry protecting the health of animals to be bred and the offspring before approval is granted."
I would call SB 250 the feral cat extermination act. It will punish people who allow feral cats to remain on their property but who are unable to spay / neuter those cats. While certainly spay / neuter is important to population control it takes both time and money to accomplish. This bill provides neither. The only safe haven a property owner can have is to trap feral cats and submit them to animal control to be killed. Animal control could reduce their kill rate by millions by stopping their catch and kill policy and instead engaging the support of the community through non-punitive, cooperative programs toward spay . neuter and release.
Have we learned nothing from our changes in dog training methods? Punishment and fear of punishment is the least effective and most costly means to address unwanted behavior. What does work? Education works. Our kill rate in shelters has been plummeting with one notable exception. HIstorically we used to allow feral cats to live out their lives. It is thanks to the so-called "humane movement" that many communities have embraced catch and kill. This is not an advance in our policies.
We need to control, but not eliminate and certainly not exterminate, feral cat populations in our communities. SB 250 is a big step backward and a serious threat feral cats.
It is time for change and that is not going to happen with laws that make it harder and more expensive to risk taking an animal into our care. Much more can be accomplished by a move away from officious intrusion and toward collaboration.
The American Veterinary Medical Association's advisory body for spay and neuter issues, the American College of Theriogenologists,issued a position paper on mandatory spay and neuter. In summary the organization supports voluntary spay and neuter and recommends against mandatory spay and neuter because of the need to balance a variety of health and social considerations. The advantages of spaying or neutering a pet include effective population control, decreased aggression, decreased wandering, decreased risk of being hit by a car, and decreased risk of mammary, testicular and ovarian cancer. On the other hand, the disadvantages of spaying or neutering may include increased risk of obesity, diabetes, osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, prostatic adenocarcinoma, transitional cell carcinoma, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, autoimmune thyroiditis, hypothyroidism and hip dysplasia. Therefore, the decision to spay or neuter a dog or cat should be made solely by the pet’s owner with the direct input of their veterinarian and will be dependent on each particular animal’s situation.
Legislating against breeding has the potential to devastate the genetic health of our pet populations. The bigger the burdens placed on breeders the narrower the breeding population becomes. To continue to share our lives with the animals we love we must have good, healthy, solid breeders. This is not accomplished by making it expensive, burdensome and governmentally intrusive to breed. It is accomplish, and is being accomplished by education. That does not mean no breeder regulation. It simply means being very careful about the language and the policies to avoid bad consequences
I have rescue/shelter/street dogs and I have no desire to breed. However, my dogs are active and engaged in strenuous sports activities. I am of the opinion that attaining normal growth patterns is particular important for the active dog. I, therefore, do not wish to neuter until my dog has attained full adult growth. Additional costs for unspayed or unneutered already exists and I am not arguing that. I don't particularly have a problem with a penalty of neutering if reality proves that I can't control my dog. However, I do have a problem with mandatory desexing for offenses completely unrelated to the risk of reproduction. Furthermore any such punishment needs to be limited to the incident involved, not more broadly applied.
I am also concerned about the idea entirely wiping out genetic lines because of one accidental moment. Sure there are plenty of pit bulls, Labrador Retrievers and similar dogs in the pounds. They are not at risk if one breeder is forced to desex all their dogs. However, many breeds have quite a small genetic pool. Keeping the breed diverse and health needs to keep available every healthy member of that breed. Desexing the entire kennel will do nothing to reduce shelter populations, you won't find those breeds in the shelter anyway. There are dozens of breeds that rarely get into the shelter and are quickly removed if they should appear. It is because the breeders work at doing that. Yet the penalty for one accident, regardless of whether it caused any risk of unwanted reproduction, is what this bill calls for. That isn't a bill intended to reduce shelter populations. It is a bill intended to punish anyone who wants to breed intentionally.
So what works? Well I've been at breeder education for more than ten years now and I can tell you education IS working. We are changing breeder behavior, and buyer behavior. Shelter euthansia is plumenting. Most people do spay and neuter. So we will do better now to start turning more time and attention to prevention. Most dogs in shelters are not puppies. They aren't there because there was no home for them. They HAD a home. They are there because the person who had them could not or would not keep them. So the question is more how do we help dogs keep their homes, and how do we get them OUT of the shelter.
We would do better to simply enforce the laws that we have. Enforce leash laws on ALL dogs because free roaming dogs are a problem, even if they are not intact. And we would do well to take a cue from modern dog training. We have learned that punishment is a poor tool to achieve desired behavior. Acquiring desired behavior reliably is achieved by providing incentives, rewards, by making the dog a "pack member" (or in the case of a human using social incentives). Change the focus to show the benefits of compliance rather than the punishment for failure.
--
Diane Blackman
diane@dogplay.com
http://dogplay.com - Fun stuff to do with your dog
Ill advised laws are sweeping the United States by groups determined to eliminate animals as pets (you do know that PETA kills 90-97% of the animals it takes in, and HSUS actively recommended the killing of puppies born to dog-fighting parents, right?). PETA and HSUS are not pet friendly.
Take a look at other pending legislation.
DogPlay Home Page
Lost? PageList lists all the DogPlay pages.
Check the Help page. 
Learn more About DogPlay.
Fun dog related designs on T-Shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, buttons, stickers and more at DogPlay Mall and DogPlay Shop.
Before making a link request, check my criteria.
Copyright © 2009 Diane Blackman Created: March 7, 2009 Updated: August 14, 2009
Help with Contacting DogPlay
For information on linking and other uses of this material see the copyright
page.
Disclaimer and Privacy Policy
Unauthorized copy discovery is enabled
Help About Feedback Partners Listing Home