Mandatory Spaying and Neutering?
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008A debate is raging among animal welfare advocates these days: Should municipal or state authorities pass laws to make neutering of pet dogs and cats mandatory? The debate was lately re-ignited as Chicago Alderman Ed Burke and Alderwoman Virginia A. Rugai issued a legislative proposal for mandatory spaying and neutering in Chicago. Here’s a link to a short TV news story about this –
http://www.cahealthypets.com/Chicago-update.htm
While the Humane Society of the United States supports Burke’s efforts, it looks like a multitude of pet lovers wholeheartedly object. Pet expert Steve Dale is one of them and he outlines his objections on this page –
http://www.stevedalepetworld.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=353
Debates on this very topic have been ongoing on our forums too over the past year. You can read one of them here –
http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157149
Now, before I go on, I want to state clearly that this is my own personal opinion that I’m about to express and others who share blog writing here with me may or may not agree.
I think that mandatory spaying and neutering is a great idea and should be pursued. This is not to say that the specific ordinance itself is good enough, but that I do support the concept. Rather than address the various arguments raised by Steve Dale and others, I want to focus on one aspect alone: the issue of governmental involvement.
I feel that the other aspects, such as the effect on TNR operations, on people’s care for their pets, on breeders, are all extremely important and can be addressed through such legislative bills in a way that will please all pet lovers. Let’s for a minute pretend that they were solved: that the powers to be give us the budget for free speutering of all pets and for government-funded TNR projects for all cats. Now the ethical, almost philosophical question remains:
Should the government interfere by forcing people to spay and neuter?
Steve Dale maintains that spaying and neutering is a question of choice; that governments should not be party to a decision that is between a pet owner and a veterinarian.
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?
Well, to me the answer is yes. You see, I believe some people can love their pets very much and still do wrong by them, either by declawing or by failing to speuter. In my view, bringing unwanted kittens and puppies into the world is akin to animal abuse and yes, I think this is where the law should step in.
What would you say about a “macho man” led by his cultural or even religious beliefs to deny his daughters or his wife basic rights such as the right to education? Would you give him that leeway? Would you allow him to be in charge of a decision that in the end, you believe hurts other people?
In many cultures, female circumcision is acceptable and even required by tradition and local religions. Do you think it should be allowed in Western countries out of respect for these traditions?
We do expect governments to intervene where women’s rights or children’s welfare are at stake, no matter what justifications are given, religious or others.
By the same token, I think it’s time for dogs and cats to enjoy a similar sort of protection by the government. People who are opposed to spaying and neutering should be given a clear message: In our time and age, in our society, letting your animals breed irresponsibly is simply not accepted.
By the way, in my country, just like in any country in Western Europe, declawing is illegal. Some Americans seem to feel that forcing people to avoid declawing would be another form of excessive government involvement. I won’t elaborate on this topic, as this post is getting to be too long already… but it suffices to say that, in my view, the pets’ welfare comes first.
While no one is sent to jail over declawing a cat (nor would they be for not speutering), a clear message is presented by vets to their customers: “I’m sorry, but declawing is simply illegal”. It has made the practice of declawing extremely rare very fast, by making people accept the new norm. Legislation has, in this case, brought on a swift change in social norms regarding declawing.
Let me wrap up this post by saying again that I do not support any specific mandatory speutering proposals ad verbatim. I think it’s a huge and complex issue and that any measures taken have to be finely tuned and orchestrated to achieve the desired effect, without, for example, hurting the work of established ethical breeders.
However, as to the fundamental question of government involvement, in my view, this should not be an impediment in the way of legislation on this specific topic. Sometimes government does change culture and on this topic, I think it’s high time to make the push for a swift cultural change.
