I really don't understand how liberals have gotten so far off track when it comes to animal legislation. Far from being supported by the Democrats who voted to pass SB 250 in the California State Senate today, mandatory spay/neuter should be anathema to progressives. It's absolutely contrary to every principle of liberal and progressive ideology.
Mandatory spay/neuter laws, including SB 250, are hideously unfair to poor people. Studies show that most family pets are already altered -- except those belonging to poor people, most of whom say they'd love to get their pets altered if they could, one, afford it, and two, get their pets somewhere to have it done.
So yeah, great plan: Let's pass a law not to fund free and accessible spay/neuter for the pets of poor people, but to force them to get a surgery they cannot afford, or access, performed on their family pets. During a recession.
Regressive laws that hurt poor people more than rich people -- aren't we supposed to be against that?
Well, you say, we can't fund free spay/neuter in California because the state has no money. That's very true. So I'm wondering where the state is going to come up with the money to enforce mandatory spay/neuter.
Consider some of the provisions of SB 250. Let's say a meter reader accidentally leaves your gate open and your dog gets out. Just once. Boom... you're guilty of violating an animal ordinance and now the whole costly law enforcement machine starts rolling over you and your dog.
Local animal control now has to ensure your pet is altered. You have to pay for it, and if you can't, or won't, they'll impound your dog and either alter him themselves and put him up for adoption, or they'll kill him... all at taxpayer expense. So whether we shelter him and alter him, or give him a fatal injection, either way, we're out a whole lotta money and all we've really done is break someone's heart and killed a dog.
Yeah, that's why I'm a liberal.
Then there are the feral, stray, homeless, and community cats who live in parks, under bridges, and wherever there's a bit of shelter and a food source. Hint to California lawmakers: No one owns these cats. But under this stupid, idiotic law, anyone who feeds them or takes them to the vet becomes their owner, and is required to have them altered.
Now, I'm all for trap-neuter-release programs. I believe they're essential to ending the shelter deaths of unowned cats. That's why I'd support legislation funding them, even mandating them. But this? Stupid, pointless, and bad for cats. And if you don't believe me, believe Alley Cat Allies, the nation's leading advocate for feral and stray cats, which oppposes this bill.
The American Veterinary Medical Association also opposes mandatory spay/neuter. In the political party that's all about a woman's right to make her own medical decisions in consultation with her doctor, how is it that we're going against what the health care providers say is the best way to practice medicine and mandating a surgical procedure that carries substantial health risks, including the immediate risk of death from anesthesia or surgical complications, as well as a host of other possible health risks to animals from being altered, or altered young -- including an increase in the painful, costly and fatal disease known as osteosarcoma?
How did we get so far on the wrong side of this one, liberals? Why am I constantly seeing Democrats voting in favor of these bills, all in the name of reducing shelter intake and killings despite mountains of evidence that forced spay/neuter has never, not once, resulted in that outcome anywhere it's been tried?
As progressives we should be aligning ourselves not with this failed strategy but with the only thing that has ever worked in reducing a community's shelter intake and death rates. We should be funding and encouraging trap-neuter-release programs, free/low-cost/incentivized accessible spay/neuter for low income pet owners, and better shelter and animal control policies that promote pet adoption with marketing outreach, improved shelter hours, satellite adoptions, and that also encourage volunteerism and animal fostering -- and donations!
That approach is the one that saves animal lives. It's not regressive on the poor. It works within the animal welfare system, seeking to make it better, kinder, more compassionate. And it has a successful track record.
I'm a fourth generation native San Franciscan and a lifelong Democrat and liberal. I'm proud of that. And I also believe that animal lives have value and should be saved, that animals are important and worthy of care and concern and yes, legal protection.
But mandatory spay/neuter does not protect animals. It hurts them. It hurts poor people. It hurts pet owners. And it's causing a gigantic rift between well-meaning animal advocates who think forcing sterilization on pets with the hammer of the law is going to help stop shelter killing, and those who know it won't work.
Please, California Democrats, stop it. The ASPCA has come out against mandatory spay/neuter, along with the AVMA, the CVMA, and Alley Cat Allies. Even HSUS has not come out in support of this bill.
What do they know that you don't know? Maybe that mandatory spay/neuter hurts animals and people, and doesn't do what its supporters say it will?
Does that sound "progressive" to you?
Copyright 2009 by Christie Keith. All rights reserved.