LA spay/neuter ordinance

[Karen]

full text is here: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_8245032

L.A. City Council touts spay, neuter law
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 02/12/2008

Los Angeles became the largest city in the nation Tuesday to require pet owners to spay or neuter cats and dogs that are 4 months old or older in an effort to reduce the number of unwanted animals in the city.

"This is a huge step forward in making Los Angeles a humane, no-kill city," said Councilman Richard Alarcón, who led the effort to enact the regulation.

...

Several breeders also signed petitions opposing the measure, citing previous objections to the Levine measure. Michael Powell called the city's pursuit of the measure - even as it is stalled in the state Legislature - "an insult to all of California's registered voters."

[cyrax]

Forcing people to spay/neuter their pets will not solve anything. Educating them about the merits of spaying/neutering their pets will ensure that the good breed lines live on.
I heard from some people that spaying/neutering a pet could cause medical problems although I must say I've never come across any.
For me the only reason to spay/neuter a dog is to ensure that there are no "mistakes" coming into this world only to be abandoned later on.
I believe that this is a step in the right direction. It will definitely ensure that people are aware of the current situation with abandoned pets.

[Ryan]

I agree with Cyrax. It will provide awareness, but it isn't the right thing to do. Having lived for three years in LA, I know that the problem isn't near as serious as Korea, but there is still a small problem. There is already a good program in place there for low-income families (under $40,000 a year), that offers free spaying and neutering. It's too bad they couldn't offer this as an option to all pet owners. I think that this would be the best way to go. Forcing people to do something is never the right option.

[red dog]

I have mixed feelings about the new law. A few years ago I would have been all for it, but after reading Nathan Winograd's book I'm pretty skeptical. It sounds as if these types of laws are pretty ineffective ... token measures meant to look as if someone's doing something. It's great that L.A. already offers free spaying and neutering to low-income families, though.

[pukka]

I understand that the program is only required for people with no
breeding license. Good lines should come only from licensed breeders.
Any others should never breed dogs/cats
LA has, like many cities in USA, an overpopulation problem. You can see that
in the overcrowded shelters.
I am sorry, but I can't compare that with Korea. There is maybe not enough
education but enough to know that many dogs end up in shelters.
People often won't spay because they think it is cute to breed and have cute
puppies.They close their eyes to the overpopulation problem.
If the only thing that helps is mandatory spay/neuter, I would support that. I never
heard that spaying/neutering is bad for your dog.

[red dog]

I'd be all for it too if I was convinced it would work, but I'm a bit of a cynic. You know, the kind of person who thinks "if voting could change the system it would probably be illegal." The fact that there are so many exemptions under this law makes me question what good it will really do in practice. :confused::confused::confused:

[Ryan]

The issue is also that it is a law that will be very difficult/if not impossible to enforce, especially for cats and indoor only dogs. As a person who volunteered a lot of my time in LA toward animal welfare, I know that the problem is NOT whether pets are spayed or neutered. Pets in LA are required by law to be on a leash at all times, with the exception of dog parks (which most people don't use). This alone prevents breeding, unless their are two pets which breed in the house. The problem lies with all the feral animals. This law has stemmed from the problem with feral cats in LA, not dogs or other pets. What should be done, instead is a trap/neuter/release program, such as the one that Tim donates time to in Itaewon. This way, the feral animals, which are causing the problem can no longer reproduce. It is a much better solution than making a law that is almost impossible to enforce, and would produce much better results in the long run.

[pukka]

A trap/neuter/release program is a great idea, but I don't see why it is either one or the other? Sure, it may be hard to enforce a mandatory spay/neuter rule, but why would people be against the idea?

I think the good of the law is that it will increase the number of spays/neuters and do something towards controlling the pet population. It may not be perfect, but I don't see the harm of it.

Maybe lower numbers will make the animal shelters a bit less congested in time. Let's hope.

[alibuch]

Yeah... it's a good idea... but it's near impossible to enforce (unless breeders are getting the cats/dogs fixed before selling them).