[accmemberdiscussion] Re: Article on MSN this Sunday
- From: Theresa M Cook <southnmist@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:36:42 -0600
Excellentletter, Gonna! Thanks for writing it.
From: Djsdosido@xxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:07:38 -0500
Subject: [accmemberdiscussion] Re: Article on MSN this Sunday
To: accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here you go, Bonnie..........................
Why Mandatory Spay/Neuter Is Not the
Answer
The issue of surplus animals in
communities across the nation is fraught with emotion. For those who shelter
and rescue, the
primary issue is “numbers”: so
many, so many without caring homes.
For those who have dedicated their lives to responsibly owning and
breeding dogs and cats, the issue is the right to their interests in producing
healthy, sound animals for themselves and for other responsible owners without
undue impediment or unnecessary harassment.
In the January 16, 2011 edition of
The Birmingham News, Veronica Kennedy addressed in her pet column the question
of pet population by a call for a spay/neuter law, presumably to force any
person with intact animals to have them surgically altered regardless of
circumstances or environment. Her
argument that only a spay/neuter law will remedy pet surplus numbers is not
viable. It most certainly is NOT
“the only hope we have of ending pet homelessness”. She extensively quotes an
article about
the benefits of spay/neuter found on a local veterinary clinic web site.
At that same web site
(http://www.gsaclinic.com), there is also an article outlining
the benefits of getting a pet from a responsible breeder. In part it
reads:
“A responsible breeder is a good source for
a well-bred, healthy pet. The
breeder will carefully select the parents to emphasize desirable attributes and
minimize faults in their progeny.
Some people breed animals only to produce pets to sell. These individuals have
no regard for the
advancement of that breed; they are motivated solely by profit. Responsible
breeders will never breed
without considering the advancement of the breed.”
If all people who reputably breed animals are required to spay and
neuter their breeding stock, where will these well-bred, healthy pets come
from? According to the
well-respected Maddie’s Fund
(http://www.maddiesfund.org/Resource_Library/The_Shelter_Pet_Project_By_the_Numbers.html),
across the country there are approximately 17 million households that will get
a
pet within the next year, but yet haven’t decided where to get their pet
(shelter or breeder). The
organization also states that there are approximately 3 million pets euthanized
each year nationwide. The obvious
conclusion is that if every shelter animal were adopted, 14 million households
would have to get their pets from animal breeders.
Every data-based study of mandatory
spay/neuter laws has shown that this approach does not work: they do NOT
increase spay/neuter
compliance rates; they do NOT reduce shelter intake; they are NOT
cost-effective; they do NOT save lives.
In each community that has passed this type law, shelter killing and
intake actually increase because in poor communities, people who don’t have the
time or money to have their pets altered are forced to surrender them or the
pets are seized. The killing cycle
begins again as those surrendered/seized animals are replaced with more
unaltered animals. For example, Los
Angeles, CA increased its shelter killing and intake rate by 30% after passage
of a mandatory spay/neuter law.
Kansas City, MO has recently passed a breed-specific mandatory
spay/neuter law. The intake and
killing of those targeted breeds has increased by an astounding 80%. The San
Antonio, TX shelter kills more
than 70% of all its impounded animals;
the city has a mandatory spay/neuter law in
place.
There is a national consensus against
mandatory spay/neuter laws. The
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has done a
very extensive study on MSN laws and concluded that there is absolutely “no
credible evidence” that any of them have worked.
(http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/mandatory-spay-neuter-laws.aspx).
Opposition against MSN also comes
from groups such as Alley Cat Allies
(http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid+794), the American
Veterinary Medical
Association (http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp), the No Kill
Advocacy Center
(http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf), the American
College of
Theriogenologists
(http://www.theriogenology.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=59) among
others.
So what does work when mandatory
spay/neuter so clearly does not?
Every legitimate study that has examined this question agrees: the only proven
way to increase voluntary spay/neuter compliance
among pet owners is through the provision of low-cost and free spay/neuter
services, NOT through punitive, regressive laws which unfairly target those who
strive to be good animal stewards.
As Ms. Kennedy highlighted in her column, The Alabama Spay/Neuter clinic
in Irondale is leading the way in this effort and should be heartily supported,
both through donations and volunteering.
This approach, plus community-sponsored education initiatives that teach
people how to responsibly acquire and own their animals, is the answer to
addressing the homelessness of pets.
Yes, even in Alabama.
Donna P. Noland, Vice
President
The Alabama Canine Coalition,
Inc.
www.alabamacaninecoalition.org
Donna
& the Dosido Gang
Remlap, Alabama
Visit me at www.mydoublenickellife.blogspot.com
and help support the Alabama Canine Coalition by shopping/searching through
http://www.goodsearch.com and http://www.igive.com
Every year of
dog love is worth seven years of the human stuff. (Michael Rosen)
In a message dated 1/22/2011 7:58:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
BFANCITP@xxxxxxx writes:
My computer didn't come with office. I can open PDF files.
Bonnie
Other related posts:
