法奶日報www.lulij en.com【原國內版：www.lulijen.com/old .htm】

Legislation  is  not  the  Solution

By Phoebe Lu

Phoebe Lu is a freshman at UC Davis, majoring in animal science.   She loves animals and becoming a veterinarian has been her goal since she got her first dog Ollie 9 years ago.

Spaying and neutering is the most common method used to control animal population, but its effectiveness is greatly debatable. There is no scientific evidence to back up the benefits of a law that requires pet sterilization by four months of age. Without solid data backing up the claim that spaying and neutering animals by a certain age will significantly impact overpopulation, campaigning for a new law is pointless. Implementing legislation mandating the spaying or neutering of animals by 4 months of age is futile and expensive and more practical and effectual alternatives need to be considered.

        One of the greatest obstacles to mandate this four-month spay-neuter law is the cost. The cost of spaying or neutering a dog reaches up to $300. This price is discouraging especially to lower-income households that cannot afford an extra expense. A recent study done on the correlation of income level and neutered cats indicated that cats in households with family incomes of less than $35,000 were significantly less likely to be neutered (Karyen Chu, Anderson and Rieser). Pet owners especially in this specific income bracket would rather risk a fine and potentially pay nothing than pay for a surgery that could cost hundreds of dollars. So even if this law were mandated, there would still be people who will not bring their pets in to be neutered and spayed. A recent California bill mandating most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered before five months of age required “owners found in violation…to pay a $500 fine” (California Dog Spay-Neuter Bill Moves Forward). Many low-income families would have no choice but to give up their pets if this legislation were to pass because they would be legally obligated to spay or neuter their pets and they simply cannot afford it. This results in an influx of abandoned animals or shelter surrenders, which is the opposite of what this law is trying to achieve. Shelters will face an increase in incoming healthy animals, thus limiting space for animals that actually need the care and supervision shelters provide. Cost is also a factor in passing and enforcing this law. The government is already in debt, and the cost of implementing and enforcing a law that is not guaranteed to work is a waste of money. There are more pressing issues that the government has to prioritize over controlling the animal population. Unfortunately, cost is a substantial factor that is difficult to overlook.

        Another issue with this legislation is the lack of awareness and the consequences that result from it. Although free resources may be available, many pet owners, especially lower-income owners, are not aware of them. For example, 60 veterinarians volunteered to provide four free surgeries per month for people who qualified for their services. However after “2 years, they had performed only 1,600 surgeries” and the program was “considered unsuccessful and discontinued” (Hughes, Slater and Haller). This demonstrates the unlikeliness of the target audience to bring their pets to the veterinarian even if they do not have to pay for it. The pet owners that this program was intended for either did not know about it or were not aware of why they should spay or neuter their pets. Even if there were a way to enforce the law many people would rather risk paying a fine than paying to have their pets sterilized. Others may not see a need to neuter or spay their pets and do not want to spend the time to bring them in for surgery. Some owners would rather give up their pets instead of spending more money on the fines or the costs of neutering or spaying. This contributes to the increase of dogs and cats in shelters, and once again creates the opposite effect the law is supposed to produce. Requiring pets to be sterilized by four months of age is not a panacea; the first step towards truly impacting the pet overpopulation is pet owner awareness.

        Controlling overpopulation is one of the main targets of this legislation but in reality mandating spaying and neutering at 4 months of age as a way of regulating population is not as successful as believed. For instance, Florida county parks did a study using the TNR (trap-neuter-return) method in order to see the effects on population of neutering feral cats and returning them to their colony. The study found that the size of the colony did not change even with the TNR, and one colony’s population actually increased (Hughes, Slater and Haller). This proves the fact that solely neutering homeless animals does not drastically affect the population. There are not any conclusive studies that support the idea that spaying or neutering dogs and cats can actually affect populations. Strangely enough, a significant number of cats in the growing colony were cats abandoned by their owners. These cats were not necessarily spayed or neutered, and thus began the cycle again. This leads to the conclusion that overpopulation is not caused solely through the proliferation of unneutered or unspayed animals. While the population problems can be attributed to unsterilized homeless animals, it is not the only cause, and therefore the legislation governing mandatory spay-neuter would not produce much effect.

        There are alternatives that will mitigate the problems that not neutering or spaying animals can cause. The most important is education. Educating people especially those who aren’t usually exposed to the pet overpopulation message is the most effective method. There are also various ways to call attention to this issue. Creating a website, writing an article for the local paper, attending community meetings, giving informative presentations, and getting the media involved are all different approaches to increase awareness and reach a wide variety of people. Social media is also so integrated into society that Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter would also be useful mediums to quickly reach a broad audience. All of these methods are low-cost if not free, and are undeniably much cheaper than creating and enforcing a new law. Although it’s difficult to force people to spay or neuter their pets, owners are more likely to bring their pets in to clinics to be sterilized once they realize the importance of doing so. A sample study done in rural Mexico illustrates this point. Most people in the village did not have their pets spayed or neutered. However, after learning of resources and of the importance of spaying and neutering their pets, many voluntarily brought their pets in to clinics to be sterilized (Ortega-Pacheco, Rodriguez-Buenfil and Bolio-Gonzalez). This is indicative of how significant education is in order to alleviate the issues spay-neuter laws are trying to solve. Making low-cost spay and neuter clinics more accessible is also be instrumental in lowering the birth rate, particularly in impoverished areas. The easier and cheaper it is for people to sterilize their pets, the more likely they will go to the clinics. Raising awareness and making access to cheaper spay and neuter clinics are the best ways to counter the population problem that spay-neuter legislation is trying to combat. 

        Although the premise of mandatory spay-neuter legislation by the age of 4 months sounds effective, it is actually more expensive and unproductive. Passing this legislation will cause more problems than it will solve, and it is more logical to spend money on programs that will be more successful. It is much easier to spay and neuter feral animals than it is to force pet owners to sterilize their pets, and therefore educating pet owners needs to be a priority. Making low-cost clinics more accessible will encourage more people, especially lower-income households, to bring in their pets. Mandatory legislation is certainly costly and unnecessary; education and accessible low-cost clinics are much more effective solutions.

__________________________________

Works Cited

"California Dog Spay-Neuter Bill Moves Forward." Dog Fancy 27 April 2007.

Hughes, Kathy L., Margaret R. Slater and Linda Haller. "The Effects of Implementing a Feral Cat Spay/Neuter Program in a Florida County Animal Control Service." Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5.4 (2010): 285-298.

Karyen Chu, PhD, Wendy M. Anderson and Micha Y. Rieser. "Population characteristics and neuter status of cats living in households in the United States." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 234.8 (2009): 1023-1030.

Ortega-Pacheco, Antonio, et al. "A Survey of Dog Populations in Urban and Rural Areas of Yucatan, Mexico." Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals 20.3 (2007): 261-274.

歡迎各界惠賜各類創作稿件，email：lulijen46@gmail.com  

          並歡迎轉載，但務請註明出處----編者

【法奶日報www.lulijen.com2015.3.3.出刊，第9-1341號】