Breed-Specific Bans, Mandatory Spay Neuter - What You Don't Realize

Right now there is an epidemic of both Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and Mandatory Spay Neuter (MSN) in the United States. Keep in the back of your mind a common thing: both HSUS and PeTA leaders have stated, overtly, that it is their goal to have a nation of no pets. No animal should be "enslaved" to humans.

BSL refers to outlawing or having special regulations for certain breeds - the most obvious being, the large number of communities outlawing the ownership of so-called Pit Bulls (a misnomer actually applied generally to several breeds that "look like" a Pit Bull.) Now silly as that sounds, some of these laws are written with that phraseology: they name a number of breeds and tack on "or any breed which shares the physical characteristics of these breeds." This is often in response to pit bull attacks; unfortunately it is also starting to reach out to incredibly popular breeds such as the German Shepherd and Doberman Pinscher - by reputation alone, these dogs are forbidden in certain city limits.

MSN is just that, the mandatory spay or neuter demand at a certain age, often either 4 or 6 months. There is no differential for species, for breed status, for hobby breeders, for anything - spay and neuter EVERY animal by 4 or 6 months of age, or suffer per-day fines usually over $100. If there is an exception for breeders, they must pay costly fees (typically a $75+ "intact permit" for each breeding animal, plus additional "per litter" fees, as well as state or county licensing fees, which require them to forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights and open their homes at the whim of any law enforcement agency, any time).

These laws oversimplify a not so simple idea. They capitalize on the mistaken theory of rampant pet "overpopulation." When states are trucking in animals for their shelters from other states or countries, because they have more potential homes than animals, there is no "overpopulation" problem. This concept has been created and marketed by fringe animal rights organizations. Under this "theory," these laws are backed completely by groups like HSUS and PeTA. Those organizations put big money into lobbying and advertising and drumming up support for these laws. (They bring people and letters in from around the world, and then complain when the opposition does the same, but that's another story.)

Breed specific legislation, first off, makes no designation for dogs that are completely harmless. Bullie breeds, those commonly referred to by the public as Pit Bulls, when properly raised and socialized can make wonderful family pets. Most of these laws have no grandfather clause and no exception. The plain meaning? If you own one of the unlucky breeds, you either need to move, give your pet to someone outside city or county limits, or turn your animal over for euthanasia. Those are your only choices.

Now, most folks I know either can't afford or don't want to move. Some people are in homes owned by their families for generations. And many of them don't want to give up their pets, not when they know the city or county will immediately put them down. So, what do they do? They cannot offer anything in defense of their dogs to the municipality - no evidence of obedience training, show success, certified training, having a complete lack of history of unprovoked behavior - they don't matter. Think about what you'd do in this situation. The unfortunate reality? The dogs are let loose somewhere. They don't want them to die, but they have nowhere to take them - so maybe they will go out into the country, maybe they will just release them where they are and hope they can avoid being captured by Animal Control. Or, they will abide the law and turn the dogs in to be put down. What do all these things result in? MORE shelter deaths, be they from relinquishment or from captured, roaming dogs. And a roaming dog is going to become a LOT more dangerous than it ever would be as a loved house pet. Now, do you think this type of law works? Yes, if you advocate a no-pet nation, yes, if you don't mind roaming, potentially dangerous (starving) dogs, yes, if you advocate increased shelter deaths. You'd wonder who would align with that nightmare combination, but there HSUS and PeTA are, at the front of the line.

MSN isn't a whole lot different. These laws are, no exception, spay/neuter by age certain. This doesn't take into account the health needs of the animal. Dog breeders will tell you, they can't get many breeds certified for breeding until somewhere between 3 and 6 years of age. Beyond the needs of specific breeds, there are some breeds whose development will be stunted or injured if they are desexed too early in life. If they don't intend to run hobby breeders out of business, why do they require the end of all breeding stock through MSN? Again, who is propping these laws up? HSUS and PeTA.

And the worst part of all? The folks who don't have their animals spayed and neutered because they can't afford it, won't suddenly find $150 or more in their pocket to spay their animal. They risk fines of again, $100 per day and up. What is a person to do? You guessed it - they relinquish to shelters or release the animal to hopefully make it on their own. Studies bear this out. When counties have tried to implement this plan, their euthanasia rates skyrocket. They are suddenly intaking hundreds more animals, with no more room, and dealing with roaming, starving animals who again, may become dangerous and are certainly not vaccinated. So who supports MSN? Again, if you favor roaming potentially dangerous animals, more shelter deaths, and a nation with no breeding animals (i.e. no more pets) - this sounds good to you. Again, holding up the signs - HSUS and PeTA.

None of these laws make sense. What DOES make sense, is low cost spay neuter. I am aware of cities who put in a voucher system, to ANY resident - not income based - and good people not only spayed and neutered their pets, they trapped neighborhood strays and got them spayed and neutered too. The number of shelter deaths plummeted. The county shelter, which before never had sufficient funding and could only hold about 30 cats - despite massive numbers of stray cat colonies - suddenly had enough money for a complete remodel, building a bigger and more humane shelter that could house the few animals coming in, in comfort while they awaited adoption. We have proof that this, and only this, is what reduces shelter deaths and relinquishment.

So why don't HSUS and PeTA step up and use their lobbying millions (in some cases, billions) to promote and fund low cost spay-neuter? It's the one thing we know works. Because, let's get back to it, their agenda is ultimately for animals to live free, unencumbered by the bonds humans put upon them. Please let your voice be heard - use the points from this post, be educated and open minded in the face of the propaganda and the "overpopulation" myth, and let the legislators know how specious the argument behind these laws is. When you see these laws, understand what their real impact is, and who is supporting them - I hope you will also realize that logic and experience tell us their only purpose is to create a pet-free America. And who wants that?

Animal Law, Animal Rights, and Animal Welfare

Some of you may be surprised to find out there's such a specialty as animal law. It's a quickly growing area of rapidly changing law - as people consider their pets more as family members than, well, pets. The law traditionally treats animals as property - that's how the law evolved, prior to the extensive ownership of domestic animals as house pets. People had cattle and livestock and maybe a sheep herding dog or some barn cats. They were property, commodities to be bought and sold (as livestock still is).

Property is, I believe, still the best way to treat animals under the law no matter how personally involved they are in our lives. It sounds callous, but it's realistic. I have a reasonble expectation that my four year old child will someday have the capability to go to the bank, to earn money, to purchase groceries, to prepare their own food. I don't have that expectation of my cats. They will never have that level of independent sustainability. That's why most states won't allow you to leave money or property to your animals - they can't enjoy them. Don't just leave your property to your animals in your will - consult an attorney to instead set up a trust to care for your animals, working with someone who has agreed to use your estate to care for your animals in the manner you proscribe. A local attorney can tell you more about the particular laws, and they do vary state by state. (Transferring breeding rights is a more complex topic I'll get into later, and it can be covered by legal forms that are available through the author of this blog.)

Another thing folks don't realize is the vast chasm that's developed between those interested in animal welfare, versus those interested in animal rights. The animal "rights" contingent doesn't want animals treated like property - they want them treated like people, with all the same rights. They often ignore the irreconcilability of their own positions, such as how we should all eat vegan when the majority of the animal world is carnivorous or omnivorous. They advocate mandatory spay and neuter of all pets, when their real agenda is for none of us to be allowed to own pets and instead feel all animals should live wild and free in their natural state. Animal rights folks, you usually find just trying to change the law by raising money. Folks who are interested in animal welfare are the ones actually helping animals, working at the shelters, fostering, rescuing, giving money and time and effort.

For example, the Humane Society of the United States. If you live near your local County Humane Society - despite the name - they have not one iota in common. The HSUS does NOT help them, and is not associated with them. The HSUS is a huge political machine. Check their IRS filings, which are required to be public because of their tax exempt status. Of billions in assets, they gave a measly $6.6 million to shelters last year. It can cost half a million dollars to run ONE large scale shelter. So who did they really help? Well, here's a hint - three times that much was spent on legislative efforts, and even more than that spent on "strategic communication" - that's lobbying, to you non-Beltway folk. That means SIX TIMES the amount that actually helped animals, went to making up new laws. Is that really where you wanted your Hurricane Katrina donation to go?

Groups like PeTA have an even worse track record. PeTA maintains a shelter in their Virginia headquarters - with a more than 80% euthanasia rate. Two PeTA workers were tried last year for picking up adoptable animals from North Carolina vets and shelters, putting them down in the back of a van and throwing them away in a dumpster. Two more PeTA employees are currently being investigated for stealing a hunting dog, taking off its tracking collar and trying to dispose of it. They'll send you lots of pretty mailings with animals in horrible situations - but even less of their budget goes to actually helping one single animal. THAT is animal rights, not animal welfare.

So what is all this lobbying about? Well, a lot of it is about animals having the same rights as you and I. It's meant to force us all to stop eating meat and dairy; it's meant to prevent us from choosing a particular pet based on our families' needs. If you live with an elderly and fragile parent, or with small children, can you imagine having no choice in the pet you want? You don't get to select a small dog with a calm temperament, or a cat that's not too active and won't trip someone - you get what your local pound has, which they usually will tell you, they can't predict temperament. I'm all for shelter adoption - if you don't have any particular needs to be met. But I'm also for free enterprise and choice - so to me, if you want a Borzoi or a mutt, a Turkish Angora or a domestic shorthair cat, you should be able to go out and get it. Animal rights folks don't think you should have that choice.

They also think we need to pass laws calling us "guardians" and not "owners" because the word guardian will take on a new meaning under the law, and subject owners to higher responsibilities. The fact is we already have sufficient animal cruelty laws on the books in every single state. They need to be enforced, is the problem. And if we don't have the money or ability to enforce them now, how will passing more stringent, invasive and expensive laws be more helpful to anyone?

Over the next few days I'll tackle topics like breeder registration, pet limit laws, breed specific legislation, and how you can help. You can also get updates, sample letters, and find out what communities need your support by subscribing to our partner yahoo mailing list, by sending an email to animalpetlaw-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. The more you learn, the more you'll want to help.

Welcome

To the Animal and Pet Law blog. Associated with AnimalPetLaw@yahoogroups.com, this forum will try to be the most comprehensive and up to date spot for guidance on how to combat anti-pet laws. Many Americans are aware that "Animal Rights" groups have become nothing more than fronts to raise money for anti-pet legislation. Our aim is to teach you some ideas and help you find contact information so that you can help keep the freedoms Americans (and others outside our borders) are used to - namely, to have the pet of your choice, that fits your family situation best.