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?
No comments:
Post a Comment