Vote NO - Chicago spay/neuter legislation
Link to poll: Vote no, delete cookies, refresh browser, repeat.
HSUS Weighs in on Chicago Mandatory Spay/Castrate
On July 29, Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th) and Ald. Virginia A. Rugai (19th)
presented their draft mandatory spay/castrate ordinance to Chicago’s Joint
Committee on Finance and License and Consumer Protection. The ordinance would
require all cats and dogs be spay/castrated at the age of six months. The
ordinance contains an option for a breeding permit which allows only one litter
per year if the litter is registered with a registry approved by the City
commission. The ordinance also requires applicants for breeding permits to
undergo criminal background checks.
The distorted reasoning for this ordinance, as stated by Ald. Burke, is that
the ordinance will increase public safety by targeting gangs and others that
keep unsterilized dogs. It is beyond reason to think that anyone who
engages in dog fighting, which is already a felony under Illinois state law, will
obey a newly enacted spay/castration ordinance or submit to background checks
to apply for a breeding permit.
All that this ordinance can possibly accomplish is to create a potential new
class of criminals--responsi ble dog owners and breeders, who choose not to
spay or castrate their dogs, as well as waste a lot of Chicago taxpayers’ money
in investigation and enforcement of a useless ordinance.
Apparently, the Humane Society of the United States doesn’t agree.
On July 30, HSUS issued a press release via their website in support of the
proposed mandatory spay/castrate ordinance and thanked Chicago lawmakers for “
addressing this important animal welfare issue.” The statement reads, “
Every year, more than 3 million dogs and cats are euthanized in animal shelters
nationwide-includin g 19,000 pets in the City of Chicago-because not enough
people choose to adopt. Spaying and neutering, at this time, is the only
permanent, 100-percent effective method of birth control for dogs and cats, and
this legislation provides an incentive for people to sterilize their animals and
reorients public policy to expect that animal caretakers will see that their
animals are sterilized.”
With the same tired language used repeatedly by animal rights zealots, HSUS
downplays the potential impact of the ordinance by stating, “It is simply
wrong to refer to this ordinance as simply a "mandatory spay and neuter measure"
because it does allow responsible pet owners to opt out of spay or neuter for
their animals for numerous reasons. Under this legislation, people who elect
not to spay or neuter their animals in order to breed their dog or cat must
pay a permit fee. In that sense, this legislation provides incentives for
people to spay and neuter, and it amounts to something of a differential license
fee for people who do not want to spay or neuter their animals.”
http://www.hsus.org/press_ and_publi...e _073008.html
Let’s look at what the ordinance really means. First, if sterilization is
required, then by definition it is mandatory regardless of exemptions which
are only as good as the paper they are written on; exemptions can be removed
at any time. Second, what registries (if any) will be approved and by what
method remains unclear. Third, Chicago Animal Shelter Alliance reports,
"Between 2003 and 2005 overall citywide euthanasia rates dropped 12% and shelter
intake went down to 11%. With an overall shelter killing rate per 1,000 humans
at a historic low of 6.9%, Denver remains the only city between the coasts
with a lower kill rate (5.9%)." In recent years, Chicago already has seen
greatly reduced numbers of cats and dogs euthanized in its shelters on a yearly
basis without mandatory spay/neuter.
Source: http://www.anticruelty.org/site/epage/42566_ 576.htm
Additionally, let us not pretend that "neutering" is a benign surgery. What
HSUS (and other animal rightist activists) call "neutering" is, plain and
simple, castration, specifically the gonadectomy of males, meaning surgical
removal of the testicles, and the ovariohysterectomy of females, meaning
surgical removal of the ovaries and uterus. In other words, nothing
trivial--nothing most people would want forced on themselves.
Above all, has there *ever* been any doubt that mandatory spay/castration is
NOT about the well-being of animals, but an agenda to end breeding of
domesticated dogs and cats?
HSUS makes their position pretty clear in Chicago that a good dog is a
sterile dog. The tired overpopulation argument is told again in order to pass
punitive legislation to cripple breeders, blaming them for contributing to
shelter statistics. Yet on their web page for adopting pets HSUS states: “[In
fact,] most animals are given to shelters because of "people reasons," not
because of anything they've done. Things like a divorce, a move, lack of time or
financial constraints are among the most common reasons why pets lose their
homes.” In other words, the most common reasons for turning pets over to
shelters has nothing to do with overpopulation, but instead people’s (usually)
unavoidable and unpredictable lifestyle changes.
http://www.hsus.org/pets/ pet_adopti...pt_a_pet. html
In State of the Animals 2001, HSUS stated: There was, however, general
consensus among most animal related organizations that the term pet overpopulation
was not only difficult to define, but that it was also probably no longer an
accurate catchphrase to describe the reasons for animals leaving their
original homes, especially for dogs."
Does HSUS ever make up their mind what the real story is? Despite dimi
nishing shelter statistics and knowing the source of shelter populations is due to
owner retention issues, HSUS and Illinois activists continue chanting the
animal rights mantra for across the board pet sterilization.
In response to the proposed mandatory spay/castration ordinance, the ISVMA
issued the following opposition statement:
July 28, 2008. The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA)
opposes the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance being proposed for the City of
Chicago. The ISVMA opposes this proposed ordinance for the following reasons:
* There is no scientifically- based research that supports the proponent’s
argument that only intact animals bite.
*There is no conclusive evidence that mandatory spay/neuter programs work.
* This mandate would discourage pet owners from seeking rabies immunization
if they are opposed to neutering/spaying and fear they will be reported. It is
already a struggle to ensure the proper safeguards are in place to protect
the public from rabies. Anything that makes rabies vaccination compliance more
difficult should be seriously scrutinized. Rabies is essentially a 100%
fatal disease to humans, dogs and cats.
* There are not enough resources in Chicago to enforce mandatory spay/neuter
in a meaningful way.
"Give thanks to God for being dog. He gave us the joy of angels." - Trixie Koontz, Dog, Trixie Treats & Holiday Wisdom - Christmas is Good!