There may be better ways than a statewide law to reduce the number of unwanted pets. But the opponents of mandatory neutering make it sound as though the problem can be solved mainly by teaching owners to spay or neuter their pets voluntarily. That might be true, if we thought more rationally about our pets. But keeping pets isn’t about rationality. When it comes to them, Americans are lost in a seemingly endless act of transference.
Americans are consumers of pets just as we are consumers of everything else. We expect gratification without responsibility. We see only the easy pleasure, not the work. The rate at which dogs are purchased and euthanized in this country is not a sign of our affection for them. It’s a sign of our indifference.
The vast number of animals roaming the streets, and the vast numbers of animals euthanized every year, is an indictment of our irresponsibility and cruelty. This bill would seek to reduce those numbers. It's the right approach, and one that I hope is duplicated nation-wide.
4 comments:
100% agree.
Thing is, mandatory spay/neuter doesn't work very well. Low-cost voluntary spay/neuter and increased accessibility (s/n vans, etc) actually work far better, and without the divisiveness. Check out maddiesfund.org and nokillsolutions.com
I don't see any conflict between advocating for all of those programs at the same time.
The conflict is that mandatory spay/neuter does not work and actually slows the rate of voluntary s/n. Why would you want to advocate for something that not only does not work, but also slows the efforts to reduce euthanasias?
Maddies' Fund will not give grants to communities with mandatory s/n laws.
The No Kill Advocacy Center actually opposes mandatory s/n and notes that it and other punitive animal laws are counter-productive. They have an entire article on this on their web site, which has moved to www.nokilladvocacycenter.org Check out the article at http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf
Post a Comment