Animal Control

In America today, there are states that are actively pushing pet owners to be controlled by law. States such as California are enacting laws in which pet owners are forced to spay or neuter their pets. This is something that many are talking about as the answer to the pet over population problems. Is this truly the answer? Many prominent breeders are upset by this attempt to control the rights of individual pet lovers.

What is the correct answer? Should the states be allowed to force individual pet owners to do this? What about the puppy mills that are operated in states all across the country, why is something not done to shut them down, rather than force individual breeders to have their breeding stock spayed and neutered. Many do not realize that the sport of dog showing requires a dog in the show ring to still be intact; any sexually altered dogs are immediately disqualified from competition

This essentially means, the sport of dog showing in California and other states following in their path is stopped. The dogs in the state would be required to be fixed, with residents in the state either fixing their dogs, or a flux of residents would be moving from California and other cities with the same philosophy. Is this really the solution to the over population problem? Most cities have many unwanted animals in the pet shelters, yet there is always a fresh batch of animals coming in daily, therefore it is evident that some remedial action is required to solve the problem. However, as a nation of animal lovers, this seems hard to reconcile with the general opinion of society.

How do we solve this problem? Perhaps the answer is more low cost spay and neuter programs, offer this at a greatly reduced rate, or even free to residents of towns so that animals can be easily fixed that are not intended for breeding. While this would be an expensive venture, it could easily cost less and do more good for the over population problem than requiring all pets be neutered and spayed.

Some states are even looking to limit the number of pets that are allowed to be housed. The limit is typically two dogs, with all other dogs forced to be rehoused to other homes. This leaves the problem of owners being forced to give away dogs to homes that may not be able to handle, care, or ensure proper medical care. Is this too far for the states to interfere in the rights of pet owners? To what extent should the government intervene in the way in which we treat our animals?

When did the issue of pets become the business of the government and states? While there are leash laws, they are intended for the safety of the pets, as well as the protection of society in general. This is a law that was enacted by the states, which while it does limit the movements of pets it has good intentions that are actually plausible and rectifiable. The required neuter and spay is something that can cause harm to a person's livelihood, as well as disqualify a dog from the show ring that could have otherwise been a champion dog.

Is this the state's place to do so? How far is too far before determining that the states have no right to tamper and meddle with the animals that are owned and properly cared for. Should individuals who seek proper medical care for their pets be penalized? Is this something that should have ever been brought up in the states as a requirement for all pet owners? The issue of pet control is certainly hot at the moment, and it will be interesting to see the development of these issues in the coming months, years and decades as implemented measures are observed and their results monitored.