Suja wrote:
Since tethering ordinance is such a good idea, maybe the county should enact
a mandatory spay-neuter law too.

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/826

Ugh. I like the part about how they're taking the lead and are
confident that other cities will "get on board." Not.

Yes, killing thousands of pets each year is disgusting. Speutering
them out of existence is not the answer, though.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

Since tethering ordinance is such a good idea, maybe the county should enact
a mandatory spay-neuter law too.

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/826

Suja

Suja wrote:
Since tethering ordinance is such a good idea, maybe the county should enact
a mandatory spay-neuter law too.

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/826

I'd like to see DATA from places that have enacted such a law, to
see if it has had the desired effects on the behavior of the
populace, along with the specifics of the laws they have enacted.

Over a period of 5 years (or whatever is available), has the
number of stray animals picked up or dropped off at shelters and
not claimed or adopted decreased? Has the number of animals
euthanized correspondingly decreased? What unintended
consequences (such as animals not taken to vets for rabies
vaccinations, mentioned by the article) have been observed?

From a less animal-centric perspective, what have the costs been
relative to the costs of not having such a law?

For starters.

(I don't have time to look this up today; if someone else does,
I'd be really interested in the outcome.)

FurPaw


--
The plural of anecdote is not proof.

To reply, unleash the dog.

"FurPaw" wrote in message
. ..
Suja wrote:
Since tethering ordinance is such a good idea, maybe the county should
enact
a mandatory spay-neuter law too.

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/826

I'd like to see DATA from places that have enacted such a law, to
see if it has had the desired effects on the behavior of the
populace, along with the specifics of the laws they have enacted.

Over a period of 5 years (or whatever is available), has the
number of stray animals picked up or dropped off at shelters and
not claimed or adopted decreased? Has the number of animals
euthanized correspondingly decreased? What unintended
consequences (such as animals not taken to vets for rabies
vaccinations, mentioned by the article) have been observed?

From a less animal-centric perspective, what have the costs been
relative to the costs of not having such a law?

For starters.

(I don't have time to look this up today; if someone else does,
I'd be really interested in the outcome.)

FurPaw


Where we live, the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center takes in about
10,000 dogs a year. Of those, 8,000 are euthanized at a cost of $320,000 a
year to taxpayers. Cats are four times the number.

Low cost and free spaying services are available through the center and
several other agencies. You can donate (I do) to this service by paying
more for licensing your dog annually. Cats are allowed to be unlicensed.

We talk much about educating the public on issues of neglect and responsible
pet ownership and I would suggest that were these dollars not earmarked for
euthanizing often perfectly good animals, these dollars might be put to
better use either through education or expanding free and low cost
spay/neuter.

Kind regards,
(the)duckster

"FurPaw" wrote in message
. ..
Suja wrote:
Since tethering ordinance is such a good idea, maybe the county should
enact
a mandatory spay-neuter law too.

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/826

I'd like to see DATA from places that have enacted such a law, to
see if it has had the desired effects on the behavior of the
populace, along with the specifics of the laws they have enacted.

Over a period of 5 years (or whatever is available), has the
number of stray animals picked up or dropped off at shelters and
not claimed or adopted decreased? Has the number of animals
euthanized correspondingly decreased? What unintended
consequences (such as animals not taken to vets for rabies
vaccinations, mentioned by the article) have been observed?

From a less animal-centric perspective, what have the costs been
relative to the costs of not having such a law?

For starters.

(I don't have time to look this up today; if someone else does,
I'd be really interested in the outcome.)

FurPaw

Yes it would be helpful to know such things. I'm kind of on the fence about
this ordinance (wereas I'm definitely opposed to the tethering one). I
really haven't been exposed to any discussions about the pros & cons to make
an informed decision.

Kathy

In article ,
kat wrote:
Yes it would be helpful to know such things. I'm kind of on the fence about
this ordinance (wereas I'm definitely opposed to the tethering one). I
really haven't been exposed to any discussions about the pros & cons to make
an informed decision.

I'm actually on the fence about it, too. It's tough -
there's unquestionably a problem with too many dogs and
cats, and it's a public health problem. Left to their own
devices people are *obviously* not making good choices and
taxpayers are the ones who have to cover the costs (that
negative externality thing again).

But, I'm in a sport where you don't know for sure if you've
got a really special dog until it's several years old, and
it may be even longer for a special leader. You're
frequently not in a position to make the right decision
about a dog's breedability until it's quite mature, although
there are some dogs that are obviously unsuitable very early
on.

I'd be a lot happier with something that didn't outright
require spay and neuter but pushed the costs back onto the
people who create those costs. Unfortunately that's
extremely difficult to do.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

On 2008-06-05 10:53:38 -0400, "\(the\)duckster" said:

We talk much about educating the public on issues of neglect and responsible
pet ownership and I would suggest that were these dollars not earmarked for
euthanizing often perfectly good animals, these dollars might be put to
better use either through education or expanding free and low cost
spay/neuter.

You have the expectation that people, once "educated", will comply.
Anecdotally, I don't believe this is ever going to work.

Case in point: Miss Bella's mom & Miss Beanie. Bella's mom was "going
to be spayed". Nobody thought Beanie went into heat.

"montana wildhack" wrote in message
news:2008060512303316807-montana@wildhackcominvalid...
On 2008-06-05 10:53:38 -0400, "\(the\)duckster"
said:

We talk much about educating the public on issues of neglect and
responsible
pet ownership and I would suggest that were these dollars not earmarked
for
euthanizing often perfectly good animals, these dollars might be put to
better use either through education or expanding free and low cost
spay/neuter.

You have the expectation that people, once "educated", will comply.

Not necesssarily. Let me clarify that what I said was money used to
euthanize animals "might be put to better use" - that is, education.

However, I do have faith that people, once better educated, can make better
choices.

Citing your example. My daughter is adopted from China and I have been a
student of both the language and culture for almost a decade.

China has an "official" one child policy. Recently, however, an experiment
in one of the more wealthy provinces has let that policy lapse. The
government's idea (with supported population data) that better educated and
more prosperous families feel less then need to have huge families and stop
at two.

With education and money, the government's role as population police
diminishes as people take control of their own lives and have less children.

Take something as simple as hygiene. By educating people to wash their
hands after they use the toilet, disease has less of a chance to spread.

Is education the answer for everything? Some might argue no. But it beats
the hell out of ignorance any day, don't you think?

Kind regards,
(the)duckster

On 2008-06-05 12:46:14 -0400, "\(the\)duckster" said:

Is education the answer for everything? Some might argue no. But it beats
the hell out of ignorance any day, don't you think?

Yes, education beats ignorance.

In your example, some people, better educated and wealthier, were able
to live by a different set of rules than other, less educated and
wealthy people.

We are supposed to be a nation where all people are supposed to live
under the same laws. Even where state's rights are concerned, we are
all supposed to live under the same laws.

I am obviously not anti-education and of course I would much prefer it
if animals weren't killed every day either on purpose or by abuse.

The only thing I think might help is if we pay people to speuter their
pets. That's a good way to get people's attention.

FurPaw wrote:

Suja wrote:
Since tethering ordinance is such a good idea, maybe the county should enact
a mandatory spay-neuter law too.

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/826

I'd like to see DATA from places that have enacted such a law, to
see if it has had the desired effects on the behavior of the
populace, along with the specifics of the laws they have enacted.

Over a period of 5 years (or whatever is available), has the
number of stray animals picked up or dropped off at shelters and
not claimed or adopted decreased? Has the number of animals
euthanized correspondingly decreased? What unintended
consequences (such as animals not taken to vets for rabies
vaccinations, mentioned by the article) have been observed?

From a less animal-centric perspective, what have the costs been
relative to the costs of not having such a law?

For starters.

(I don't have time to look this up today; if someone else does,
I'd be really interested in the outcome.)

FurPaw

The limited information I have involves Denver. It has made a reduction
in their euthanizations. The reduction in puppies born there has created
a demand for puppies from outside the ares, most shelter puppies in Los
Alamos, Espanola, and Santa Fe go through two to three weeks of
socialization by fosters and then are shipped to Dever area shelters.
They want puppies to bring in visitors who might then adopt older dogs.
So their spay/neuter laws have also reduced the local ethanization rate.

I don't know about the effects on licensing compliance.

overview of the laws
http://www.denvergov.org/TabId/377851/default.aspx

A (out of date?) summary of the effects
http://www.phsspca.org/SNiP/Denver.htm
more from the same (pro spay and neuter) site
http://www.phsspca.org/SNiP/success_stories.htm
http://www.ddfl.org/wanted.html