Compromise?

Your Whole Pet: Can the two sides of mandatory spay/neuter find common ground?
by By Christie Keith, Special to SF Gate, July 24, 2007.

Great article about what to do with AB 1634, the California mandatory spay/neuter law that is on hold til January, except for one thing - Keith assumes that both sides want to find common ground. While it's fine to say that generally, people on both sides of this legislation love animals, it's not so fine to say that we have the same interests in this law. There are definately some who are completely opposed to breeding cats and dogs and want to ban breeding totally, and it could be that these people are the driving force behind the legislation.

Keith is correct that both sides want to reduce shelter intakes and shelter euthanasias. She suggests approaching the problem as a public health issue. Rather than try to eradicate a problem that we cannot eradicate (i.e. there will always be some people who need to turn pets over to a shelter), reduce the problem to a manageable level. Keith uses the example of teen pregnancy and how although we haven't eradicated the problem, we have decreased the numbers of teen pregnancies. Another example Keith sites is needle exchange programs for drug addicts.

"That's because anyone who sets out to entirely eradicate a problem that involves human or animal behavior, especially as regards sex and reproduction, needs to accept that you'll never completely control the behavior you're seeking to influence. There will always be pregnant teens, and there will always be pet owners who, through lack of will, lack of valuing the human/animal bond, or genuine circumstances that can't be fixed, need to avail themselves of animal shelter services. We should just accept that, and develop programs based on that acceptance."

Keith's suggested policies are:

"There are two ways to lower the number of shelter deaths. One is to lower the number of animals coming into the shelter. To do that, you need programs that target the reasons animals are coming into shelters in your location. For example, if a community has large numbers of feral cats, efforts can be aimed at managing feral cat populations using trap, neuter, and release programs. If large numbers of dogs being turned into local shelters are rambunctious 2-year-old, jumping, barking, leash-pulling Lab mixes, then things like training classes for new adopters, behavior hotlines and counseling services will have the most effect.

Another way to lower numbers of animals coming into the shelter system is to support voluntary spay/neuter programs. Low-cost, easily available spay/neuter surgery, financial incentives to alter pets, and the requirement that all pets released from shelters be altered before placement can all help reduce the number of pets who end up in shelters in years to come."

All of this is good. I agree completely with Keith's suggested policies. The problem is that the other side does not necessarily want to decrease breeding pets. Some on the other side want to completely eradicate it. Consider the position on abortion that some Democrats take - make it safe, legal, and rare (meaning prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen with sex-ed and contraceptives). The pro-life side will never settle for that; they want the practice of abortion eradicated completely. And the animal rights activists will not stop until breeding cats and dogs has been banned completely. Unfortunately, I think it is these people who push the hardest for legislation like AB 1634 and thwart attempts at compromise.

Keith's article is a good one; her policy suggestions are sound, her stats are sound. My only issue with the article is the assumption that both sides want to compromise and find common ground.