Here's my response to an editorial in the NY Times from July 30, 2007:

Mr. Klinkenborg is very mistaken in his editorial of July 30, Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals? He ends the essay with:

"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."

This is not true. Many studies have shown that most pet owners are responsible. Somewhere between 85% to 95% of cat owners alter their cats. Around 75% of dog owners alter their dogs. These numbers do not show a society that expects "gratification without responsibility" from their pets! All of those "please spay and neuter your pets" license plates, Bob Barker's signature phrase urging us to spay and neuter our pets - these things have been working! Shelter numbers have been decreasing exactly because Americans are becoming more and more responsible about the reproduction of our pets.

Mr. Klinkenborg also says "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." This is also untrue. The opponents of the California bill AB 1634 did not make it sound as though education was the better way. Since so many pets are already altered, it is imperative to direct any policy goals towards the ones that are not already altered. For cats, the largest group of unaltered animals is the feral and free-roaming cats who do not have owners. No mandatory state law will address that group of cats. The solution is for localilties with feral colonies to implement methods to address those colonies specifically, such as TNR (Trap, Neuter,Return). The next group of unaltered cats belong to low income families who cannot afford the vet bills. Voluntary low cost or free spay/neuter programs must be directed at the source of the unaltered pets. Many areas around the country have found that programs targetted to low income areas have achieved great success in decreasing shelter intakes in those areas. Education alone is not enough, and that has never been the position of the opposition. Opponents to AB 1634 recommend programs directed at the source of shelter intakes.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Mr. Klinkenborg is correct and that Americans are just a bunch of irresponsible pet owners who expect other people to take care of their problems. Well then, what good will a mandatory spay/neuter law do? We irresponsible American pet owners will just disobey it. Does Mr. Klinkenborg really think that if AB 1634 became law, irresponsible pet owners would be breaking down the doors of every vet in California to get their animals altered? I doubt it very much. And if the law were enforced, what would the irresponsible American do? He would surrender the pet rather than pay the fine! This is what happened in Santa Cruz when that county adopted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. When enforced, people surrendered their pets and shelter intakes went up drastically as a result.

But fortunately for our pets, Mr. Klinkenborg is incorrect. The vast majority of America's pet owners are responsible. We do not need a mandatory nanny law to tell us how to treat our pets. What we need are real solutions targetted at the biggest sources of shelter intakes, and those are feral cat colonies and low income pet owners who can barely afford to feed their families let alone alter the family pet.