ttp://www.animalperson.net/
Animal Person

Mary Martin, Ph.D., deconstructs the language, ethics and economics of our relationship with nonhuman animals.
January 17, 2008
On Ordinances That Decrease the Cat and Dog Population

When visits to "The Stark Reality of Euthanasia," which I wrote back in October, jumped to over 100 per day (which is odd for me for a several-month old post), along with "On Photos of 'Euthanasia,'" I started paying attention to my local news (which is sort of rare). I found that Palm Beach County began discussing a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance (no Florida county has one), which was immediately shut down by breeders. It was replaced with an ordinance stating dog and cat owners can pay $75 if they choose to not spay or neuter their dogs and cats, and they also must sign a no-breed pledge (and note that there are funds for free sterilization for low-income people, and some dogs are completely exempt, such as registered show dogs and service or guide dogs). That ordinance passed 6-1, but must also pass on February 5, where there will be a public hearing.

There was intense discussion at the meeting of the commissioners, with at least one vet and breeders claiming there is no evidence that an ordinance like the one proposed would decrease the number of cats and dogs killed. Naturally, the pro-ordinance people listed counties that have decreased their "euthanasia" numbers by 40% or more, so clearly the vet was misinformed. And of course, there's the insistence that "responsible" breeders aren't the problem and don't even make any money off the dogs they create (which doesn't make breeding them any more ethical, in my opinion).

The director of Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, which killed over 18,000 animals last year, many simply because there was no room for them, is a vocal opponent of breeding (and note that hobby-breeders can get a $150 permit to breed, which began as a $300 permit. Oh, and their $150 can be waived by the county. Check out the Post's editorial about them and, coincidently, the one commissioner who voted against the ordinance). Director Dianne Sauve recently said:

At least in animal-sheltering, government needs to take a look at killing of animals. Those individuals in charge of agencies and working at agencies need to ask the question if it's morally acceptable to use euthanasia as birth control. And I don't want to work at a place that is going to ultimately say it is a method for birth control, that we're going to continue as a method of birth control and we're never going to entertain anything else other than euthanasia as a method of birth control.

Perhaps I shouldn't have a personal opinion on this, but I do - because every day at this facility starts with a list. It gets created the night before. And it's a list of who's going to die the very next day. Numbers, not names. Numbers. Sitting in my office, I know that I am responsible ultimately for that list. Based on that, I believe someone has to say enough is enough. And enough is enough.

The ordinance is terribly flawed, but it does seem like a plan to reduce the number of animals killed by Animal Care and Control. However, as the one dissenting commissioner noted, "I heard nothing about feral cats today. Euthanasia is up 100% for cats." That's a good point, although I also don't know how many of the cats being killed were feral cats.

I hope to be there on February 5 for the fireworks. I agree that we need more spaying an neutering, particularly of the no- or low-cost variety, but we're sending a mixed message. We're saying: breeding is the problem, but it's not. And we're also saying that we're happy to ignore the feral cat population, which drives up kill rates for cats, rather than work on a TNR program for them. Oh, and we're also saying that we will allow our legislation to be tweaked by breeders, even though they're part of the problem.