ONCE AGAIN, THE STATE IS ACTING “IN our best interests,” only this time, it is really in our pets’ best interests. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced AB1634 — the California Healthy Pets Act, which will require that all cats and dogs be neutered or spayed once they reach 4 months of age.
The legislation would make it an infraction to own an unaltered pet who does not have an exemption. The fine is $500. True breeders are exempted from this requirement, as well as owners of dogs that are being trained to become working /service dogs or can get a medical waiver from their vet.
It is estimated that the state spends $300 million per year to euthanize animals that are homeless. The sad reality is that even though there are “No Kill” laws and the idea is to stop the killing of animals who are unwanted, and house them in shelters, there is not enough room and not enough volunteers, to help take care of them all.
There are problems with this legislation. Some will claim it is an undue burden on the poor who want to own animals and cannot afford to have them fixed. But that is canard and is based on fallacious argument. There are plenty of low cost/no-cost centers to perform the surgery.
Others will claim that it is an invasion of our private property rights. Well, that is just as much of a joke. The state involves itself in our private property rights all the time, usually to restrict them, in the best interests of society at large. Take, for example, the limit we place on how much someone can drink and drive. Or just drive for that matter. We make it illegal for someone to drive without a seatbelt because a car accident results in huge costs when the police and the fire department have to respond.
We regulate how and who can dispose of a deceased relative, you can’t just plant them in the backyard. Even after they have been cremated, technically, you need a permit to dispose of their remains, just dumping them on the roses out back is not acceptable to the government.
When my partner and I brought our little bundle of joy home from the breeder in Apple Valley, there was never a question that he would soon undergo the process to prevent his accidentally fathering children. Being the pampered pooch he is, of course, we went to an excellent veterinarian and had his surgery performed with all the comforts that modern animal care provides.
The point of all that is that responsible parenting required us to acknowledge the realities of life. That animals can and will reproduce with surprising speed is known to everyone, but in order for us to avoid it, we had to act.
Sadly, too many people are not motivated enough to act. Too many people believe that if they are only “careful,” their dogs wont breed. These,of course, are frequently the same people who think that more children is a good thing, particularly when they are receiving government subsidized housing, food stamps or welfare.
Assemblyman Levine is on to a great idea. My only problem with it, is that it doesn’t go far enough. I think he should consider extending it to people who are receiving government assistance. I think that we can drastically reduce the amount of money we spend on schools, bussing, housing, food and health care by reducing the number of people that are supported by the government.
The argument is not that different in reality. We have a large numbers of uneducated, obese people who are living off of the government dole and spend their days reproducing. We have the ability to temporarily stop the reproduction cycle of humans through either long term contraceptives, reversible surgical procedures and even that old standby the condom.
We spend huge amounts of societal capital to provide for people who are unable to provide for themselves and give little, if anything, back to the society that supports them. I don’t see why we, as a society, shouldn’t demand that those who are living on the public dime, shouldn’t be asked to forgo their reckless reproducing while on the public assistance.
Reproducing is a right, but as the government has frequently shown, rights can be infringed upon. I think it’s fair that if someone wants their “right to government money,” they should be asked to suspend their “right to breed.”
Rights come with responsibilities, and we would not be overreaching to remember that more.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 26, 2007. Read the original PDF.