Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Welcome to American Indian Dogs

Register or login now and gain instant access to our features!

Chicago Mandidory Pet Neutering Ordinance


Recommended Posts

Chicago Sun Times

 

March 9th, 2009

 

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

 

After adding tamer language to appease opponents, the City Council's most powerful alderman said Monday he has the votes to require Chicago's dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets.

 

Virtually all dogs and cats older than 6 months would have to be sterilized under the proposal.

 

CHICAGO CATS AND DOGS BY THE NUMBERS

HOW MANY?*

Dogs: About 224,537

 

Cats: About 105,763

 

VACCINATED FOR RABIES

Dogs: 67,361

 

Cats: 31,729

 

LICENSED BY CITY CLERK LAST YEAR

Dogs: 20,745

 

(Cats aren't licensed)

 

LICENSED DOGS THAT HAVE BEEN STERILIZED

18,635 (90% of total)

 

DOGS AND CATS EUTHANIZED IN 2008

About 19,000

 

 

 

*Totals are estimates extrapolated from experts' opinion that only about 30 percent of dogs and cats receive rabies shots

 

Sources: Cook County Animal Control Department, Chicago City Clerk, Chicago Animal Shelter Alliance, Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association

 

But Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th) has agreed to drop mandatory impoundment of pets as a penalty against three-time violators and cut the fine against those owners from $500 to $100 per month.

 

The burden on breeders would also be reduced. No longer would they be required to turn over to the city's Commission on Animal Care and Control the name, address and telephone number of new owners of animals within five days of the sale or transfer.

 

Language prohibiting animals from being sold or adopted until they've been immunized against common disease has been stricken. The new version simply requires "accompanying documentation providing the dates of any inoculations and medical treatments."

 

With the changes, Burke said he now has the 26 votes he needs to win approval of an ordinance tailor-made to reduce animal aggression and Chicago's stray population.

 

The watered-down version is expected to be approved by the License Committee on Thursday and considered by the full Council as early as next week.

 

Dogs and cats exempted from sterilization would include those used in shows, as service animals, in professional guard services, for breeding or for law enforcement.

 

"That is the opinion of almost every expert in the area -- that spay [or] neutered dogs and cats are less likely to engage in violent behavior," said Burke, who introduced the ordinance in response to an attack by a pack of pit bulls that seriously injured a Southwest Side woman.

 

But the alderman acknowledged that the passions on display at a July 2008 hearing that starred legendary game show host Bob Barker would be reignited.

 

"I was actually surprised by the vehement objections raised by so many people. I thought it would be a simple, easy proposal. But that's not the case. People are very passionate about their pets," Burke said.

 

The changes made by Burke did nothing to appease the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, which remains adamantly opposed, calling it "bad legislation" that would usher in "a new era of unprecedented oversight of pet health care."

 

The veterinary association argues mandatory sterilization would increase costs, raise euthanasia rates and pose "significant health risks" to some spayed or neutered animals.

 

The veterinary group also says the ordinance would lead to a rise in rabies because pet owners will be afraid to bring non-sterilized dogs in for shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...in a way this is good and in a way it is bad. Not sure how I feel about it!

 

We never had Meekos neutered - but then he was never out where he could cause any damage either. His father wasn't but his mother was. It would help on the over population problem, but it seems they are doing it to control aggression? This is not always an answer. And if they are going to make it mandatory - are they going to control the cost that vets can charge or offer discounts?

 

There are many ethical concerns here - but good moral ones too!

 

Interesting...thanks, Allison!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting...

 

I've been for this for a long time...

 

I think you shouldn't have intact animals unless you have a breeders license, or a "licensed" show or working dog (basically to make exceptions, for reputable owners)

 

I hate the idea of backyard and oops breeders. And I think down the road it will work to control aggression... I just sent a message to Allison (un related to this) saying that by eliminating the backyard breeders, you can help eliminate poor dog owners, which I feel lead to aggressive dogs. Kim wouldn't sell one of his pups to a bad owner, so by having the pet owners carefully chosen by reputable breeders you will help reduce the amount of poorly located dogs, which lead to aggressive non balanced pups.

 

Not to mention the positives of the population control, and dogs being euthanized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder about the people that will simply choose to not license their dogs?

 

They can't even enforce licensing of dogs, how will they be able to enforce the neutering?

 

And perhaps if they enforced licensing, that would eliminate much of the problem--you have to pay more for a pet that is not neutered. Perhaps if it was much more, without a breeders license, that would be simpler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right... It'll be very hard to enforce but I don't think it's necessarily bad to have it enacted, so even those who "believe" they're responsible pet owners will still have to go through the proper channels.

 

I have a friend that's had two litters of Italian Greyhounds, and he wasn't fit to handle that, they all survived, and he adopted them out, but his dogs aren't even well behaved, nor of "breed quality" so it's a detriment to the bloodlines, and only asking for trouble (IMO :P)

 

Chicago also has laws against handguns, and they have trouble enforcing that... but I still think it's smart to have the laws in place, so when they do find infractions they can take action.

 

It's definitely an interesting topic though. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see its merits and like debi I'm on the fence tho. I'm not a big proponent of more legislation and more gov't. Anything that remotely seems like it takes away the rights of the individuals of our former republic makes me cringe. However I would like to think that I am an opene minded individual who will look at both sides of a issue and then make a decision.

 

After working at the pound and watching the gas chambers and seeing how 2 cats in 2 years can produce 1,000,000 offspring I think its a good idea. Its when the start regulating what types of breeds are allowed or which breeds are unlawful to own that I get real irritated. Are there breeds that have the potential to be more aggresive than other "you bet!". Should those breeds be outlawed NO, should there be legislation as to licenseing for the ownership of those particular breeds YES. I have seen more people at the vet and in homes bit by cocker spaniels and shih tzus than I have bully breeds...but I'm gettin off topic.

 

There is a responsibility of dog owners that MOST do not take seriously...I will lean more towards not revolting against this since there are oodles of euthanised dogs/cats every year. Also like richie said about responsible breeders and in looking at all these pure breed rescues I think proper placement and more credentials of breeders is key. Maybe this will help crack down on the puppy mills.....

 

very good topic allison

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a big proponent of more legislation and more gov't.

 

Couldn't agree more... It's hard to draw the line between what legislation we need, and what we don't. The problem is we're not (I'm assuming :D) the irresponsible pet owners, we will take responsibility to ensure there are no ooops puppies. But as you said most will not, and a lot of these ooops are good people who think it's cute their dog is having puppies. Some even think they are allowed to charge a premium because their pet store puppy had papers. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Chicago Tribune--Letters to the Editor:

 

Opposing new spay and neuter ordinance

March 10, 2009

We oppose the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance being considered by the Chicago City Council. We strongly encourage spaying and neutering. Unfortunately, the rosy picture painted by the mandatory spay/neuter enthusiasts is far from complete, and support for the measure within the animal care community is hardly unanimous.

 

Proponents refer to the proposed measure as the "Pet Overpopulation and Safety Ordinance." That name is misleading, implying that the ordinance will positively impact pet overpopulation, while making our streets safer. Available evidence doesn't support either assertion. Where mandatory spay/neuter laws have been passed, they've failed to achieve their stated purposes and result in unintended, highly undesirable consequences. Routine veterinary visits decline because non-compliant owners fear being reported. This isn't in the best interest of pets. Also, fewer visits to the veterinarian results in a reduction of rabies vaccinations. In Fort Worth, Texas, declining vaccination compliance in the wake of new spay/neuter requirements led to a rabies outbreak; their spay/neuter law was hurriedly rescinded.

 

Proponents suggest that police need the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance as an additional tool to deal with gangs and dogfighters, but there are already a myriad of laws that could be utilized, including dog-licensing laws, vaccination requirements and leash laws.

 

Supporters assert that mandatory spaying and neutering will make Chicago safer from biting dogs, but neutering does not magically eliminate or prevent aggression. While hormones matter, behaviorists agree early socialization, genetics, appropriate care and supervision are far more significant.

Although, there are more than 1 million dogs in Chicago, only about 20,000, less than 2 percent, are licensed. Should the City Council approve mandatory spay/neuter, that already low compliance will further decline. Owners won't license because they don't want to get caught.

 

Perhaps most disturbing about the mandatory approach is that a proven, cost-effective, alternative model already exists. Unlike the failed mandatory measures that punish non-compliance, subsidized spay/neuter programs rewarding positive behavior are successful. Privately funded, large-scale, subsidized spay/neuter programs already exist in Chicago. Together these programs were responsible for nearly 20,000 low-cost or no-cost spay/neuters last year alone (along with the tens of thousands of sterilizations performed each year by private veterinarians).

 

The success of the current voluntary approach calls into question the need for any new law.

 

--Robyn Barbiers, President, Anti-Cruelty Society of Chicago

 

--Ann Dieter President, Harmony House for Cats

 

--Elizabeth Curran, President, Lake Shore Animal Shelter

 

--Marcia Coburn President, Red Door Animal Shelter

 

--Dr. Colleen Currigan Board president, Tree House Humane Society

 

--Dr. Sheldon Rubin President, Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association

 

--Dr. Shannon Greeley President, Chicago Veterinary Medical Association

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except they only say the ordinance is misleading, they don't really articulate a good reason why it shouldn't be passed.

 

They don't pose an argument for having intact animals, other than people may not take their dogs to the vet because they are intact, which could lead to rabies.. (yeah right)

 

??????

 

I still think it would have a positive effect on the pet population, and dangerous dogs. There is a reason why reputable breeders (kim included) require a neuter contract. And it's to prevent improper, or accidental breeding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one argument in favor of the measure, although I don't think it outweighs the negatives. If one of the penalties of breaking the law was the removal of the animals from the owners, it would be a way to remove aggressive dogs from bad owners.

 

Kaen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only issue w/ that is when the aggresive dog is removed from the bad owner it would have to rehabilitated and or euthanised for lack of funds/manpower/rescues or shelter space

 

that is not a arguement for or against it is the double edged sword -catch22-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...