It's despicable that the veterinary medical associations would oppose this measure. Their position is financially motivated -- they simply do the bidding of the puppy mills and high volume breeders who generate business for them. It's an affront to their oath. These organizations are rapidly losing their credibility on animal welfare issues. They should be viewed for what they are -- trade organizations for corporations.

This sounds like a great idea and I am not sure how to stop the overpopulation problem without some kind of legislature.I wonder if this has worked in other places? Does it only apply to pets being placed by rescues or all pets? What about legitimate breeders? I would be happy if they could focus on puppy mills and make them, the breeding centers that feed this problem illegal.

I am personally of the mindset to ALWAYS adopt, but I also don't like to tell people they can't do their own thing (ie: force them by law). I am curious to see how this law does, and if it is enforceable. This might be the start to sliding down a very slippery hill.

There are several problems with Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) laws.

First they aren't designed to ease pet overpopulation -- they're designed to make it more and more expensive and difficult to own animals -- which is part of the radical animal rights agenda

Also, there isn't a pet overpopulation problem at all. Read Nathan Winograd's book -- "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation" and you'll understand that it's simply a marketing issue and that there are plenty of adoption homes! Many parts of the nation actually have a problem with a lack of available pets. Thousands upon thousands of dogs are being imported into this country from other nations -- some of which are breeding mongrels for the importation into America. It's becoming a serious issue in the New England states as well as on the west coast and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is very concerned about rabies.
See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm

Also, opposed to what many animal rights advocates believe, there are no studies that prove that sterilized animals are less likely to be vicious.

Bob Barker is also not an animal welfare advocate. He's a longtime "animal rights" activist who promotes the agenda of radical animal rights organizations -- such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) which supports MSN. The HSUS is not affiliated with any shelter in this nation. The HSUS is not a Humane Society but an animal rights organization with much the same goals as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

PETA -- which also supports MSN actually kills over 90% of the animals it takes into it's Virginia shelter. See: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

MSN is promoted by animal rights organizations as a key piece of the puzzle in their goal to end animal ownership.

David,

Are you for real?? Have you BEEN to an animal shelter? EVER?

I have. Every day I get emails about dogs that are going to be euthanized WITHIN HOURS unless they can get adopted or into a foster home. Yesterday, in fact, I got one about three starved puppies with little chance of survival. They had just come into the shelter yesterday and desperately needed to get out into a home of some kind. And those animals lucky enough to get into a foster home, stay there for MONTHS waiting to be adopted into a permanent home. I know this because I've done rescue work with dogs for years. You and Nathan Winograd have no clue what you're talking about.

The main problem in the U.S. is that most people are completely uneducated about pet ownership. They see a purebred lab in a LL Bean catalog and say "I want that!" Then they go to a puppy mill or breeder or online and have a dog shipped to them. What they don't know is that labs can be hyper for the first 4 years of their life and that lab ends up at a shelter after a year. That's just one example with one breed.

This shelter I mentioned is in Baltimore city. I'd be glad to take you there anytime you like so you can see firsthand how there "isn't a pet overpopulation problem at all".

When animals are dying by the millions in shelters every year, despite lots of publicity to spay/neuter pets for years now, then people have shown they are incapable of taking care of this without legislation. I think "responsible breeder" is an oxymoron. Then there are "hobby breeders." Please. These are lives, not a hobby to make a buck off of or for fun. Of course, puppy mills should be shut down. Breeding should be banned until all shelter animals have been adopted to good homes, so this is really a fairly modest proposal anyway, IMO. Radical thinking? Hardly. Killing healthy shelter animals because some people simply must have a purebred puppy/kitten is far more radical. The AMVA is very 'limp' (to be polite) in actually protecting animals of all kinds, so it's not surprising a state MVA would be the same. It is pathetic and a shame, though. There is no mention of the AKC but since they oppose most animal protection legislation, they'll probably lobby against this. They get a lot of money from puppy millers.

I am appalled by the person who says there is not a pet overpopulation. I personally have 12 cats, all of which came out of the woods in my back yard because someone chose to not take responsibility to spay or neuter their pet. I wonder how many more there would be if I had not trapped and neutered them. When I caught my first cat, I was told repeatedly by shelters that they were filled to the max and unable to take anymore. Plus most of them were feral and not considered adoptable. The logic of not having an overpopulation of pets because some areas are underpopulated is like saying there is no desert because somewhere there is a flood! I am totally in agreement with Bob Barker with every aspect of animal welfare.

Nathan Winograd's ideas do work and have worked in cities in Canada and the United States. He has an over view of the shelters in this country whereas you are stuck in one city with the problems of not introducing a truly no kill shelter system. Also, when people talk about millions of dogs, it is less than 4 million now. There are 119,117,000 housing units meaning families in their own houses and 300 million people in the US. There are 78 million dogs in the US. What winds up in the shelters is about 4 to 5 %. Considering the natural selection death rate for wild animals that is an amazingly low number or an extremely high survival rate. You need to remember that some people take elderly pets to the shelters for the purpose of euthanasia that they cannot afford. Then a certain percentage will be feral dogs, another percentage will be lost pets, another percentage will be released pets due to death of the owner, economic downturn, moving, or behavior problems. The concept that pets must find a home to live out their lives is idealistic at best. I have seen pets brought in that should have been euthanzied right away. For some reason this publicity campaign by HSUS (to make more money as one can see by the expose video [http://www.vidoosh.tv/play.php?vid=4360]
has skewed the perception of people working in shelters and the general public. You have to accept that dying is part of the worldview for animals and humans. Those who work in shelters will have the same emotions as those who work in hospice centers or as nurses in pediatric centers; death is a major component of the job. With animals the newborns everyone is so sentimental about if left on their own would die. So because they are collected and brought into the shelter and because they are puppies you feel this natural tug to help all you can. But real life does not guarantee every living creature the right to life. The only document that does pertains to humans and yet we cannot manage to ensure that every human being has a wonderful life. The shelters main purpose was to get rabid dogs off the streets, and then it became a shelter when lost pets were killed and the public wanted more time to find their pet. Now shelters are a place where well meaning people lament the loss of a single dog. This viewpoint is out of balance with Mother Nature.

The concept of mandatory spay and neuter will mean the end of all domestic companion animals. This is the primary goal of the animal rights movement. Those communities who don't do MSN have more compliance for voluntary licensing which means more money for the shelters. Why, because the people do not fear licensing and see the shelter as a service which helps them find their lost pet, or a place they go to for low-cost vet services. In many communities that have enacted harsh msn laws and ever increasing government control people are being less and less compliant. Rabies grows out of control when people do not take their pets to the vet for fear of being reported. This is happening in cities where MSN has been enacted. Compliance rates drop dramatically and euthanasia rates increase as animals are released to the shelters in greater numbers than before. If you are for animal rights then you are for the end of all domestic animals and these high death rates must make you very happy. We all know that it is extremely difficult for domestic animals to survive in the wild. If you are for animal welfare then you must be for domestic animals and their relationship with humans.

Be aware that HSUS is not expert in animal care and their goal like PETA is to abolish all human animal contact. Here is a typical statement by an animal rights advocate on one of their blogs, ( brad-668559 we must accept suicide as a means of pop. control. only when the old, the sick, the weak, the crippled are disposed of will animals find a home.) When human beings start valuing humans less this is the attitude one sees in animal rights advocates. Even more interesting is that animal rights advocate the end of all domestic animals with MSN and killing. "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding" ** Wayne Pacelle * Director of HSUS.

The AMVA is not weak it is realistic and knows from experience that if you force MSN on all animals there will be no animals eventually. The cost of enacting MSN is extremely high and very invasive going into private homes to snitch on people who have more than one pet or have not licensed their pet. People avoid compliance when they feel the law is bad. To avoid compliance they will not go to the vet and thus their animals don't get vaccinated against rabies. Rabies is on the increase in areas with MSN enacted. There is common sense and science and their is emotionalism which HSUS plays up to get very stupid laws passed that cost this country more money and heartache.

You need some perspective and so does Bob Barker, but once you have gotten the savior bug it’s very difficult to see reality. Nature knows only one reality and that is predator and prey, only mankind has changed that system to one of collaboration and mutual benefit across species. Think of the species man has pulled from the brink of extinction. The buffalo was on the verge of extinction until people saw the benefit of raising Bison for meat. We have for years tried to keep the Bengal tiger from extinction and have not succeeded with all of our laws. I know the first reaction is well that’s not much of a life for buffalo to know that they will eventually die for meat. However, they do not know that and all living creatures eventually die, but while the buffalo live they have an extremely good life and their death is painless unlike in the wild where the lion will generally eat them alive. I can't imagine a more horrible death. Common sense is lacking from the animal rights movement. It is based purely on emotion and a lack of reality when it comes to the symbiotic relationship between humans and domestic animals.