Copyright held by the author and Front and Finish for
each article. Articles may be downloaded for personal use only.
Articles may not be reprinted or republished without express consent of
the author in writing.
Pet Law and Legislation Margo Milde Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws and the ((Law of Unintended Consequences!!
Part Two of a Two Part Series
"The 'law of unintended consequences' is familiar in lawmaking ... The difference is that for AR (Animal Rights) laws, the unintended consequences are the plan ... MSN (Mandatory SpayjNeuter) laws are a bomb, tossed in the middle of the American 'dog supply system.' , .. These laws are often supported by the well-intended but they are
written by people who know exactly how they will work."l IN PART I OF THIS TWO PART SERIES, examples includ-
ing Montgomery County, Maryland; San Mateo County,
California; and Santa Cruz County, California, were used
to illustrate the consistent historic pattern created by manda-
tory spay/neuter laws: increased owner relinquishments of
pets into animal shelters, increased shelter euthanasia rates,
and increased animal control-related costs (not to mention
the resultant increased tax burden to the citizens) that occur
every time a mandatory spay/neuter or significant differen-
tial licensing law is enacted. In this article, the conclusion of
this series, a number of other downsides to mandatory spay/
neuter laws will be examined, such as increased public health
risks when such measures are enacted, potential health risks
to the pets from the spay/neuter procedures themselves, and
the potential for a disastrous effect on the genetic diversity of
our rarer breeds.
Yet another important "unintended consequence" of such
restrictive laws is that of increased public health risks pro-
duced when owners of intact animals, in an attempt to shield
their pets from the adverse mandatory spay/neuter-type laws,
refrain from seeking needed veterinary care for their animals.
As a result, rabies vaccination compliance can decrease, and
expose the public to unnecessary health risks. Fort Worth, Texas enacted differential licensing in 2000. Within one year,
rabies vaccination compliance rates for pets had dropped
sharply. A rabies epidemic resulted, almost doubling the num-
ber of animal rabies cases found previously in Fort Worth.
Realizing that this crisis was directly linked to the imple-
mentation of the new licensing system, city officials wisely
rescinded their differential licensing law
2• Increased risk of rabies is one of the more important reasons why so many
veterinarians, including those of the Illinois State Veterinary
Medical Association (ISVMA), are opposed to these manda-
tory measures. The ISVMA is extremely clear about a definite
possibility of increased rabies risk to Chicago's citizens should
the proposed Chicago Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance be
passed: "This law will definitely result in a decrease in rabies
vaccinations, city rabies registrations and owners seeking
medical attention for their pet:'
3 The public health risk from the spread of other zoonoses (illnesses that can be carried from animals to humans), such as Ascarids (roundworms)
and hookworms, both common internal parasites affecting
dogs and cats, may also increase as veterinary care for unal-
tered pets is diminished. Even the pets themselves may suffer
from lack of treatment for otherwise easily remedied veteri-
nary maladies.
Dog attacks are a recognized serious public health threat,
and sterilization of dogs has long been advised to reduce
the number of bite incidences.
However, contrary to popu-
lar belief, and diametrically opposed to statements issued
by Animal Rights activists, spaying and neutering in dogs
may not have the significant impact in lowering aggression
towards humans that was once thought. Reisner, Shofer, and Nance (2007) examined the circumstances surrounding III
dog bites of children, and determined that 93% of the biting
dogs in this study had already been neutered.
4 This paper was discussed by the ISVMA in their mandatory spay/neuter
opposition letter to Chicago Aldermen, and cited by them
as evidence against the positive behavioral correlation spay/
neuter claims of the mandatory spay/neuter supporters. The
ISVMA concluded: "The ordinance pretends that dog bites
will vanish because of this law by using a simplistic assump-
tion that only intact animals bite ... The fact is dog bites are a
complex problem that defies easy answers:'
5 In a second study, Duffy and Serpell (2006), using the Canine Behavioral Assess-
ment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ)©, found that
spayed females are more aggressive towards people than intact
females, while neutered males did not exhibit the expected
May/June 2009 Front & Finish 59reduced aggression, and often developed less desirable behavioral traits.
6 Dr. Serpell presented his C-BARQ© findings at
the 2005 AKC Canine Health Foundation Biennial Canine
Health Conference, and specifically pointed out data demon-
strating a negative behavioral effect of spay/neuter on both
male and female dogs. He called these findings "disturbing",
and suggested that more research on this issue was needed.
7The spay/neuter procedures have also come under increas-
ing level of scrutiny, both from the veterinary profession and
dog owners alike, for the potential of harm to the individual
pets themselves. Most veterinarians believe that spaying and
neutering are surgeries that are not entirely without risk, and
should only be done after careful consultation with the pet's
owner and evaluation of the potential for risks and benefits
for that particular pet.
The American College of Theriogenologists (vererinarians with advanced training in reproductive medicine) states in their Basis for Position on mandatory
spay/neutering that "the decision to spay or neuter a pet must
be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the
pet's age, breed, sex, intended use, household environment
and temperament. The use of generalized rules concerning
gonadectomy (removal of the ovaries or testes) is not in the
best interest of the health or well- being of the pets or their
owners. ''
8 In their supporting documents and references, they
list a large number of "advantages of remaining intact" includ-
ing decreased risk of osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma,
two common and usually deadly cancers in dogs, as well as
reduced incidence of autoimmune thyroiditis in intact dogs.
In fairness, they also enumerate the commonly known advan-
tages of these spay/neuter procedures such as decreased mam-
mary and testicular tumors.
9,IO,llA recent article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) was devoted to parsing out the pros and cons of this difficult
medical subject, and came to a similar conclusion. Its author,
Dr. Margaret V. Root Kustritz, DVM, PhD, DACT, summa-
rized her own answers to a question that every conscientious
veterinarian faces in their practice:
How does a veterinarian reconcile all of these data to
make the best possible recommendation regarding
optimal age at which to neuter male and female dogs
and cats?
The author provides the following assertions
... Pets should be considered individually, with the under-
standing that for these pets, population control is a less
important concern than is health of each animal."
12 Since they specify a fixed age at which all cats and dogs
must be altered, it is impossible for mandatory spay/neuter
laws to "consider each pet individually", as Dr. Kustritz recom-
mends.
In many shelters, the bulk of the animals housed and sub-
sequently euthanized are cats, very often feral, so how would
these mandatory spay/neuter laws affect feral cats and their
populations? Feral cat advocates believe that these punitive
measures would have disastrous effects on these animals, and
it is for this reason that feral cat advocacy groups, such as
Alley Cat Allies, are vehemently opposed to these laws. Alley
Cat Allies, in their mandatory spay/neuter policy statement,
point out the fact that 77-87% of all domestically owned cats
in the United States already are neutered, while most intact
cats are feral.
Feral cats by definition have no owners and
therefore will not be spayed and neutered under such laws.
They conclude by saying that "it [mandatory spay/neuter]
attempts the irrational: punishing non-existent cat owners to
increase the neuter rate:'l3 In fact, under punitive laws which
seek to punish the pet's "owner'; feral cats are often impound-
ed in shelters and euthanized at a much higher rate than if the
law didn't exist, and feral cat colony caretakers can be fined
and their cats confiscated and killed as well. Feral cat advo-
cates promote the establishment of feral cat colonies through
trap-neuter-return (TNR), where the feral cats are vaccinated
and neutered then returned to the colony, to reduce the num-
bers of feral cats euthanized in shelters and the costs incurred
by the taxpayer for doing so.
If the effects on feral cats are bad, the potential for del-
eterious effects on rare canine breeds is even worse. In "The
Gathering Storm'; author and AKC Judge and Director Dr.
Carmen Battaglia wrote a scathing article on how Animal
Rights activists have managed to seriously limit the ownership
and breeding rights of purebred dog enthusiasts.
These activists accomplished their goals both through negative legislation
as well by co-opting the "responsible breeder" label and turn-
ing it against dog owners in the passage of burdensome new
pet laws. In regards to the effect that this has had on genetic
diversity and breed populations, Dr. Battaglia, considered an
expert in field of canine genetics, stated: "What is best known
about their efforts is the ripple effect they are having on the
gene pools of many breeds:' Noting that 35 breeds currently
register less than 100 litters annually, he concluded: "The
greatest dilemma now comes if this trend continues because
it currently is on schedule to collapse the diversity of sev-
eral (breed) gene pools and their ability to maintain breed
health:'
l4 Unfortunately for our AKC purebred breeds, since
Dr. Battaglia authored this article several years ago, the nega-
tive trends of which he wrote have only intensified, and even
more moderately populated breeds are now concerned about
the potential loss of genetic diversity that has accompanied
the steeply declining AKC purebred registrations of the last
few years.
Mandatory spay/neuter proponents often point to the con-
cept of "pet overpopulation" as a reason to pass such laws. But
what about "pet overpopulation"; exactly how real of a prob-
lem is it? Merritt Clifton's Animal People have, for the past 15
years, published a comprehensive analysis of shelter euthana-
sia in the United States.
Their 2007 report shows the lowest
shelter euthanasia statistics ever recorded, at 12.5 animals
euthanized per 1,000 people, and an estimated 3.7 million
pets (dogs and cats together) euthanized in that year. Some
regions of our nation are doing extremely well: the shelter
euthanasia rate was only 1.7 in the Northeast (including New
York); 7.3 in the Mid Atlantic states; 11.0 in the Pacific states;
and 11.5 in the Midwestern States.
The author makes some very interesting general observations about general trends
including the following:
Adoption transport also chiefly benefits dogs, since cats
are still abundant in all parts of the U.S., but small dogs,
puppies, and purebreds are relatively scarce in shelters
along both coasts and in the northern Midwest ... Study
indicates that the U.S. pet cat population has not repro-
duced in excess of self-replacement since approximately
1994. The marked increase in the U.S. pet cat popula-
tion over this time, from just over 60 million to about
90 million, has been driven by adoptions of feral cats-
mostly feral-born kittens. Kitten removals from the feral
population, together with neuter/return, has reduced
feral cat reproductive capacity to substantially less than
replacement.
15 As this article points out, "pet overpopulation" for many
breeds of dogs and puppies in general simply does not exist in
several large regions of the United States, and even the high
feral cat population has started to decrease in many areas. But
how do these numbers compare with the statistics of several
decades past?
Cornell University uses a reliable source (Maddies Fund) as the basis for their estimate of 17 million pets euthanized in shelters in the mid-1980s16-a number over four times as high as today's figures of fewer than four million! What
is even more astonishing is that, based on an estimated 1985
United States human population of 237,923,795 (US Census),
and using Cornell's figure of 17 million euthanized for around
that year, the 1985 calculated shelter euthanasia rate was
71.5, a rate almost six times higher than today's rate of 12.5!
It should be remembered that these advances were accom-
plished through the increase of voluntary (not mandatory) pet
spaying and neutering, as well as better public education relat-
ing to pet care, and improved access to veterinary care of all
types, as opposed to punitive measures,
since mandatory laws
have proven a failure wherever they were enacted. (The rate
that Animal People quoted in this article for 1950-13.5-is
artificially very low when compared to to day's rate since, at
that time, private contractors hired to pick up strays often did
not deposit them in shelters to be euthanized. Instead, they
directly euthanized these homeless pets themselves or sold
them to research laboratories, where either way they would
not make it into the shelter statistics and euthanasia rates.
Such occurrences would be extremely rare today.)
Pet shelter euthanasia statistics can never get down to zero, since many
pets turned into shelters are terminally ill or injured and
must be euthanized, or have irremediable behavior problems
that make them too unsafe to be adopted out. Obviously, pet
"overpopulation" and pet population trends should not be
used to justify any punitive laws mandating the sterilization of
domestically owned pets in the United States.
If "pet overpopulation", particularly for dogs, does not
significantly contribute to rate of shelter euthanasias in much
of the United States, what are the real causes?
In 1998, a major study conducted by Salman et al. ranked reasons why
people felt they had to relinquish their dogs to shelters.17 He
discovered that the major reasons for pet relinquishment
were human housing issues at 29.1 %; animal behavior issues
(aggression towards people at 9.8%, aggression towards other
pets at 7.8%, and "other" behavioral issues at 28.8%); "human
lifestyle" factors at 25.4%; and the "pet not living up to human
expectations" at 14.6%. None of these issues relate to a "pet
overpopulation" theory as having a primary causative role in
shelter pet relinquishments.
Mandatory spay/neuter laws always have the opposite
results from their lofty intended goals. They also reduce
genetic diversity in a number of our rare breeds, lead to
unnecessary euthanasia of large numbers of homeless cats,
may produce unintended adverse medical sequelae for the
pets which are surgically altered, and may even lead to worse
behavioral outcomes for neutered pets as compared to their
intact counterparts.
What's worse, there appears to be no "pet overpopulation" crisis in many large areas of the United States, at least for dogs, and even the cat overpopulation situ-
ation has shown improvement. So, why are such radical laws
increasingly being promoted by Animal Rights activists?
To start with, many supporters of this type of legislation,
who are otherwise intelligent people, may have good inten-
tions but are not fully cognizant of the real effects that such
laws have on our pet populations.
Although we can work to better educate these animal lovers, who mistakenly believe
that mandatory laws are the best way to reduce pet suffering,
we need to realize these are not the people who are the driv-
ing force behind these punitive measures. We will need to
look further for our answer to discover where these laws are
coming from.
And unfortunately, the real truth that we will find is prob-
ably much more sinister.
Nathan Winograd, founder of the No Kill Advocacy group,
believes that the desire to punish pet owners is the driving
force behind such legislation, and he has harsh criticism for
these those that push such punitive laws:
...
if it is not about saving lives, what is it about? I believe
it is about darker impulses. These are the people who
obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and con-
tinue to push these types of laws. They will do what they
have always done-facts, logic, and history be damned.
They will continue to blame the public and they will con-
tinue to fight for more and tougher laws ... In the end,
these activists become that which they claim to most
despise-people whose actions result in the impound
and killing of animals. They become the "irresponsible
public."18In addition to Winograd's theory of the "desire to' punish
pet owners" as an impetus for these laws, it also appears pos-
sible that a genuine hatred of purebred dog owners and breed-
ers may be fueling these efforts as well. The Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS) has been a strong promoter of
punitive pet legislation, such as the proposed Chicago Man
datory Spay/Neuter ordinance, even taking their arguments
for local laws to a national level on their website.
19 Despite HSUS' claims to support "responsible breeders", reviewing
various pages on their website raises questions if such is actu-
ally the case. For example, on their the HSUS "Statement for
Companion Animals" page, under the "Homelessness" sec-
tion, they state:
"We support the enactment and enforcement
of animal control ordinances designed to regulate, deter, and
reduce companion animal breeding ... "
20 Wayne Pacelle, the current CEO of the HSUS, is careful not to himself make
remarks which could be construed as obviously anti-breeder.
Pacelle did, however, conduct a lengthy interview with heir-
ess, author, and Animal Rights activist Jana Kohl, in which
she exuded vitriolic hatred against the AKC, calling the AKC
"greed personified': and advising the reader never to buy a
puppy even from a "responsible breeder" since homeless dogs
are still being euthanized in our nation's shelters.
21 Since this interview appeared in Pacelle's blog and on the HSUS website,
it might provide reasonable grounds to question if Pacelle's
attitude towards even "responsible breeders" is as benevolent
as he says it is, or to instead conjecture if a concrete goal of
the HSUS is to abolish private pet breeding in the United
States.
In examining background of punitive measures such as
mandatory spay/neuter laws, and their resultant abject fail-
ures, it might be easy to assume without further thought that
these harmful results follow the "Law of Unintended Conse-
quences': However, as Walt Hutchens pointed out, these nega-
tives results are not unintended, but were rather the plan all
along. The promoters of such laws know exactly what they are
doing.
1 Hutchens, Walt. How Animal Rights Laws Work. www.pet-Iaw.com
Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://pet-law.com/future/aUaws.
html>
2 Tinsley, Anna M. Fees for some pet licensing to drop. December 8,
2001. Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://
www.stevedalepetworld. comjimages/stories/contentjd/355/fort%20
worth%20star%2C%20msn%20backfires. pdf>
3 Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association Basis for Statement of
Opposition to the proposed Chicago Mandatory SpayjNeuter Ordinance.
July 28, 2008.
4 Reisner, lIana R, Shofer, Frances S, Nance, Michael L. (2007.) Behav-
ioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression. Injury Prevention,
13:348-351. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://injuryprevention.
bmj .com/cgijcontentjabstractj13/5/348>
5 Letter to the Chicago Aldermen. Illinois State Veterinary Medical Asso-
ciation. July 28, 2008.
6 Duffy, Deborah L., Serpe II, James A. (2006.) Non-reproductive Effects
of Spaying and Neutering on Behavior in Dogs (Presentation Summary
and PowerPoint.) Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on
Non-Surgical Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control. Pages 1
- 13. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://www.acc-d.orgj2006%20
Symposium%20Docs/Session%201.pdf>
7 Measuring Behavior and Temperament in Dog as presented by James
Serpell PhD. AKC Canine Health Foundation Biennial National Parent Club
Canine Health Conference, October 21 -23, 2005, St. Louis MO. Pages
46-48. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://www.akcchf.orgjpdfs/
whitepapersjBiennial_National_ParenL Club_ Canine_Health_ Conference.
pdf>
8 Basis for Position on Mandatory SpayjNeuter. American College
of Theriogenologists. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://www.
theriogenology.orgjdisplaycommon .cfm 7an= 1&subarticlenbr = 59>
9 Basis for Position on Mandatory SpanjNeuter. American College of
Theriogenologists.
10 References (References numbers 1 - 83.) American College of Therio-
genologists. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://www.theriogenol-
ogy. orgjdisplaycommon. cfm?an = 1&subarticlenbr=60>
II References (References numbers 84-164,) American College of
Theriogenologists. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://www.
theriogenology.orgj displaycommon. cfm ?an= 1&subarticlenbr= 62 >
12Kustritz, Margaret V. (2007.) Determining the optimal age for gonad-
ectomy of dogs and cats. JAVMA, 231 (11), 1665-1675. Accessed
February 15, 2009. <http://avmajournals.avma.orgjdoijabs/10.2460/
javma.231.11.1665>
13Mandatory Cat SpayjNeuter: An Irrational Policy. Alley Cat
Allies. Accessed February 15, 2009. < http://www.alleycat.orgj
NetCommunity!Document.Doc7id=240 >
14 Battaglia, Carmen. A Gathering Storm: Big things often come from
small beginnings (Part I). Accessed February 15, 2009. < http://www.
charlestonkennelclub. org/batstorm. htm >
15Clifton, Merritt. (2007) U.S. shelter killing toll drops to 3.7 million
dogs & cats. Animal People, July/August. Accessed February 15,
2009. < http://www. minncdc. orgjsitebuildercontentjsitebuilderfiles/
shelterstats.pdf>
16No More Homeless Pets. Maddies's Shelter Medicine Program at
Cornell. Accessed February 15, 2009. < http://www.vet.comell.edu/
maddiesfund/spayNeuter/noHomeless.htm >
17Salman, M.D. (1998). Human and Animal Factors Related to the Relin-
quishment of Dogs and Cats in 12 Selected Animal Shelters in the
United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, J(31, 207-
226. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://www.petpopulation.orgj
RELlNQ207-223.pdf>
18Winograd, Nathan J. (August 15, 2008,) The Judge, Jury, & Execution-
ers Behind AB 1634. Best In Show APBT Board. Accessed February 15,
2009. <http://groups .msn. comjBESTINSHOW APBTBOARD/general.
msnw?action=geLmessage&mview= 1&ID_Message= 7115>
19Statement of The HSUS on Chicago SpayjNeuter Ordinance. (July 30,
2008.) Humane Society of the United States. Accessed February 15,
2009. < http://www. hsus. orgjpress_and_publications/press_releases/
hsus_statemenLon_chicago _spay_neuter _ ordinance_ 073008. html>
20Statement on Companion Animals. The Humane Society of the United
States. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://www.hsus.orgjabouLus/
statements/statemenL on_companion. html>
21 Stop Puppy Mills or Bust: Q&A with Jana Kohl. (July 28 2008,) Wayne
Pacelle, A Humane Nation. Accessed February 15, 2009. <http://hsus.
typepad. com/wayne/2008/0 7liana-kohl-baby. html>
62 Front & Finish frontandfinish.com
"All of these articles first appeared in
Front and Finish"