Should Owners Pay Fines for Unspayed Pets?

Seeking to reduce the number of animals put to death in city shelters, the Board of Animal Commissioners has tentatively approved a proposal by the city’s Pet Population Task Force that would require pet owners to pay a $500 annual licensing fee if they fail to spay or neuter their dogs.

Owners who alter their dogs would pay $10 annually, while those who don’t but prove they are “responsible owners,” through involvement in dog shows or obedience training, would pay a $35 fee.

Although many animal rescue organizations agree with the intent of the ordinance, opponents claim the measure is too lenient and should exempt no one from paying the large fees.

Should pet owners be fined for failure to spay or neuter their dogs?

Phyllis Daugherty, co-director of Animal Issues Movement:

“I believe that pet owners should pay a higher fee for licensing their pets if they wish to maintain an intact animal. These are the animals that are breeding and creating the pet-overpopulation problem that results in the euthanizing of [tens] of thousands of animals in this county alone each year. However, I believe that it would be more appropriate to have a $100 license fee for everyone who does not [alter a pet], rather than starting out at $500, thinking that it will get lowered in the legislative process . . . This [ordinance] will be impossible to enforce. . . . This won’t stand a chance.”

Gini Barrett,director of the American Humane Assn., western regional office:

“The average pet owner should be fined if they don’t spay or neuter their pet. Not everyone should have an intact animal. Some people are really qualified; others aren’t. We need to differentiate between the two . . . There are lots of people who are very actively involved with their pets and know about breeding and genetics problems. I don’t want them to have to spay their animals. But for those of us for whom an animal is a pet in the yard, and we’re [breeding them] because it’s nice to have a litter, they should spay or neuter.”

Joyce Pieper, Los Angeles representative, the Fund for Animals:

“I have been dealing with the issue of pet overpopulation in Los Angeles for at least 10 years. As a result of this, I feel very strongly that we must pass some legislation mandating that people alter their pets. However, this ordinance has too many exemptions. I have concerns about the process of identifying who is or is not a ‘responsible pet owner.’ I’m afraid the process to determine this is too cumbersome. Anyone who feels strongly about keeping an intact pet must pay for the privilege.”

Rose Channer,senior director, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Los Angeles:

“The proposed ordinance is specifically trying to target those pet owners who don’t take responsibility for spaying and neutering their animal. Those pet owners who are responsible won’t be fined; that’s included in the ordinance. What the task force is looking to do is make a significant impact on the number of animals coming into the shelters every day, or the thousands every year, from backyard breeders . . . The shelters should not be solving the problem of pet overpopulation; pet owners should take responsibility.”