Since I’m largely sympathetic with the stated objectives of the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance placed by Alderman Edmund Burke and Alderman Virginia Rugai before the Chicago City Council and wary of kneejerk reactions, I decided to do a little research and reflection before arriving at my position on the ordinance.
The current text of the ordinance to the best of my ability to determine is here. Chicago doesn’t make it particularly easy to review pending legislation.
I am opposed to the proposed ordinance.
The ordinance has four stated objectives:
…eliminating brutal dog attacks, combating the phenomenon of dog fighting, improving the quality of life for domesticated dogs and cats and reducing the multitude of homeless pets in the City of Chicago
Under the ordinance it shall be illegal to to possess an unspayed or neutered cat or dog over six months of age within the city limits of Chicago with the following exemptions:
- a health exemption certified by a licensed veterinarian
- animals owned by licensed breeders
- “Dogs or cats of breeds approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purpose of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or
association”To the best of my ability to determine there are currently no such registries or associations recognized by the commission. This should be remedied before any ordinance of this sort is passed.
- animals actively pursuing any of a variety of working titles that are registered similarly to the provision above with the same caveat as above
- service dogs
- animals owned by a guard dog service
- dogs being trained or in service with law enforcement agencies
Breeders must be registered with the city, pay an annual fee of $100 for each cat or dog being bred, and pass a criminal background check.
Unfortunately, the ordinance as written is ineffective, redundant, and inadequate, places an undue burden on law-abiding pet owners, and will have secondary effects that actually exacerbate the problems the aldermen are trying to solve.
The ordinance is unlikely to have much effect on dog attacks. The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association has challenged the empirical basis of the ordinance’s claim that spaying or neutering will reduce dog attacks, indeed the organization’s statement suggests that spaying females, since it is likely to increase testosterone production and, consequently, aggression may even increase dog attacks. For the ISVMA’s complete statement see here.
The ordinance is unlikely to have much effect on dogfighting. Those who engage in dogfighting are already breaking any number of laws already on the books. By Illinois statute (720 ILCS 5/26‑5) dogfighting is a class 4 felony, punishable by a $25,000 fine. Those engaging in it are also likely to be engaged in violating state and city laws governing gambling, the sale of food and alcoholic beverages, laws against cruelty to animals, ordinances governing public displays, and so on. The idea that anyone would be willing to break all of those laws but will be deterred by a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance is far-fetched.
Whether this ordinance would improve the quality of life for domestic cats and dogs is open to question. Studies of cancer prevention are ambiguous on this subject. There is some evidence that spaying a female too early is a cause of incontinence and incontinence is one of the many reasons that pets are turned over to shelters. The position of the ISVMA is that the issue is too complex to legislate.
While I support the idea of voluntary spaying and neutering to reduce the number of unwanted cats and dogs, according to the Anti-Cruelty Society Chicago has been very successful in reducing the number of animals euthanized without a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.
Passage of such an ordinance is likely to have several perverse secondary effects. The first such effect is the increased expense and time overhead it will impose on otherwise lawful and responsible pet owners while having little effect on those predisposed to break the law. The second is that the experience with such laws elsewhere is that while they’ve had little success in achieving the stated goals they’ve succeeded in increasing the number of pets turned in to shelters by people unable or unwilling either to bear the expense of having their pet spayed or neutered or purchasing the necessary breeding licenses. Rates of decrease in euthanization sometimes slowed after passage of mandatory spay/neuter laws. In some cases the rate of euthanization actually increased after the passage of such a law.
A significant number of responsible organizations have gone on record as opposing the ordinance including the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association, Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the International Kennel Club, and my national breed club, the Samoyed Club of America, just to name a few of the organizations that oppose the ordinance.
Better education; more enforcement; no mandatory spay/neuter.
The ordinance is unlikely to have much effect on dog attacks…The ordinance is unlikely to have much effect on dogfighting.
Bingo to both.
The real problem is that despite the laws on the books, actually proving a case is very very difficult, and prosecutorial priorities are elsewhere.
We’ve had a rash of pit bull attacks down here earlier this year. There were proposals to ban the dog like in Chicago or being proposed in Chicago (?). The other proposal (not just for pit bulls) was to follow the Peoria model, which I believe is to require all dogs involved in an attack to be spayed or neutered at a pretty high price, or the city will kill the animal for free. Frankly, the whole thing sort of blew over and I think nothing happened.
I cast a pretty wary eye at pit bulls, and the pit bull breeder on the front page of the paper next to a dog with a spiked collar named something like “killer,” didn’t help the cause. But where does that end?
The problem with breed-specific laws is two-fold. First, if you outlaw a breed the idjits just switch to a different breed. (Remember when Dobermans were the demon of choice? Rottweilers? Today it’s the many breeds and cross-breeds known collectively as Pit Bulls.) The real problem isn’t the dogs, but the people who raise them. Second, those idjits are not going to conform with laws against dogfighting no matter what they are, unless the penalties are stiff and there’s some serious enforcement.
OK, there’s a third. It’s just real darn tough to prove dog-fighting and vicious-dog cases without inside testimony/snitches, and as I noted, it’s not a real prosecutorial priority in most jurisdictions because dogfighting is underground, and only really affects most citizens through incidental aspects such as dog attacks on people and their pets.
Even going after vicious dog owners isn’t easy. Since people who raise such dogs also don’t tend to register them or get them real vet care, it’s most often impossible to prove ownership or responsibility for the animal. Typical case (I’ve seen dozens): Animal gets loose, attacks person or pet. Police respond, and IF they can find the owner, the owner says “It’s not my dog, I’m just keeping it for my cousin.” Which cousin can conveniently never be located (since usually they don’t exist).
So animal (if not killed on contact by police–many are) goes to the pound for the death sentence, and no one gets prosecuted because legal ownership can’t be proven. Idjit owner gets another pit bull or whatever, and the cycle repeats.
Tully’s quite right about the shortcomings of breed-specific laws. I actually know people who’ve said “No pit-bulls? No problem—I’ll get a Cane Corso” (or Tosa or Dogo Argentino or any of a dozen other breeds that make pit-bulls look like kittens)
Other problems with eliminating dog-fighting includes that it’s condoned by the people in the neighborhood or that the local authorities have been paid off to look the other way.