Return to story

Mandatory steril-ization of animals: Not the answer

November 14, 2008 9:14 am

edmead14.jpg.jpg

Mandatory steril-ization of animals: Not the answer

While I am very grateful for volunteers like Lynn Butler, not only in Spotsylvania but all over the commonwealth, I must strongly disagree with the assertions regarding pet population and control ["Pet population is out of control," Nov. 4].

Data provided by the shelters in Spotsylvania County show a dramatic drop in the number of dogs euthanized in the eight years from 2000 to 2007. Nearly 50 percent fewer dogs were killed in the county's shelters in 2007 than in 2000.

The trend has been steady, and there is no sign from the statistics that the trend will reverse in coming years.

In every jurisdiction where sterilization of pets has been mandated by law, the number of pets entering shelters and being euthanized has increased dramatically, primarily because many of those cited for violating the law either could not afford sterilization or would not comply with the law.

Sterilization is a surgical procedure requiring the use of general anesthesia, and it does have its risks. In addition to the immediate risk of death, long-term risks include greatly increased risks of orthopedic problems, certain cancers, and urinary incontinence in females.

Neutering males does not reduce tendency toward aggression if it is present, and spaying females generally increases tendency toward aggression if it is present.

Sterilization is a medical procedure and should be a decision made by each owner with the guidance of the pet's veterinarian, both of whom should carefully weigh the risks and benefits. Government should not be practicing medicine.

Legislation mandating spaying and neutering of pets is not necessary, and if enacted will create another set of problems, without accomplishing the purported goal of reducing the number of pets killed in animal shelters.

Scottee Meade

Burke





Copyright 2009 The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company.