PETA And Bob Barker Call For Spay/Neuter Law To Fight Animal Overpopulation (UPDATE)

Every year, an estimated 3-4 million dogs and cats are killed in U.S. shelters. Based on those estimates, over 8,219 animals will be killed today.

In just seven years, one unspayed cat and her offspring can create an additional 420,000 cats, according to a PETA press release.

With this issue at hand, the Obama administration's new website accepting petitions may be able to help. If a petition reaches 5,000 supporters, the administration will review it and issue an official response.

Upon learning about this opportunity, PETA and Bob Barker teamed up to create a petition requesting that all adopted and purchased animals be spay/neutered until the animal overpopulation crisis in the U.S. is solved. The petition states that “because no more animals need to be bred when so many others go without hope of being adopted, PETA is calling for a mandatory spay-and-neuter law until all dogs and cats in the United States have a home to call their own.”

UPDATE 9/23, 12pm: The petition was one of the first to reach 5,000 signatures on Friday. PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk said in a press release, "The flood of support that our petition has received demonstrates how deeply Americans care about the millions of dogs and cats languishing in animal shelters or suffering on the streets -- and how deeply they want a solution. We hope that President Obama will very strongly consider our well-supported petition and act immediately to help homeless animals."

This is certainly not the first time that PETA has spoken out against breeding pets. The organization released an ad campaign last winter pointing an accusatory finger at pet owners who purchased their dogs, asking, "If you buy a dog, what will you do with the shelter dog you kill?"

Dog and cat adoption has become popular in recent years, with online sites such as Petfinder.com and ASPCA offering pet adoptions with just the click of a button (and then 10+ years of responsibility, so no spontaneous purchases, please.)

Some organizations are getting creative. Earlier this year, "The Today Show" reported on “speed dating” for dogs, where finding a match could mean the difference between life and death.

The organization 600million.org is working on an animal sterilization pill to control the animal population, and in turn, reduce animal abuse and killings. As advocate David Duchovny says, "Many countries that have no laws against cruelty to animals control stray dog populations by poisoning, hanging, throat slitting, beating to death, electrocution, and shooting.”

PJ's Pets, a major pet store chain, recently announced that it would stop selling pets in its stores across Canada. Instead, the company is making space for pet adoption organizations, and possibly even kennels, according to the Toronto Sun.

While these efforts are making a significant difference in many animals lives, as Diane Gauld from the Mayor's Alliance for NYC’s Animals said, "We can't adopt our way out of this. We have to cut down on the number of animals being born without a home."

According to the Associated Press, many animal experts believe spaying and neutering has played the biggest role in saving lives. The news organization reports that many states require shelter animals to be sterilized, and pet owners pose the greatest challenge. ASPCA's Stephen Zawistowski explains to AP:

Medical procedures have caught up in the last half-century and a lot of people have changed their thinking.

"Now they make a one- or two-inch incision and use self-absorbing sutures" that mean a much quicker recovery for the animals, Zawistowski says.

Aimee Gilbreath, executive director of Found Animals, a Los Angeles-based charity, agrees. "It's become a tenet of responsible ownership," she says of spaying and neutering.

Bob Barker certainly believes that. According to the PETA press release, Barker always includes a message about spay/neutering when providing his autographed picture to fans.

He recently recorded an audio message on PETA.org to encourage people to sign the petition. In the message, Barker says, "Let's let President Obama know that dogs and cats deserve a voice in politics too … Help control the pet population: Have your pets spayed or neutered."

Based on yearly estimates, approximately five dogs and cats were killed in the U.S. in this minute alone. Is it time for a change?

LISTEN to Bob Barker discuss animal overpopulation:

---

Comments

[NicoleB553]

10:05 PM on 10/13/2011

I like the fact that this spay and neuter thing is happening, but at the same time I'm surprised that PETA would actually support Spaying; surgically removing ovaries and uterus, and neutering; removing the male dogs testicles. Only for the fact that they are so "animals need to have rights and don't need people making choices for them". I personally don't think animals would choose for that to happen to them. But Like I said, I think spaying a neutering is great and adoption is wonderful. I adopted my blind and deaf miniature dachshund from the pound when he was only 7 weeks old. The breeders didn't think that anyone would want a "useless" dog. Little did they know that that dog is the best thing in my life and has turned out to be the best dog ever. Also my chihuahua I saved from the pound after some people found him on the side of his rode. He had his tail chopped off by his previous owners. And by chopped off I don't mean docking, They took a household object an cut it off themselves. ADopted dogs are the best, and spaying and neutering is smart.

[showdogmomma]

02:49 AM on 10/12/2011

I've seen first hand what spay/neuter laws can do. I'm not going to mention the area, but I lived in an area before the laws passed. I worked in and with the shelter system frequently - There where almost always open kennels, no set time limits on adoptable animals, and the ones that weren't often rescue placements could be found for. The kill rate was minimal. Yes, there where still animals euthanized, but compared to the average, it was pretty low. Sadly any day of the week you could see new paper ads and Craigslist postings advertising dogs and puppies for sale constantly. Then they passed a law mandating without a fanciers permit that required that you show your dog/cat among other things, you had to have your animals spayed by 4 months old. The result? There's still just as many litters being given away or "rehomed" for crazy fees on Craigslist, or sold in newspapers. Pet stores still florish. And the shelters are packed - all it accomplished was getting people that wanted to follow the laws to dump their pets because they couldn't afford the surgeries to fix them, and caused the shelter to become over crowded, resulting in MORE adoptable dogs and cats dying.

[katieinthepines]

07:33 PM on 10/09/2011

Make it affordable!!!!!! It took me a year and one unwanted pregnancy before I could finally afford to spay my dog. I made sure her pups were properly homed but it was a nightmare!! We acquired her because she was left on our door step. We love her and our children love her and she and one of her pups is very happy with us but still! A lot more dogs and cats would not be in shelters if people could afford altering, but they can't so they act responsibly and sentence an animal to death by not adopting because though they'd love a pet they can't afford the fix. The worst of it is I live in a tristate area Delmarva (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia) literally 10 miles from me in a neighboring state (DE) I could get a $25 spay IF I had a DE license unfortunately I live in the MD (with corresponding license) part of Delmarva and I couldn't find a spay for less than $200 and that was the so called ASPCA which was about $1 less than the cheapest vet in town and he offered the immunities for the same price the SPCA offered ONLY a spay for. I looked but unless you live in the DC/ Baltimore area you paid out the nose. You want more pets adopted and spayed and neutered offer it for a reasonable price, which you won't find here on Marylands eastern shore.

[showdogmomma]

02:20 AM on 10/12/2011

If you where being a responsible owner, your dog wouldn't have become pregnant! She should have been kept away from intact males when she was in heat, or period if you didn't know how to tell if she was in heat or not. If she was kept safely indoors as part of the family and supervised when outdoors, an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't have happened

[williampd on twitter]

09:34 AM on 10/12/2011

Yeah way to go, you sound like you are really familiar with the pregnancy bit, keyword was unwanted, hate to see how you talk to women who have been raped and got pregnant.

[emmasdolly]

05:56 PM on 10/09/2011

Animal "societies" are killing animals right and left...why? Because they don't want to spend the money to take care of them until they can find a home. In CT, our "humane society" director gave himself over $1,000,000 in pay and perks. Money that came from people who thought they were going to be helping animals. But if you call the "humane society", they tell you flat out, they will kill the animals in a very short time, much less help sick or injured animals. Some of these "charities" are nothing but a scam.

[Rein Hale]

09:50 PM on 10/01/2011

I REALLY want this to be passed. Because I will be one of many who will ignore it, and laugh. How about this instead? Lets castrate all of us teenagers? We don't want anymore unneeded pregnancies from them. And lets not give them a choice either. The world's overpopulated enough. And personally, I'm tired of seeing people everywhere kill animals and destroy their homes because they think that we're better than them. Humans are the most destructive animals, what are we waiting for? Sound familiar, anyone?

I will never neuter my dog, EVER. You people are ridiculous. Get rid of the Puppy Mills. That I will applaud PETA for. BUT not the Responsible Breeders. If this law gets passed, it'll be just as useless as the law that banned alcohol was! No sane purebred owning person would castrate their animals just because a group of pompous people don't think that they are responsible enough to stop their dogs from breeding. Guaranteed. I won't, I'd like to see someone make me. Please.

And personally, if you people were as good dog owners that you THINK you are, then you would be responsible enough to not let your dog impregnate or become pregnant. Why don't you actually do something with your dogs people? Agility, obedience, schutzhund, STIMULATE THEM. Their need to reproduce will dissolve.

[averagezoe]

08:27 PM on 10/02/2011

Do you reside in a mental institution? If not, I hope you will be committed as soon as possible and sterilized while there. We have enough people without a single brain cell polluting this planet.

[Summertown]

08:49 AM on 10/09/2011

Your post if full of ignorance regarding spay/neuter programs. A male that has not been neutered can become quite vicious when not used in a breeding program. A female not spayed can develop breast cancer. Having unaltered animals that are not in breeding programs makes no sense. Not having to deal with the hormones raging through their systems makes for a more stable, content animal.

All of my dogs and cats are dumps. Dumped on the side of the road because someone didn't bother to spay/neuter their dog or cat and didn't want to be responsible enough to find homes for the unwanted results.

My own husband's response was that it would ruin his dog if I had him neutered. It didn't, Leon was still the same dog, hunted until he dropped but never came home again after a hunt with his testicles torn open because he got in a fight with another non altered dog.

I had my large female fixed. I never had to deal with unaltered dogs trying to get at her when she was in estrus. No having to dig my gun out to protect myself from these dogs that were in no mood to be turned away.

[Parkite]

09:32 AM on 10/10/2011

It is your ignorance that is telling. The American College of Theriogenologists is composed of veterinarians who specialize in reproductive medicine. They also have studied the issues and oppose mandatory spay and neuter. The ACT notes:

"....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."

"In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public. "

[Imago1122]

08:09 PM on 09/27/2011

What will happen to pedigreed dogs and those who love them such as myself? I have no problems with mixed-breed pooches, but I've always gravitated toward certain dog breeds: in my case, Scottish Deerhounds.

There's a difference between puppy mills and the world of conscientious breeders---those I rather prefer to call the guardians of the different breeds. Conscientious breeders have pets, not breeding machines. They're responsible for the puppies the sound, well-adjusted puppies y bring into the world. These breeders sell their dogs on spay/neuter contracts except in the rare instances the dogs are superior specimens destined for the show rings. Should a family not be able to keep one of their dogs, the family is obligated to let the breeder know.

Puppy mills on the other hand sell puppies for the pure maximization of profit. Their dogs are often housed in cramped inhumane conditions. What happens to them beyond the mill is not the breeder's concern. Puppy mills are the bane of society and one of the primary causes of pet overpopulation.

PETA's solution pet exploitation seeks to lump both enterprises in one category to fulfill another agenda of their own: getting rid of pedigreed dogs.

[giftsthatpurr]

09:51 PM on 10/08/2011

Responsible breeders are not the problem, but overpopulation is. Our selfishness is killing thousands of animals every day - including pure breds. There are boo koo purebreds in our local SPCA so I can't even imagine how many there are nation wide. And the only the only people who disagree with getting rid of puppy mills are the owners of puppy mills. American Humane has long had a drive to get better laws against puppy mills. Join them!

[Parkite]

09:21 AM on 10/10/2011

To a responsible person, no one but puppy mill owners would oppose laws restricting puppy mills, but unfortunately that isn't the case. Missouri has the most puppy mills in the US.
"As Matt Campbell reported yesterday in the Kansas City Star, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Pork Association are in a froth over the ballot measure to combat puppy mills, even though the measure has absolutely nothing to do with animal agriculture or their industries. They oppose it because it could lead, they are arguing, to future reforms in the realm of livestock agribusiness. The fact is, enacting a measure to crack down on puppy mills does nothing, one way or the other, to affect future legislation on any animal welfare topic, including reforms in the livestock industry." 3/28/10

[showdogmomma]

02:36 AM on 10/12/2011

Purebred dog owners and lovers should NOT be forced to destroy our breeds and spay/neuter our dogs because puppy mills, back yard breeders, and owners who are to irresponsible to control the mating of their intact animals are causing so many problems with overpopulation. I've worked in shelters, I've watched dogs die because nobody wanted them, but stopping ALL breeding is not the answer - Making spay/neuter surgeries more affordable, more available, etc may help, but it's not the answer - Responsibility is the answer!

[watchgrassgrow]

07:34 PM on 09/27/2011

My biggest impressions here we have a sloppy Huffington Post reporter who knows nothing of animal health issues, genetics, breeding pools, or of PETA's less-than-stellar history in accepting and immediately killing animals in their shelters. This piece has no depth, and no doubt was straight from a PR puff piece (Bob Barker? PETA?). PETA has taken on issues (e.g., protecting fish and marine mammal populations) I fully support -- but I loathe their totalitarian attitudes and their basic premise that human society should not integrate with animals. They are dishonest in presenting information too, which makes for bad policy. Think about this: since dogs co-evolved with us, and perhaps even nudged us to collaborative societies, what would our society look like in 20 years if no children ever have the opportunity to experience empathy and intimate awareness for other life forms at an early age? What will their beliefs be? Will they carry forward strong ethics to protect the natural environment? Will they imagine and accept different ways of thinking?

[Liberal Hick]

07:52 PM on 10/24/2011

Instead of spending time in your easy chair, volunteer at a shelter. If you don't get the picture after the first day, you've spent too much time taking bathroom breaks.

[Peggy FearingHankin]

05:03 PM on 09/27/2011

Everyone should support Bob Barker. @peta to fight animal overpopulation. It's urgent and critical.

[j973]

07:43 PM on 10/09/2011

Do you have children or plan to have children? If so then you are directly killing starving and homeless children in 3rd world countries. I mean you have to think that, if you think people are directly killing shelter dogs if they buy from a breeder.

No offense, but I know where my puppies are they are micro-chipped at 5 weeks. Other people's puppies are not my problem. Frankly, there are many dogs that are not adoptable and need to be euthanized.

[Liberal Hick]

07:54 PM on 10/24/2011

Micro-chipping means you know the issue of pet overpopulation?
I suppose you're also an expert driver because you renew your tabs every year.
Now back to the issue.....

[Igor Purlantov]

10:57 AM on 09/27/2011

This is a great bill so it is not surprising to see such a positive reaction. Bob Barker is a true hero. Many thanks to him and all of the other people working tirelessly to improve the lives of animals that deserve better.

[Time4Dogs]

10:12 AM on 09/27/2011

Yes, it's time for a change. A change in shelter management. We need those who reject the killing of healthy animals in charge of our nation's shelters. We need a change in our way of thinking. Spaying an neutering is NOT the mark of responsible ownership. It is the mark of ignorance of facts and science.
Routine sterilization is the mark of sheeple, who blindly follow an extremist anti-animal ownership agenda.
The US is the ONLY country where people are foolish enough to believe that major surgery done on juvenile animals is a mark of "responsibility". In Norway, it is actually ILLEGAL to sterilize your pet without medical necessity.
We have articles like Ms. Zelman's, with all the unsubstantiated claims, as well as biased animal extremists like Barker and PETA painting a fictional picture. Do your homework and see through their lies.
http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2011/09/huffington-post-puppet-for-animal.html

[Time4Dogs]

09:16 PM on 09/26/2011

If passed, communities in California will no longer have access to Maddie’s Funds. It is their policy to not provide funding for mandatory governmental programs. “Maddie’s Fund is committed to volunteerism” and is intended to foster innovative collaborative programs like the CVMA Feral Cat Sterilization Program that resulted in the sterilization of almost 200,000 cats over a 3 year period. To date, Maddie’s Fund has provided over 19 million dollars to communities in California.

If passed, this bill will eliminate many local sources of healthy, well-bred and socialized pets. Because it will not decrease the demand for puppies and kittens, the bill leaves the people of California vulnerable to puppymills, unregulated internet sales, sellers of smuggled animals and unscrupulous brokers of animals from out of the US. These poor quality pets will be a burden and an expense and many will end up in our shelters.


Finally, it is my belief that locally developed, voluntary, collaborative, supportive and science-based programs always out perform punitive, coercive ones.


Thank you for your kind attention. As a veterinarian, past president of the CVMA and an animal advocate I ask you to vote AGAINST this bill.


(Adapted from Dr. Hamil's testimony at CA AB 1634 hearing)

[Liberal Hick]

07:58 PM on 10/24/2011

So you went to vet school - couldn't handle the boots-on-the-ground work, so you went back to school to get a couple more letters added to your name? Your ignorance, however, still however. You are NOT an animal advocate, you are a textbook fool. You are the Leave it to Beaver cheerleader commenting on a Raging Bull topic.

[Liberal Hick]

08:09 PM on 10/24/2011

oops, too many "howevers." My apologies for the grammar fail (I shouldn't type while performing surgery)

[Time4Dogs]

09:15 PM on 09/26/2011

Seen False Premises part 3
SPECIFIC VETERINARY CONCERNS

• This law would intrude into the Doctor/Client/Patient relationship. This is an invasive procedure accomplished under general anesthesia with significant risk to the patient and there are significant physical and behavioral consequences for some animals. For these reasons this decision should not be mandated by the state but, rather, be made by the owner after discussion with their family veterinarian.


• In many jurisdictions with mandatory spay/neuter owners have tried to drop out of the system by not licensing their animals. Many owners know that veterinarians are required to turn in copies of rabies certificates and may decide to forego needed rabies boosters, thereby creating an increased public health risk.


• The contentiousness of this bill has driven apart the groups that contribute to and desire to solve this dilemma. If we are to be successful in solving this problem, we need to bring these groups together in developing innovative programs in the future.


If passed, this law will be unfair to the economically disadvantaged. They are the least likely to neuter their pets, see animal control as a threat, and have limited access to low cost clinics. We need to find ways to help this group enjoy the benefits of pet ownership.

[katieinthepines]

07:39 PM on 10/09/2011

Yes it is unfair to the economically disadvantaged!! More low or no cost options need to be offered to low income people and I can guarantee that there would be fewer animals in shelters because just because you are low income doesn't mean that you and your children can't love a pet!

[Liberal Hick]

08:05 PM on 10/24/2011

"SIGNIFICANT RISK"????????
I didn't realize you folks would stoop to such malarky. Percentage-wise, prove your fraudulent claims. Spay/neuter clinics are top-of-the-line. That's ALL they do, ALL day long, and it hasn't put a dent in your ignorance, or the pet overpopulation problem. I have to go now and feed 7 of 20 kittens that were dumped on me by people who are allowed to let their animals breed non-stop, while kind-hearted intelligent folk try to stem the tide of suffering and death. Go find a real cause and quit trying to line your pockets by pretending there is some sacred relationship with dogs and cats that you are in charge of protecting.

[Time4Dogs]

09:12 PM on 09/26/2011

4. That neutered animals are healthier physically and behaviorally.
Recently published data indicates that for a significant percentage of dogs this is not the case.

5. That mandatory spay/neuter will significantly reduce shelter impounds and euthanasia and that Santa Cruz is an example of its success.
MSN is a documented failure. Analysis of the Santa Cruz data and the rejection of this policy by its originator; the Peninsula Humane Society, the No Kill Community, Best Friends Sanctuary, and many other groups refutes this assumption.

6. That mandatory spay/neuter will greatly reduce the Animal Control costs.
Analysis of animal control data indicates that most costs are the fixed costs of facilities; administration, equipment, staff and retirement benefits. The continuous rise in animal control costs in the face of decreasing numbers of animals impounded refutes this assumption.

7. That the law will not involve veterinarians in enforcement.
The requirement for veterinarians to write letters of exemption and to turn in rabies certificates indicating the reproductive status of the animal to animal control identifies the owners of intact animals. The public will correctly view veterinarians as enforcers.

[Time4Dogs]

09:10 PM on 09/26/2011

Mandatory sterilization is based on seven false premises:

1. That current policies and programs are not working.
The numbers of dogs entering and being euthanized in shelters has dramatically decreased over the last 30 years in the face continued population growth. Mandatory sterilization does nothing to reduce the numbers of cats in shelters.


2. That the numbers of animals impounded and euthanized is due to a “Pet Overpopulation Problem.”

The study done by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy found that the top five reasons for animal relinquishment were moving, landlord issues, cost, lack of time for pet and inadequate facilities. None of these factors are influenced by the purported “overpopulation” of pets mandated sterilization does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. If the animals in the shelter were due to “overpopulation;” we would find desirable puppies available in shelters, there would be no market for internet and pet store puppies, there would be no need for shelters to import puppies and puppy smugglers and brokers would be out of business due to market saturation. There is, in fact, a shortage of healthy, well-bred and socialized puppies and kittens.

3. That being sexually intact equates to being bred.
We know that for personal reasons many owners choose not to surgically alter their pets and they are never bred. It is improper that the government impose its will on these responsible citizens in the absence of any public benefit.

[Elizabeth Anderson-Shaw]

04:49 PM on 09/26/2011

Again, why is anyone listening to the hypocrites over at PETA? Mandatory spay and neuter does not save lives; in fact, such mandates shorten the lives of our animals and cause increases in shelter intakes and deaths. (11) Perhaps a new law requiring celebrities to be muzzled in public would be more beneficial to society.

Our animals pay with their lives for these anti-animal spay-neuter laws.

The Price is WRONG, Bob.

(1) http://www.cfodconline.org/MSNFailures.htm

[PedroLeon]

06:53 PM on 09/26/2011

Is that you in the third row?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxAaK0iJ2vQ