51 Comments - Concerned Observer - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:12 am: No. No no no no no no no. Stay away from my cat. Yes, mine IS spayed, but that was MY choice, not the government’s. Shoo, ordinance, shoo. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:13 am: To the commenter I just deleted: The question is whether this should be a state law, not what you think about Chicago. Please, stick to the question. Thanks. - How Ironic - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:15 am: Rich, Just to clarify, you are asking about mandatory sterilization of PETS? Cause, there are some folks in IL that could benefit from sterilization as well. That being said, I do support sterilization of pets. There are far too many strays, and anything that can be done to eliminate more unwanted (and subsequently destroyed) animals is good for everyone. - Steve - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:16 am: It’s probably best that each community decide for themselves what they want(because stray pets probably aren’t a problem all over the state).The Chicago policy sounds like an intrusion on the rights of individuals. - Trifecta - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:18 am: If non-sterilized animals are costing the state money, then yes. There is no reason non-pet owners should have to pick up the tab, if the net result is a regressive tax. (i.e. a single working mom with two kids and no pets should not have to pick up the tab for pet owners) - Zach - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:23 am: No this should not be a state law. Let me make the decision of my own pets unless they pose a threat to society. If this passes, next we could see legal requirements for sterilization of people because the law doesn’t think they are capable of raising children (ie. people with mental disabilities). The goverment does not have the right to control these things…unless we live in a dictatorship. - How Ironic - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:29 am: @Zach, It’s a long and logically difficult jump to make the case that State mandated sterilzation of pets will lead to sterilzation of humans. The Gov does have the right to control these things because it is clear that the populace is unwilling to shoulder the cost of rampant pet/animal over population. One need only look at each county’s animal shelters and check the kill rate. It is dis-hearteing to see so many animals killed because people are NOT controlling the animals reproduction. That being said, if sterilization is required, the gov should provide assistance or cap rates so that it doesn’t become a revenue generator for providers. - Ken - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:31 am: First, I am an owner of a neutered dog. If all dogs and cats were neutered or spayed before 6 months old, it wouldn’t take long before there wouldn’t be any dogs or cats in Illinois. The alderman must hate animals. - Speaking at Will - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:34 am: This is stupid. Government should not be in the business of legislating the reproductive system of anyones cat or dog. Exactly how will this be enforced? - Amy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:45 am: Yes. stray animals are a problem everywhere, not just in Chicago. think the farm cats don’t pose a problem? it’s called feline lukemia, or feline aids. and they are a death sentence for your lovely pet if they come into contact with a feral cat. and life on the streets, is no life for an animal that is not native to the U.S. disease spreads from farm to forest preserve to house and the other way. the humane societies are wrong on this one. it’s not the same as breed specific legislation which is not good. dogs are much worse in terms of overpopulation. they bite humans. with regularity. and when they get out they form packs cause they need the pack to make it out there without human care. dogs need a leader, not a pack, in modern society. if we had just one year where no dog or cat reproduced in our state it still would not be enough to stem the tide of the overpopulation of cats and dogs. if you think the cats on the street will all be caught and stop producing kittens, you are dreaming. there will still be dogs roaming because people will flout the law and puppies will result. i am a big dog and cat lover. I have animals in my home and have rescued animals from danger and worked with shelter animals. it’s time to do whatever we can to stop those who are irresponsible at keeping animals. if you are against this type of law, time for you to head to a shelter and adopt about 5 more animals. otherwise, these laws can help. - Irish - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:50 am: No it should not be state law. There are too many variables that will make it difficult to enforce. The timeline I believe was six months from the time you get the pet. What if you think you might want to breed it later to have an offspring when the original pet gets old? Should you be forced to neuter the animal and give up that future option? no. What about animals whose reproductive organs have not dropped to the point of being neutered in the time frame allowed? Are you going to endanger the animals health to satisfy the law? Who determines if an individual is a breeder or not? How will you determine ownership? How will you prove whose dog or cat is runing around the neighborhood? This is only going to lead to more abandoned animals because the irresponsible people ae going to continue to be irresponsible and those that take care of their pets properly will be the ones penalized. If I am one of the irresponsible ones and I don’t have my pet neutered and you come knocking on my door to ask if that animal running around my yard is mine and I know that it is going to cost me I am going to tell you no and then when you leave I am going to turn it loose. This is one of those feel good laws that lawmakers like to pass to make it look like they are doing something. We have had way too many of those passed recently when the lawmakers should have been working on more pressing and important issues. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:50 am: Yes, as long as they include a provision to extend to some humans as well. If not, no, but bring back the days of the Dog Catcher and let him round up strays and euthanize them. I have a rescue dog myself and I usualy like him. Big Brother, keep your hands off of my dog’s ovaries! - Thomas Westgard - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:53 am: My answer is yes, it should be statewide. The vast majority of dog attacks on children are from unneutered male dogs. The presence of unneutered male dogs is a cost on society, in the form of a threat to children. There is also the cost of capturing, storing, and killing millions of healthy animals in government dog pounds, just because production massively exceeds demand. So, it’s not as though taking government out of the situation will remove the burden on society - it’s just trading one burden for another, while reducing costs and protecting children in the meantime. As for the fear that there will be no dogs, there is an exception for breeders. You can pay extra, etc, and still have an unneutered male. What this law does is makes it so you have to work a little harder to get it. People who have no legitimate need for an unneutered animal won’t, which, again, saves the rest of us the cost in taxes and child safety imposed by irresponsible dog owners. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:55 am: There is no reason to pass a law that cannot be enforced. Who will chase down all the barn cats to see if they have been neutered? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:04 am: This deserves a song! How Much Is That Doggie In The Window? How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!) The one that can still reproduce? How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!) I do hope that doggie’s got juice! Here in this town, they hate pets They’d prefer that each one is a clone But I think a doggie isn’t a doggie If that doggie cannot get a bone How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!) The one with that can still do it’s work How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!) The one hated by Alderman Burke I read in the paper there are policemen(roof! roof!) With flashlights that shine in the dark Searching every doggie for “yahoos” Chasing dogs around in the park I don’t think Ed Burke has a full deck Perhaps his leg’s been abused by a dog When he’s was out exercisin’ With Blago, goin’ out for a jog How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!) Since that law, prices are sky high How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!) The last one everyone now wants to buy - How Ironic - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:07 am: @ Pot, No need to “chase” down the barn cats. Just look for the ones that are relaxing, smoking a cigarette. That is a good clue they have been ‘enjoying’ themselves. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:10 am: Rich, I think your server is still on Standard Time. - Truthful James - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:10 am: Wumpus, You may have it right. Let’s extend it to members of the General Assembly and elected officials of all cities and counties with a population of over 1 Million Perhaps they could then keep their mind on the ball (no pun intended) and spend less time on after hours affairs. I have a spayed dog, but it has not changed his attitude. He still practices (from memory?) humping on my arm. - Anonymous ZZZ - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:13 am: Wumpus - your male dog (you referred to “him”) has ovaries? To the issue - no, I don’t think this should be a statewide law. As one or two other posters have said, people who are responsible don’t need a law to tell them to be responsible. Those that are irresponsible pet owners aren’t going to get their pets spayed just because the law says they’re supposed to. I believe the law (or maybe it’s a city ordinance) requires all animals to be up to date on their rabies shots, but there’s no way that can really be enforced so there are a lot of animals who aren’t current on their shots. I think this would be equally unenforceable. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:15 am: It shouldn’t be a state law. It shouldn’t be a Chicago ordinance. Am I to understand there are no breeders in Chicago? The article doesn’t indicate whether they are exempt. Even the “common” person should have the allowance to breed his dog if he so chooses. Further, there are likely plenty of ordinances on the books concerning dogs and responsible ownership. - Excessively rabid - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:17 am: Too soon to consider making this a state law. Let’s get some experience with how and whether it works as a local ordinance. Sadly for me as a dog and cat lover, I have to agree that something needs to be done about this issue. People are incredibly ignorant, irresponsible, and short-sighted when it comes to pets, and it results in a huge amount of animal suffering, not to mention environmental destruction that too many are completely blind to. - the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:19 am: I’m not crazy about this becoming the law in Chicago, and I definitely don’t think it makes sense statewide. This is an area where the better approach is to provide education and incentives to get pets sterilized. My guess is that most pets that aren’t sterilized are owned by people of limited financial means; i.e., people who can’t afford to regularly take their pets to a vet. I think you’d get a lot more voluntary sterilization by providing free vet care, such as one free vet visit that includes sterilization for new pets. - Just My Opinion - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:28 am: Are we limiting this discussion to just pets? How about people? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:32 am: How about people? I think the Germans tried that about 70 years ago, under a different form of government. Perhaps there are more than a few people who would feel more comfortable if they lived there at that time. - Sporty41 - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:35 am: Absolutely, in rural areas no greater threat to small game exists then barn cats that run throughout the region. Exceptions for licensed breeders should be allowed. One problem I do have is that the fine should be when the animal is picked up because a confined dog or cat poses no risk. - Just My Opinion - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:36 am: VM, I’m not saying people are a good idea. Just trying to show that this pet issue is pretty insane. - Anon - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:42 am: Thanks VMan- Yep it should be a state law, I am tired of begging, pleading with these people to do the right thing. We will never run out of strays for adoption and then may be the county animal control officers would not have to kill so many unwanted, unadoptable “pets”. - Maggie - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:43 am: This should not even be a question. Of course there should be mandatory sterilization for all pets. Animals have suffered horrible abuse due to an antiquated macho mindset some owners have. Years ago I participated in a court advocacy group for abused animals. I was asked to attend court hearings involving abused animals. The purpose for this is to let the judge and defendent know someone was in court on behalf of the abused and abandoned animals. It’s just too heartbreaking what people will do. Plus there are not enough courts or revenue to prosecute these cases. Please educate yourself before making the decision not to neuter or spay your pet. Chances are the off-springs will be abandoned and abused on the street. - IMBack - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:53 am: I agree with Anonymous ZZZ about the usefulness of legislating responsibility. Further, Chicago and the state would be blowing an opportunity for millions of dollars of grant money over a ten-year period by enacting mandatory pet sterilization. Look up Maddie’s Fund. - JonShibleyFan - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:56 am: You know, this is probably a good law. That said, it is a lot like other laws, including pet licensing (which I know is local) and gun laws. Law abiding people, like me, will do as the law requires, and probably would have done so without the law (neutered pets? already done…better for their health. child safety locks on our guns…duh?). And the people who are cavalier about the laws, or those that willfully break the laws will ignore it. And enforcement will elusive at best. - Say WHAT? - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 10:56 am: I think its wrong to legislate every aspect of human existance. Responsible pet owners already spay and neuter their pets and always will. Irresponsible pet owners do not spay or neuter. A new law won’t make them responsible. What about dog owners who breed their dogs? Some people make a living doing just that. Will we punish them? Whats next? I think we need a new law against fruit flies. They are annoying. They probably carry germs. They are a health hazard. We need fruit fly police finding those little buggers and charging fines for every one they find. That would create a new revenue stream. Hey, just sayin…. One goofy law deserves another. - DK. - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 11:00 am: Yes. Millions of dogs and cats are killed each year because they are unwanted or because they are strays. There should be an exemption for breeders, but they should pay a fee and the proceeds should be used for better enforcement, education, and to help subsidize the costs for those who can’t afford it. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 11:02 am: I am active in my local Animal Protective League and in dog rescue organizations, and I strongly encourage spay/neuter for all pets. That being said, this is not the business of state government, nor any government. It is a matter of personal ethics and responsibility, and those are things that are best left unlegislated. It is this sort of well-meaning but overly intrusive proposal that makes so many of us dislike and distrust government so much. - Maggie - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 11:13 am: Skirmisher This is not the business of state government, nor any government. It is a matter of personal ethics and responsibility. The problem with this logic is: there are many, many people who have no ethics and are not responsible. It is always the poor abandoned and abused animal who suffers for bad decisions their owners make. - lincoln street - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 11:21 am: VanillaMan, that was great. Anyway, my serious answer is that this seems likely to be a law that won’t actually solve any problems. And a few people who are particularly law-abiding will go get the operation for their pet, but those are the type of people who keep their pets inside or on a leash anyway. The law will almost never be enforced, because you can’t even tell whether a cat or a female dog has had the operation without a pretty, um, ‘inclusive’ search. Are cops going to pull a Crocodile Dundee on someone’s kitty? If shelters and animal control are major costs for government, then maybe it would be better to offer incentives — maybe the legislature could proclaim May 1st as “Spay Day” and pay for free neutering and spaying at shelters around the state. “This May Day, celebrate Spay Day!” Alexi Giannoulias can be the smiling face of Spay Day, the way George Ryan used to go on tv and ask in his kindly, avuncular way, for our kidneys. - ValleyGal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 11:26 am: No. Those pet owners like me who make sure my ex-shelter dogs are spayed or neutered are already doing this. Breeders, even private breeders, should not be forced to abide by such a law. The animal control officer in my county already told me that this type of law would be insignificant since those that don’t spay still won’t spay. Another county does require an additional license fee from those who choose not to spay or neuter. It is still a burden on the responsible owner but it does allow pet owners a little more choice. - prowler - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 11:29 am: I had one pet die from the anesthenia used for spaying and neuturing of pets. Pretty hard to explain to your children why their pet died when it went to the vet healthy. Are anesthenic deaths common, probably not. But it happens more often then people think. I have heard of other deaths from various vets. - Slick Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 11:52 am: =====There should be an exemption for breeders, but they should pay a fee and the proceeds should be used for better enforcement, education, and to help subsidize the costs for those who can’t afford it.===== So I, as a responsible breeder of dogs, should have to pay a fee that effectively pays to clean up after irresponsible pet owners? Nice incentive you got there. - Amy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:01 pm: prowler, sorry but that is just not true. we would hear about it if it were a persistent problem. it’s not. overpopulation is. why don’t you adopt a dog or cat that has already had the operation? it’s done at an earlier and earlier age. with male cats this also generally helps with the spraying problem. - Vote Quimby! (a/k/a/ Bob Barker) - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:04 pm: Many people who own lots of pets in rural Illinois are poor, so they would ignore the law anyway–much like they do now for licenses and rabies shots. How about instead of a fine you sentence the irresponsible pet owner to scooper-patrol community service at an animal shelter? They should also witness the “solution” to overpopulation. I think many would be amazed at how prevalent euthanasia is for cats and dogs, and hopefully become a more responsible pet owner. - Gameplan - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:46 pm: BTW, Unions ALWAYS eat their young. - shelter gal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:54 pm: These are FACTS.Between 6 and 8 million cats and dogs enter shelters each year. Between 3 and 4 million cats and dogs are euthanized by animal control facilites each year. YES. It would be nice to at least do a statewide requirement of mandatory sterilization…. if at least just for one year. Trust me… the state won’t run out of animals… I volunteer for a shelter and it’s ridiculous how many pets are dumped etc. Personally, I think agree with Rich… we could use some human sterilization as well. OH.. and by the way.. non-sterilized pets cost the taxpayers a LOT of money. What do you think animal control facilities do? What do you think their operating costs are? - shelter gal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:55 pm: oh and to the single working mom with two kids and no pets thinking she should not have to pick up the tab for pet owners…. I do not have kids, but 3 pets, but I have to pay for someone’s schools, don’t I? … and I don’t mind… so you shouldn’t either. - Spay/Neuter Advocate - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:57 pm: I agree that it would be impossible to enforce as a state law, but mandatory spay/neuter is good for taxpayers. In Sangamon County, for instance, the county animal control facility averages around 3,600 euthanasias a year–an average of 10 a day. The cost to euthanize each animal EXCEEDS the cost to spay/neuter. I would like to see communities take a proactive to over-population by putting taxpayer money to use paying for low-cost spay/neuter (the Animal Protective League in Springfield operates an affordable program, and in fact, spay/neuters all the cats and dogs leaving Sangamon County Animal Control) rather than killing cats and dogs. Taxpayers need to understand that we pay a price for cat and dog over-population and that mandatory spay/neuter is an affordable, effective, and humane way to deal with the problem. - Sangamon - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:02 pm: I have a female terrier that was spade at the rescue, before I got her. I had her 4 years and she went into heat. ??? Three vets looked at her for a scar and aren’t sure that they see it. Their guess is that an ovary grew back. So, my question is “How are you going to tell that a female dog was spade or not?” No, I am not for a law like this. - Spay/Neuter Advocate - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:10 pm: Sangamon–The Animal Protective League puts a small blue tattoo on the belly of cats when they are spayed. That way if a cat is mistakenly taken in for surgery again, the tattoo is visible when the surgical site is shaved, saving the cat from an unnecessary surgery. - Spay/Neuter Advocate - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:11 pm: Should have said that female dogs also get the tattoo when spayed. - Slick Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:11 pm: =====I do not have kids, but 3 pets, but I have to pay for someone’s schools, don’t I? … and I don’t mind… so you shouldn’t either.===== Given the performance of some of the schools around here, I am not so happy about paying for them either. - taxmandan - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:47 pm: For those of you suggesting that a breeder should pay an extra fee, please keep in mind that most of the folks breeding pet quality dogs aren’t exactly making a ton of money doing it. Canine condoms are the way to go. - Third Generation Chicago Native - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:36 pm: Yes they should all be spayed/neutered unless you can get a breeders license. There also needs to be more affordable animal clinics to have this done at, or use the funds that you would use to shelter/euthanize all the unwanted pets. Most shelters will not let people adopt unspayed/unneutered animals anyhow. The pets that breed out of control are usually wild/abandoned pets anyhow, and usually unadoptable because of it. - Thomas Westgard - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:42 pm: “…most of the folks breeding pet quality dogs aren’t exactly making a ton of money doing it.” Yes - this is due to oversupply from irresponsible breeders. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.