Some additional thoughts triggered by my earlier post about the so-called "dog overpopulation crisis."

Suppose there was a surplus of cattle (let's say that fears of mad cow disease had led to a glut in the beef market), and that stray livestock were causing accidents. Would there be a clamor to declare a "cattle overpopulation" crisis, and demands that farmers sterilize their livestock? I doubt it. Because farmers would complain that sterilization was their own business -- and that if the government made them do it, that would constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. Is the result different because cattle are seen as having inherent economic value, but that dogs are not? While I would not sell her, as a purebred dog, Coco is worth between $500 and $1000.00 in her present unneutered state. If neutered, she'd have no intrinsic economic value. Might one of the goals of outlawing dog breeding be to destroy the economic value of dogs?

Why is no distinction being made between dogs of genuine economic value and other dogs? Why is no additional independent valuation being assigned to the former?

Is the distinction being blurred, or am I mixing apples and oranges? It seems that family pet values (being non-economic, or sentimental in nature) are very different, as most people would not sell their pets -- even if offered far more than they're worth. However, there is no denying that purebred animals have economic value independent of their virtue as pets -- and not just because of their value for breeding. Working and sporting dogs (police dogs, seeing eye dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs etc.) are of intrinsic economic value because of what they do.

And what about pure bred dogs, whether of "show quality" or not? Don't they have economic value wholly independent of their sentimental value? Aren't they more than just companion animals? Surely they are that, but every good pure bred dog represents the culimination of centuries of human improvements in the breed, and in breeding. Regardless of their function (guard dogs, ornamental dogs, lap dogs, etc.) their owners take proud in their appearance and the features and qualities unique to their breed. Don't these things constitute real economic value, just as worthy of recognition as a dog's ability to lead the blind or herd sheep? We might not all want to keep a Pekinese, a Pomeranian, or a Shih-Tzu as a pet, but the people who do that, are they to be judged as evil because they appreciate these breeds? If ornamental fish can be seen as having economic value, why not an ornamental dog? Is it because a dog is more than a fish, and unlike a fish, a dog is loved? If anything, the capacity of a dog to give and receive love only adds to the inherent economic value. Yet the animal rights activists seem to argue that this additional factor -- love, which cannot be ascertained -- negates and nullifies all economic arguments.

Many centuries of human improvements go to the heart of man's relationship with dogs. The innumerable varieties of dogs are of immense esthetic and cultural importance to humanity. But now, we are told by a tiny minority of highly emotional activists that all of these things should all be tossed out.

Excuse me, but who put these people in charge?

I think they are profoundly, stupendously, wrong. Our love for the dog (which is a creation of man) is being used in a game of emotional sleight of hand, in which one value is used to destroy another value. We are being so beaten with activist guilt that we forget that there is a hugely important bottom line.

Dogs are valuable in more ways than one.

How can I make this more plain?

Sentimental or emotional value does not negate economic value!

But, speaking as a lawyer, I have to admit that cultural arguments are valueless. Courts don't enforce culture, and they are not there to build up (or destroy) man's cultural achievements. Culture, while it may be priceless, does not have ascertainable value.

What I think I can say as a lawyer is that mandatory sterilization laws -- by failing to recognize the real economic value of dogs -- are at odds with economic reality.

I think they constitute a taking under the United States Constitution.

MORE: From a constitutional standpoint, mandatory spay/neuter laws are also overbroad, as they punish responsible people for the conduct of irresponsible people. (A bit like cutting off everyone's hands to prevent thieves from stealing.) Even if (for the sake of argument) there is a problem caused by, say, indiscriminate breeding, wouldn't prohibiting indiscriminate breeding make more sense than sterilizing all dogs?

While I'm not what most people would call a "judicial activist," I'll stick my neck out here and venture that the laws also interfere with the right to privacy. If that precludes the government from prohibiting abortions or criminalizing pornography viewed in one's own home, unless I am allowing Coco to run at large, I don't see how the government would have any right to invade my property -- by entering inside the body of my dog against my will.