One of my pet peeves (if you'll forgive the pun) is that there's a chorus of angry and emotional people out there hell-bent on invading my personal life by forcing me to cut out my dog's ovaries.

It's tyranny, plain and simple.

I know this will sound anthropomorphic, but I love my dog, and I would no more do that to her than I would cut out a daughter's ovaries. Well, I don't have a daughter, so it's only speculation, but I'm pretty sure if I did I'd feel the same way.

My dog's sex organs are not the government's business.

Proposed legislation which would make me spay Coco is based on highly questionable premises:

As a result, mandatory spay and neuter ordinances have been passed in a number of cities, including Camden, New Jersey -- with operative text like this:

It shall be unlawful to own, possess or keep in the City any dog or cat over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered, except as provided in §210-40 of this article.

This prohibition on dog breeding (often acheived by emotional hype involving "puppy mills" in rural areas nowhere near the cities in question) targets all breeders.

One animal rights website highlights the text of one such ordinance:

"No puppies of any breeds shall be offered for sale, adoption or trade, or given away in a public place, except by animal care service mobile adoption or non-profit humane welfare organizations."

As the above site demonstrates, there are unintended consequences of these ordinances. As is so often the case with laws like this, the irresponsible people being targeted simply do not comply. Additionally, the drop in license applications suggest that draconian legislation instills fear into even ordinary dog owners:

Since the passage of this 2000 “spay or pay” Los Angeles ordinance, there has been a decline in dog licensing compliance. The animal control budget after passage of the law rose 269%., from $6.7 million to $18 million. The city hired additional animal control officers and bought new trucks and equipment just to enforce the new law.

Capitola, California recently enacted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. With the passage of that ordinance, Capitola joined the rest of Santa Cruz County which in 1991 began requiring spay/neuter of dogs with limited exceptions for breeding. Secs. 6.10.030, .050 The city requires a $15 certificate and charges twice the amount for a license for unaltered dogs. Dogs without the certificate must be spayed/neutered. There is a warning for a first offense, and a mandatory spay/neuter order is issued for a second violation. Since the law’s 1991 inception, licensing compliance has dropped significantly.

In Montgomery County, MD the mandatory spay/neuter law was repealed. When the law was enacted, it was estimated that 550 breeding permits would be issued per year. In reality only an average of 30 permits were issued per year. There was an estimated 50% decline in licensing compliance.

The site also asks some good utilitarian questions, and questions the logic of going after breeders:

. . .[T]o suggest numbers of animals in shelters and euthanasia rates will decline if there is a ban on breeding, is a little like saying we could find homes for all the unwanted children if people stopped giving birth to their own children. As with children who end up on the streets, in foster care or in trouble, there are many reasons why animals are left in shelters. It does not appear to have much to do with the operations of most purebred breeders. Thus, banning most if not all breeding will not reduce shelter intake or euthanasia rates. A permitting program for breeding is difficult and expensive to administer. Even mandated spay/neuter that targets everyone with few exception can also be costly. The evidence also suggests these laws may simply cause people to avoid licensing pets. As a result, there is a loss of revenues for animal control including the expensive breed permitting and compliance programs. And there is then no way to track and control unaltered animals and their numbers. In the end it appears at least some of these programs do not reduce shelter intake and euthanasia.

According to the Journal of Veterinary Medical Association, the characteristics of most dogs who are left in shelters include lack of veterinary care, obtained at little or no cost, lives mostly outside, needs more care and attention than expected, comes from a family who are divorcing, moving, or has changed financial circumstances; is noisy, destructive, or soils the house. Most of the dogs left in shelters are adult dogs of mixed breeds, strays, who may have been abandoned by owners who could not or would not care for them. The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy has identified the top ten reasons people abandon dogs and cats in shelters: (1) euthanasia due to illness; (2) moving; (3) found animal (of unknown origin); (4) landlords will not allow pets; (5) owner has too many animals; (6) euthanasia due to age; (7) cost of maintenance of pet; (8) animal is ill; (9) allergies within the family; and (10) house soiling.

Nor is "dog overpopulation."

On this subject, unfortunately, there is a near-total dearth of information. I'd be hesitant to call it censorship (after all, I'm writing this, am I not?), as there's no way to censor information in a free country. But where are the statistics? Every official site I can find lumps dogs and cats together -- using the convenient phrase "pet overpopulation" despite the vast differences between dogs and cats and the huge, largely uncontrolled feral cat population (as opposed to virtually no feral dog population.)

Is information being suppressed, or is it not being compiled? Only one book I know of takes an honest look at the actual evidence -- Save Our Strays:
How We Can End Pet Overpopulation and Stop Killing Healthy Cats and Dogs, by Bob Christiansen. According to the author,

“The overwhelming majority of the dogs killed are not puppies (as would be the case if there were true dog overpopulation) but young adults that were once owned.”

“The problem is not responsible breeders. The nation needs more certified, responsible breeders. The problem stems mainly from accidental breeders and amateur, backyard charlatans out to make a quick buck on the sale of puppies.”

To me the most telling evidence that the author is onto something is the fact that his book -- an out of print paperback! -- commands $44.95 and up at Amazon.com.

I cannot state with certainty that there is no dog overpopulation in the United States. However, if there are not enough puppies to supply demand, it strikes me as profoundly illogical to define the problem as purely "dog overpopulation." More likely, the problem is that people prefer puppies to grown dogs, and some irresponsible people don't look before they leap so they end up with an animal they cannot keep.

Moreover, how is "overpopulation" to be defined? Does the existence of "homelessness" (a euphemism for the socially problematic) mean there is a human overpopulation problem? Does the fact that millions of children are surrendered for adoption or placed in foster homes indicate a human overpopulation problem? How?

Does the fact that there are "unwanted" children mean there are too many? In the home of the people who had them, possibly. But I don't see what the fact that some people -- or some dogs -- are unwanted has to do with population. This is not to say that animals cannot and do not overpopulate. Feral cats are a good example. So are deer. But I can't remember the last time I saw (in the United States) packs of starving stray dogs running about.

It is not surprising that not as many people want grown dogs as want puppies. After all, a dog is a bit like a child. The younger it is when you get it, the earlier the bond, the stronger and more intimate the relationship. This may be cruel, but it reflects reality.

How many adoptive parents will take an unwanted teenager?

Aside from the fact that puppies are only rarely found in shelters, adopting puppies from shelters can be a bad idea, as there's no way of knowing its health or disposition ancestry (or even what size it will be). This means that like it or not, responsible dog breeders are the best source for healthy, reliable puppies.

So why target them?

I don't know, but I suspect this has more to do with issues of power than dog overpopulation.

Back to my personal issue. Coco has never been bred, which is my business. And Coco's. She might be bred, and then again she might never be bred. It's not very difficult dealing with ten days of discharge twice a year, and with Puff, allowing him to keep his testicles (and his integrity) posed no problems at all.

I don't care what excuses they offer, the government has no right to mess with genitalia.

(Mine or Coco's.)

MORE: Anyone who thinks I am engaged in hysteria (or exaggerating about the goal being complete elimination of all dog breeding) should read the Institute for Animal Rights Law's MODEL MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER STATUTE.

(The goal, of course, is elimination of all pets.)

UPDATE: Mandatory spay-neuter ordinances have recently been proposed in Riverside, California, and San Antonio, Texas.

AND MORE: Here's another high priced used paperback -- The Hijacking of the Humane Movement: Animal Extremism
by Patti and Rod Strand -- which seems well worth reading. (These dissenting tracts sure are pricey . . .)

UPDATE (06/02/06): Out for fireworks last night, and this morning I see Glenn Reynolds has linked this post. Thanks Glenn, and a happy Fourth to all!

(In all honesty, I never thought of this post as a defense of ovarian independence, but I'm all for it!)

One more thing. Considering Glenn's link to Virginity or Death!, and Ana Marie Cox's review of it, I think this is a good time to remind readers that Coco is still a virgin.

UPDATE: More thoughts on the economic and cultural ramifications of mandatory sterilization.

UPDATE (07/04/06): You can have our guns and ovaries when you pry them from our cold dead paws! (Some Fourth of July thoughts.)