Mandatory spay/neuter does work and is proven to work. How many more times do we have to say it?
I have a saying that you keep your friends close but you keep your enemies closer. Well, today I was checking up on my favorite "enemy", Nathan J. Winograd. Usually his rantings on his blog make me laugh but today I didn't. I am so sick of this man condemning mandatory spay/neuter. Anyone with common sense, and he obviously has very little, will tell you that you stop the euthanasia in our shelters by stopping the influx of animals into the shelter. DUH!!! Can't kill them if they aren't there.
Yet he insists it will bring about more "killing" in our shelters. How does he figure that? He uses LA as an example. Hello, Nathan, they haven't started their program yet but you are saying already the shelters are seeing surrenders because of the law. You are jumping the gun on that one just like you jumped the gun on the article in Austin. And San Mateo, CA, they didn't pass mandatory spay/neuter, opting instead for a difference in licensing between altered and unaltered. Grasping at straws, are we, Nathan? Again common sense tells us that this can't be true, fewer animals in the shelter are fewer that go down. The argument is that people will turn in their animals because they can't afford spay/neuter. I say if they can't afford spay/neuter then they can't afford yearly maintenance or rabies shots. They can't afford to treat the pet if it gets sick. And besides, there are so many programs out there to help people get their pets spay/neuter, this excuse does not hold water. If a person truly cares about their pet, they will find a way. If they don't truly care, then maybe the pet is better off in the shelter. I don't appreciate his defending those people who are so slack in taking care of their pets. Then again, I think he is against it because the breeding community is probably making donations whereas the rescue community can't. And besides, if the influx continues to rise it only means more opportunity for him to spread his BS to the shelters. Truth is, it is his program that doesn't work and has caused so much suffering in the overcrowded shelters per the example of Philly. He's not to blame, everyone else is by not being "committed". Rancho was committed and put the money up to prove they were committed but they failed within three months of implementing his "program". They are still throwing good money after bad trying to make his program work. It ain't happening.
Society has to police itself, if it doesn't, then we make laws. Although we have come a long way with spay/neuter as the only reason for the difference, it has always been an option. Some people are just too lazy to take the pet to the vet for spay/neuter and these are the people that we want to force to take responsibility. It is disgraceful, morally, ethically wrong for Winograd to continue to speak against mandatory spay/neuter. He has no evidence that it doesn't work. He alters the truth of places that have installed mandatory s/n to suit his opinion. I have yet to see him offer good, reliable evidence to the contrary about mandatory spay/neuter. He can't, it's not out there.
Let's put Winograd where he needs to be, in with the problem, not the solution. Let the breeders pay him to lobby for them. We don't need people like Winograd putting animal control back into the dark ages which he has managed to do. At least that's one accomplishment he can truly call his.