Owners fined if cats not spayed or neutered
 

As much as I love my own cats, I am saddened and concerned at the present cat overpopulation. I have always had cats, and although my parents neglected to "fix" all of our pets, since I have been on my own I have always had my cats spayed and neutered. Today, the presence of too many wild and feral cats is difficult to accept without doing anything to help.

So, what do you think about what is being considered in Rhode Island? I, for one, am in favor.

Law would require cat owners to spay or neuter pets

It seems to me like it makes complete sense. I have a cat and have it fixed. If you want a family pet then it makes the a little bit better of a house pet if they are fixed. A cat who is not fixed will tend to spray more and attempt to escape outside and wander more. Unless you are planning to breed the cat for money there is no reason to not spay or neuter your cat. They allow people to breed their pets for a price. It makes them accountable and stop to think about the options available to them. They not take into account special circumstances on this law either. Even down to helping people who want a pet but money it tight to fix them. I hope this works out.

We got our dog and cat from the local animal shelter. Visiting one of these facilities is a very sad experience. The caged animals get all exited when a person walks by their cage, it almost seems like they are begging you to pick them and the vast majority will be put to death if not chosen. It makes you want to take them all home.

That being said I'm not sure I'm for this law. I would be concerned that many will choose to let them go or turn them in to the shelters where most will be killed. I wish more people would get their pets from the shelters instead of buying or breeding them.

the area I grew up in NJ it was the law, but i think it was local ordinance rather than state law... All cats and dogs had to be liscensed and you had to have cats fixed. When the town enacted the ordinance, if a cat needed to be fixed, they had a deal going with several of the vets in town to do it at a fair price...

I don't see a problem with it at all... it think a responsible pet owner should have their cats fixed. Pet's cost money... pet's are not a necessity, they are optional, if a person can't afford the care that goes into having a pet, then they have no business having one.

It should be a law EVERYWHERE.

Unfortunately I deal with stupid people everyday at work who are planning on breeding their pets......not even caring about the millions of unwanted animals killed everyday.

exactly!!!!!!!!


*wants to say more,but is rather upset*

Several hundred dollars the article said to fix a pet??? It doesnt even cost that to fix a great dane! Most places will neuter a male cat for $25 and spay a female for $45. If the mark up is so high for those in that state..... I will leave that open.
I do believe however that people should fix their pets if for nothing else than your own peace of mind and to avoid bloody spots on furniture and spraying an adult male cats.
Just my 2 cents.

I agree with it being law, but your argument could be like me saying people should stop having kids because there are starving children in Africa. Sure there are millions of unwanted animals, but they're not their pets and not apart of their family.

The shelter we got our dog from made us agree to having her fixed within a month at a cost of $80-$150 (they gave us a list of vets), and the cats were already fixed and they charged a small fee.

Although this law seems like a good idea, I would rather see the animal stay in a poor house rather than being sent to a shelter where they will be killed if not claimed by someone in a week or two. Maybe what we need is a charity that will help poorer folks with the cost. The shelter folks say they are already overwelmed with discarded pets and only have so much room and resources.

Price Is Right son

All I am saying is that purposely breeding pets is only adding to the problem of overpopulation, not helping it.

Yes there are starving children in Africa and so on but that has nothing to do with this conversation. That is apples to oranges.

My real question is, what is wrong with ferel cats? Why not let them run wild and free and let nature do the natural selection? I have seen a neighborhood with a large population of ferel cats, and I have seen one without. There were no rats in one, the rats ate all of the strawberries and tomatoes in the garden of another. Not to mention the fact that there are fewer crows when ferel cats are about - and when there are no ferel cats, there are too many crows to deal with.

I see that neutered male cats make excellent house pets. They can be cuddly and loving. But those that I have met would stand no chance in the wild. It is an act of complete human selfishness to spay or neuter any animal.

The humane society has it wrong.

Altering animals is cruel.

Is wanting to raise and keep the kittens from your cat an unacceptable reason? Why must it be bred for money?

I'm with Nikki. Unless you're a breeder who is trying to improve whatever breed you have, there is absolutly no reason for you to let your pet have babies. Not one of the common reason given by the masses for wanting their dog to have puppies is valid.

Your dog does not care about experiencing "the miracle of birth."

If you want your kid to experience the miracle of birth, take him to a petting zoo at birthing time.

If you're doing it for money, stop. Now. And don't ever get a pet again until you've stowed that plan. (real breeders almost never make any money on their puppies)

If you want a puppy, go get one that's already born. There's no reason to have your own, especially since it exposes your dog(s) to greater health risks, both from the actual birth, and from cancer. Hard for the dog to get testicular cancer if he doesn't have them.

I've been saying this of people having children for years, and I whole-heartedly agree with its use on cats here as well.

It should be law everywhere.

The humane society does not have it wrong, they're looking at it on the grand scale. They're tired of having to put down cat after cat because there are way too many of them and they certainly don't have the means to indefinitely house them- so, they get put down. Not to mention that not everyone wants a ton of cats just roaming around where they live.

Also: we perform tons of procedures on humans every single day that accomplish the exact same thing- disconnecting the reproductive system. It's a very safe, well-established surgery. Exactly what part of that is cruel? It's cruel to have to put down tons of cats because you demand that the cat orgies continue, littering the country with unwanted cats. And yes, they're unwanted. Responsible pet owners help keep the population down by taking care of business.

If you don't like the law, go give enough money to the humane society to indefinitely house and feed and care for all the cats you're creating by promoting the free fornication of felines. Until someone can do that, we have to live in the real world, and we have to curb their population.

Why are there fewer rodents and crows? Because humans have introduced an unnatural predator into the ecosystem. Feral cats are unnatural predators. They don't belong anywhere. They do not belong naturally to ANY ecosystem. Cats are meant to be domestic animals, like pigs, cows, sheep, dogs, and other animals we keep for pets or food. They aren't meant to be in the wild. In the wild, they help spread disease to other animals, they reproduce uncontrollably, and yes, they keep the population of prey down--but far below normal levels, edging out other natural predators.

Feral cats are pests, not pets. Trapping and spaying/neutering feral cats is the only way to eliminate this pest problem, and spaying/neutering pet cats is the only way to prevent it from happening.

Only if done without anesthesia....

It should be the pet owner's choice.

Fix the cat or fix the owner.

(Only kitty gets anesthesia.)

I think there should be a law that required a license to own a pet. Too many people get a pet on a whim and after the first two weeks the novelty wears off and the animal is practically ignored for the rest of its life or until it gets taken to the animal shelter.

The process of getting a pet owner license would require some kind of education and a waiting period to make sure people are really ready and wanting a pet. Special licenses could be issued for breeders, all other pet owners would have to get their pet fixed.

Any law that will cut down on the cat population is A-OK in my book. I'm not just saying that because I hate the horrible creatures.. it's just unnecessary for the animal to not be fixed.

That being said, I agree that there should be some sort of licensing when it comes to owning a pet. People should be educated about various breeds and needs of pets before they purchase an animal.Go to any dog thread here and I'm sure you'll find I've said the same thing. It's not a powerful breeds fault that it killed someone. It's the dumbass owner that didn't know what the hell was going on.

/end mini-rant

So yeah, like I said.. Down with cats!! errmmm I mean, I think this law is a good thing :D

It's kind of ironic that we are debating whether we should require a license to take on the responsibility of raising a cat. I think we have enough government, the next thing you know we will need a license to raise a child. :)

It is cruel not to spay or neuter a cat, or any pet for that matter. My neighbor collects strays and doesn't bother to fix them. They end up pregnant and desperate to find food. I took in one of the cats and another neighbor took in another and got her fixed.
These are not wild animals and should not be treated as such. The humane society is filled with unwanted cats and kittens and their fate is death. Is that what we want for these creatures? Where's the humanity in that?
Unfortunately, if left to their own devices, most humans will not do the right thing and we need to legislate common sense.
So I'm all for enforcing a liscencing and neutering rule.

Now, if we're REALLY going to talk about kitty abuse, then scroll back up for a moment and take a look at the avatar of the person who started this thread, Ms. Grancey.

Did you see that beautiful, sweet little kitty face?

Then you should know that the avatar's owner changed that innocent little kitty's name to Phototwat for awhile (yes, you read that correctly). She even had an airbrush t-shirt made of the cat's portrait and Phototwat written below.

Then, last weekend, she changed that cat's name again to Ms. New Booty Booty Booty Booty. The cat has been totally scandalized.

Kitty abuse? What do you think? I think it's just a little bit ironic that someone who would name a cat such things should be talking about "cruelty."

I used to work at the Humanes society. I was mainly in the puppy room, but I also took care of the felines and the purebred dogs. I really enjoyed my job, except at 4'oclock, I new that the selection would start, and I would have to put down whatever animals she ( my boss) thought should go. We did it with an injection, and none of them ever acted like they were in pain....but what do I know?

The thing with the cats is, almost every single cat that ever came in was put down. People simply did not come in to adopt cats.
The fullgrown dogs that came in, they were pretty much gonners to. The puppys, they had a chance if they were cute,but thats not to say we wouldn't see them back later because people didn't want to take the time to train them right-and then the dog was the problem.
I was surprised when I first started working there by how many purebred dogs came through. Just because people payed a bundle for them didnt mean that they would become valued family members.A lot of purebreds just arent to bright, and many have hip and other problems that they didn't want to pay for. They often go to stud farms, if they aren't fixed, or dont have medical problems. But its heart breaking to see a purebred dumped at the shelter because he's to old to fuck any more.

Put it to a vote, I think you'd be surprised how many votes for child licenses you'd get.

Hey, you have to pass a test in order to drive a car, but any fackin' moron in the world can have a kid.

**off-topic**

Frightening exactly how many times those same words have come out of my mouth.
I feel people should have to take pet owning/parenting classes and a simple IQ test in order to be in charge of so much as a mouse.
Cats are intelligent beings and deserve to be cared for by intelligent humans. Drastic steps yes but I was told once...
Since most people are limiting the number of children they have to fit their budget, who will inherit the earth?
Pity it wont be the cats :lol: but I will continue to get mine fixed.

Not in the U.S., they don't. They have as many as they want, and expect the government to pick up the balance (or entirety, in many cases) of their baby-factory tab.

You are oh so very correct Mr./Mrs. Analog (please pardon my ignorance as to your gender) which is why I feel I should be able to designate where my $$ go. But oh well (insert sad face here) I shall go on adoring my (fixed) kitty friends and attempt albeit in vain to live in my self imposed plastic bubble...

This was signed into law today by the governor of Rhode Island

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/fix....ap/index.html

hmm...I wonder why farmers are exempt?

Awesome, good to see.

probably so they won't need to be held responsible for all of the strays that make homes in their fields and barns. (which seems fair, in my opinion)