April 30, 2008
Somewhere, Bob Barker is Smiling
Ald Ed Burke (14th) is planning on proposing a city ordinance requiring dogs and cats over six months old to be spayed or neutered. Burke's believes the law is necessary "because people are not living up to their responsibilities as pet owners," he told CBS2. The law would exempt law enforcement dogs, animals a vet deems not healthy enough to undergo surgery, and breeders, who must pass a criminal background check to get licensed. The proposal is intended to fight the growing problem of dog fighting among gangs in the city. "I don't think there's too many gang members who are going to go through a criminal background check, so either they'll get these dogs neutered, or they're not going to keep them," he said.
Chicago won't be the first city to require pet owners to snip their furry friends. Earlier this year Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed one of the strictest pet sterilization laws in the nation. Violators could face fines up to $500.
Image by swanksalot
|
Advertisement: Chicagoist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Something tells me there also aren't many gang members who will give two shits about this ordinance. If they are breaking numerous laws anyway, why would they make sure the dog isn't breaking the law?
I agree with mepps, but I guess any thing we can do to limit animal abuse and over population I'm for.
This law would be like "drug tax" laws on the books in other states...obviously drug dealers aren't going to voluntarily pay taxes, but if they are caught and prosecuted, the taxes can be assessed after the fact, which makes for a decent way to collect revenue on a local level.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/nyregion/24drugs.html
If the City of Chicago thinks that this is a widespread problem, then the fines that can be used as punishment for allegedly already law breaking citizens can be looked at as just another turn of the screw.
Any given law or ordinance will not necessarily be obeyed by all, but will have some effect on the issue it is addressing. It will be one more book to throw at animal abusers when they are in court.
I wouldn't expect gangbangers or dog fighters to give a shit about this ordinance either. But it sounds like this law might allow the authorities to remove a dog(s) from someone's possession simply for not having it neutered (and without any evidence of abuse)--that in itself could be a good thing...
I love that photo. I've been meaning to take a photo of that sign forever!
I had the same thought as mepps at first when I read this ... but then thought the same as the rest of the commenters. I suppose it wouldn't seem quite so silly if Burke didn't make it sound as if he thought gang members were generally law-abiding folks.
I was very happy to read about this law.
But I've got to say, that's it's not just the gang bangers and pit bull owners that come to mind when I think of people who aren't going to give a shit about it.
I know lots of men who really have a 'thing' about getting their male dogs neutered. It's really baffling...educated people who
have some kind of transference issues when it comes to
their dogs' balls.
A neighbor of mine (for just one example) who is a doctor, absolutely REFUSES to get his male dogs neutered. What kills me is that it's not just a behavioral issue it's also a health issue for the dog, because cancer is the usual outcome for adult dogs who are not neutered or spayed. You would think a medical doctor would be more sensitive to the health issues. Ha.
There is a lot of ignorance out there, and this law will be difficult to enforce, but it's a law that is waaaaaay overdue.
Eventually people will start getting the message...well...hopefully...this whole male macho preserving my dog's balls thing is just so ingrained.
If this law were on the books decades ago, I don't think we'd be having the problems with pet overpopulation that we do today.
It's just going to take some time for the population to start thinking in terms of 'getting my pet fixed' is top priority.
@Ingrid
If your neighbor is a doctor, then surely he can afford to spring for a set of these...
"Neuticles"
Nice!
Neuticles.
Love it.
i admit it, i have minor transference issues when it comes to neutering. I don't like the thought of ball pain. I've been hit in the sack. It's a sensitive area.
but this neuticle website is hilarious:
"Neuticles allowing your pet to retain his natural look, self esteem and aids in the trauma associated with neutering.
With Neuticles- It's like nothing ever changed!"
Yeah, nothing ever changed. Except for the fact that the dog still doesn't have his nuts. That, and he went through some pretty severe pain.
Self esteem and trauma? I'm guessing that they are referring to the owner, who must have serious transference issues.
I have minor ones. Neutering doesn't seem like good times.
But get your dog neutered.
I first heard about canine testicle implants several years ago from a friend whose boyfriend worked at a company where the guard dog (a Rottweiler) was equipped with such after being neutered...
When some of the employees would inform disbelieving visitors of the dog's "condition," they would demonstrate by flicking his balls with their fingers, with the dog exhibiting no visible signs of pain or discomfort...
That's just wrong.
for god's sake. waaaah waaaah. try getting your uterus removed, kids. a snip and clip is no big deal compared to getting spayed. same goes with real humans who REFUSE to get a vasectomy, and instead let their wives risk getting pregnant over and over again, sometimes at much risk to their health, because they just will NOT get a vasectomy.
trust me, i know about this. i work for midwives, and some of these women have 3, 4, 5 kids, and they leave after the baby talking about contraception and it being "the last," and end up coming in pregnant a year or so later, because daddy just wouldn't do the deed.
let's see ... a procedure that you're over and recovered from in a day or two, or one that might take weeks? hmm.... grrrrrrrrrrr. if not getting pregnant was on *men,* things would be a hell of a lot different, i can guarantee you that.
smussy,
This sort of( your) talk makes me scwimish!!!!!
please give it a rest!
p.s
Perhaps it would be a good thing if men had to birth babbies, the world might be a better place as in lesss humans
p.s.s
Perhaps the "women" who "end up coming in pregnant a year or so later, because daddy just wouldn't do the deed" Should get some self esteem counseling!
p.s.s.s
and thanks for making me feel guilty about my loving Pup!
Spook:
It should be "P.S", "P.P.S" and "P.P.P.S."
as the "P" stand for "post".
Thanks.
Spav1,
Yes I know what both the "P" and the "S" stand for. What was a Spook thinking? But dooley noted. So lay down your head Tom Dooley
Hang down your head and cry
Hang down your head, Tom Dooley
Poor boy, you're bound to die.
Opps that's duly!
Spav...I'm never one to point out faux pas that others make,
but since you made such a big issue here over the pees and the esses, well....in your
post about The Mighty Oprah and James Frey you used the word 'incent' when it should have been 'incite'.
I don't even think 'incent' is a word.
dear spook,
UTERUS UTERUS UTERUS!
love, shannon
p.s., p.p.s. and p.p.p.s.: (uterus)