The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Cubs Combat Casino
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
14th Ward Alderman Ed Burke is renewing his plans to enact an ordinance imposing sterilization of pets. Burke says that the new proposal, which includes some changes from the previous version, has the votes it needs to clear the city council. Unlike the previous version, which would have hit pet owners with a $500 fine, impoundment and forced sterilization, the new version has a $100 a month fine. The new bill also no longer requires veterinarians to report non-sterilized animals, and doesn't require breeders to immunize pets before sale, and then report the name, address and phone number of the buyer.
Burke, along with 19th Ward Alderman Virgnina Rugai, contend that their ordinance will cut the number of euthanized strays, and reduce both dogfighting and attacks on humans. “That is the opinion of almost every expert in the area — that spay [or] neutered dogs and cats are less likely to engage in violent behavior,” Burke told the Sun-Times. "I've been encouraged by the response of the members of the City Council, who I think now are prepared to support this," Burke told the Tribune. But the law isn't without its critics. The Illinois Kennel Club and Chicago Veterinary Medical Association oppose the ordinance, claiming that sterilization decisions are best left to owners and their vets. Burke expects the bill to be voted on in committee the week.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
We would get better results by sterilizing all the aldermen!
Sterilizing the aldermen might not be a bad idea, but I've got to say that I think that this sterilization law for dogs is a good idea.
There is no reason to have a pet that is not sterilized unless you're going to breed it.
As a matter of fact, cancer is a big problem in dogs and cats that are not sterilized.
There is also the problem of homeless animals and the burden they put on shelters everywhere by reproducing. I'd like to see just one shelter or breed rescue that is not filled to capacity with unwanted cats and dogs.
And let's not forget the whole dog fighting quagmire.
But even dogs who are not trained and raised to fight can turn vicious when they're not neutered. I had a dog who was once attacked, out on a walk, by a neighbor's male dog (a golden retriever!) who was intact, and mine was not the only dog around that experienced this. One minute the dog is friendly and the next it's insane with rage. It's just not a good thing to have an adult male dog who is not neutered.
If the veterinarians who oppose this law think that it's best left up to the owners to make the decision, I'd like to ask them how's that working for us now? We have to pay license fees, we have to have rabies vaccinations by law, we have to obey leash laws...I only see positive outcomes from a law requiring owners to sterilize their pets.
I just don't see why any dog owner wouldn't want to do the best by his or her pet. It's the healthiest thing all around to have this simple, inexpensive operation and yet so many oppose it. It's just ridiculous.
"As a matter of fact, cancer is a big problem in dogs and cats that are not sterilized."
I'm curious about this. As much sense as sterilization makes, it's an unnatural process in any animal. I have to wonder how it would prevent cancer.
Can you expand, Ingrid, or point me somewhere with more information?
It's true that animals in the wild don't go to their vets to get fixed, but then again...they usually don't live to the extended age that pets do either. So, the longer they live the more likely they are to succumb to certain conditions that happen more often to them when they're not fixed:
The main benefits of neutering in male dogs :
1. Eliminates prostate problems - the prostate gland enlarges as a dog ages when it's under the influence of testosterone. This can result in constipation and makes it very uncomfortable for the dog. The prostate gland can also get infected which would inevitably mean the dog has to be neutered anyway to treat it.
2. It reduces aggression in male dogs - not always true but usually if an aggressive entire male dog is presented at a veterinary clinic, the first thing the vet will recommend is neutering.
3. It reduces wandering behavior and does seem to also reduce sexual drive (humping is less likely)
4. Neutered dogs are less driven to urine mark everything in sight.
5. There are already too many unwanted dogs in pounds and shelters, don't assume that just because you have a male dog that you're not adding to the problem - it takes 2 to tango - you are just as at fault if your male dog isn't neutered and sets about making the neighborhood females pregnant.
The main benefits of neutering in female dogs :
1. Eliminates the possibility of uterine or ovarian cancer and also greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer, especially if your dog is neutered before her first heat.
2. No chance of neighborhood male dogs fronting up at your doorstep when she does come into heat
3. No mess - female dogs will spot blood during their heat - this could last up to 3 weeks.
4. No false pregnancies or infection of the uterus (pyometra) which can be life threatening.
5. Reduced incidence of mammary, ovarian and uterine tumors
"...but then again...they usually don't live to the extended age that pets do either."
Ah ... that makes sense.
Estrogen contributes to canine breast (mammary) cancer, so by removing the uterus before the dog goes into its first heat can reduce the risk of that cancer.
Here's an article about the pros/cons of canine sterilization. It has scientific journal article references you can refer to.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
I agree with you Ingrid, but I think fining owners if they don't sterilize before 6 months may be a little too much, though. Some like to sterilize dogs at 8 months especially in larger breeds. If you sterilize too soon, it could affect growth.
Do no-kill animal shelters spay/neuter cats and dogs when they receive them?
I have a neighbor who recently adopted a dog from a no-kill. I don't know if she paid for it or they did, but they won't release a pet for adoption until it is spayed or neutered. But this is standard for all rescues. I adopted a dog from the SPCA once and I had to pay them to have her spayed before I could pick her up.
Yeah..I agree that the 6 mos. rule is not fair...I didn't read the who ordinance, so I wasn't aware of that inclusion.
I think that most of the dogs I've had I usually wait til they're between the ages of 6 and 9 mos. to have it done, usually closer to 9...especially for larger breeds.
This is another one of those situations--such as charging for trash pickup or refusing to pay out damages to people who hit potholes--where I'm surprised to find Chicago doesn't do something I've known to be common in other places. This just seems obvious to me.
it's so weird. just like the no-smoking inside thing, it seems like such a great idea, but the moment you make me do something, i get instantly against it. i don't know why ... i'm so defiant.
the other thing is ... so do you have some sort of license/exception for people who really *do* intend to breed their pets? i know a woman who has a standard poodle who bought her with the agreement that she would breed her a couple of times. so, it's not like she was going to run and get her spayed, you know? but she lives in the city and walks her dog past our place a lot. super cute.
i want all the dogs and cats spayed and neutered, don't get me wrong. but i hate such blanket laws. not to mention why don't they get busy doing something important ... like learning how to stand up to daley?
I'm for human sterilization first, pet sterilization second.
Sure, there are a lot of pets, but people who should not exist do way more damage.
And aldermen are people, allegedly, that should not exist!
Alderman should be concerned with representing the needs of their constituents and stay away from idiotic legislation like this. This is just another stupid law designed to milk revenue from people who are unaware. A law designed to make people like Burke feel as though they are making a difference when all they are doing is creating another level of needless bureaucracy. This will have little impact on the city's feral pet population. I worked for a prominent animal shelter in the city once and I couldn't understand why it was illegal for us to perform spay/neutering on stray animals captured by volunteers. Yet they want every Chicagoan to sterilize their pets or face a fine. Ridiculous.
"This is just another stupid law designed to milk revenue from people who are unaware."
Exactly.
There's *already* a mechanism in place in the city code that provides for sterilization of impounded and/or aggressive dogs. Yet the Chicago City Council wants to put this blanket ordinance in place because they've simply accepted that they inadequately enforce existing laws.
My husband and I own a nine-month-old large-breed male dog. While my vet initially gave us her template advice to neuter him when she first met us, after talking further with her and our dog's breeder, we've decided to allow him to fully mature before sterilizing him, which can be as old a 2 years of age for his breed. Our vet supports this decision. Other large dogs take as long as 3 years.
A lot of comments here seem to say -- Sure, why not? There are lots of benefits so let's make everyone do it.
But this ordinance imposes a medical procedure on my dog, when it should be my decision to do so. For every benefit of neutering, there is also a benefit to leaving the dog intact well beyond 6 months of age, the arbitrary neutering age mentioned in the proposed ordinance. For example, a dog neutered too early might not mark, but he might be sexually and psychologically stunted, which introduces a whole set of other problems. Prostate cancer is mentioned in this forum, and I've read compelling research why allowing sexual maturity REDUCES this risk. My husband and I watch our dog closely, as we would with our own child, and he shows no signs of aggressive behavior -- in fact, he earned the Canine Good Citizen distinction from the AKC. So what if he marks a tree that's already been peed on by dozens of other dogs!
Irresponsible owners with aggressive dogs are already addressed under the current municipal code. The city needs to enforce its already existing laws and leave medical decisions like this up to the owners.
Credit to Ingrid:
(i.e., I took Ingrid's post and applied it to aldermen. Here goes.)
"There is no reason to have an alderman that is not sterilized unless you're going to breed it.
As a matter of fact, cancer is a big problem in aldermen that are not sterilized.
There is also the problem of voted-out aldermen and the burden they put on shelters everywhere by reproducing. I'd like to see just one shelter or alderman-rescue that is not filled to capacity with unwanted aldermen.
And let's not forget the whole alderman-fighting quagmire.
But even aldermen who are not trained and raised to fight can turn vicious when they're not neutered. I had an alderman who was once attacked, out on a walk, by a neighbor's alderman---and mine was not the only alderman around who experienced this.
One minute the alderman is friendly and the next he's insane with rage. It's just not a good thing to have an alderman who is not neutered.
If those who oppose this law think that it's best left up to the voters to make the decision, I'd like to ask them how's that working for us now? I only see positive outcomes from a law requiring voters to sterilize their aldermen.
I just don't see why any voter wouldn't want to do the best by his or her alderman. It's the healthiest thing all around to have this simple, inexpensive operation and yet so many oppose it. It's just ridiculous."
Good one, Ward :)
The cartoonist who they post here should do a comic about aldermen being neutered...it just seems so appropriate.
@Christine,
It's unfortunate that honest, innocent people have to be inconvenienced because of irresponsible people, but that's life. If it weren't for bad guys, we'd never have to bother with locking our doors would we?
And a word about veterinarians supporting your decision: most veterinarians will go along with anything their clients want. A veterinarian doesn't "counsel". If they don't see any grievous harm in it, then they are trained to just go along with what the client seems to want. It's called 'good business'. A veterinarian's office is a business, they're there to make money, not to make friends. And a breeder is the last person that I'd ever ask for advice on this issue.
I get that you love your dog and are taking the best care of it that you can and that it's a good canine citizen. But because of the huge number of irresponsible dog owners out there, I'm ok with this ordinance. It's something that I do on my own anyway without being told to because it's the best thing for the animal. The only thing about the ordinance that I disagree with is the stipulation that it be done before 6 months of age...that's just way too early.
Ingrid, the 6 month stipulation is exactly why this ordinance shouldn't be implemented. It shows an utter lack of concern of the long-term health of individual dogs and rights of owners to decide WHEN this procedure should best be performed. I'd feel differently about this if the proposal set the age at 2 years or even 18 months, but the fact is it doesn't. We can't say, I'm OK with this ordinance except for this or that. If this is ordinance is poorly drafted, then they shouldn't be voted in and it should be written so it IS effective without being too early in the dog's development.
I agree that vets don't counsel...they shouldn't. But again, I hear her educated opinions and those of my responsible breeder's (who's been an enthusiast and advocate for my dog's breed for more than 25 years and is our best resource for learning the history and tendencies of the breed) and make an informed decision from there.
The bottom line is the city will never be able to fairly enforce this. They can't even enforce their existing laws.