Dogs And Cats...And Rabbits - Oh My!

Huntington Beach Councilman Keith Bohr is the animating spirit behind his city's foray into nanny statism: specifically, an ordinance to force residents to spay or neuter their dogs and cats, and eventually their rabbits, too.

Here's how Bohr characterized opponents of his nanny state ordinance in today's Los Angeles Times story (which reads like a press release for the pro-forced neutering side):

"Nobody from any side argues that we don't have a problem," Bohr said. Opponents "are just arguing that the status quo is OK."

No, Councilman Bohr. I think what opponents are arguing is it is none of the city's business whether they spay or neuter their dogs and cats. Yes, it would be a good thing if more people spayed or neutered their pets. It would also be a good thing if children watched no more than one hour of TV a day -- but that doesn't mean the government should legislate it.

Pets are property. Our dogs and cats are (generally speaking) lovable, cherished pets, companions -- practically members of the family. But they are private property, nonetheless. And nanny state laws like this, imposing a costly mandate on citizens on the basis of flimsy sentiment, are the camel's nose under the tent -- setting precedent for greater intrusions on other picayune matters. Bohr wants to add rabbits to the list next year. What next?

There's still time for at least one member of the Huntington Beach City Council to wake up, smell the strong coffee of liberty and change his or her "yes" vote to a "no" on this ordinance when it comes up for a second reading.

Comments

[Kelly Kilpatrick]

Thanks for this post - I've linked from my blog. I've found that many people are deeply passionate about the the animal issue and others more concerned about the nanny-state aspect. Doesn't look like a lot of people are sitting on the fence on this issue.

[rebecca]

Jubal, for the life of me I can't figure out why you're against this. For people who want to breed their pets, there are options. And this way you don't have to deal with the people like my mom's old neighbors, who refused to spay their pets because it wasn't "natural," and then let them go feral, saying they didn't believe they were their animals. When you've got entire neighborhoods with feral toms peeing all over the houses--that the city will just have to euthanize--why on earth not support spaying measures?

Dear Rebecca:

I guess you don't get that the government has been encroaching on our basic freedoms for so many years that this appears to be a natural and "good" turn of events for those of us who really resent "cat markings" on our tires and bushes and sometimes our front doors. Or the neighbor with 10 cats who claims they don't belong to them that decorate your planters with feces.

However I guess it goes back to the old saying: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to speak your opinion"...but freedom of speech has turned into our "beloved" government officials taking it upon themselves to legislate our lives into the ground.

It is no longer a "from cradle to grave" government manipulation of our lives, but many years ago after reviewing the government pages in the latest edition of the phone book and comparing it to the previous years phone book, I was compelled to write an letter to the OC Register (which was published) and I noted that it had become "pre-natal to post-mortum" now.

The government seemingly has more important things to do than legislate the reproductive habits of our pets. Perhaps they should take care of the traffic, the sewer systems and other basic government responsibilities before they tell us that we can only have 2 children and then we must be "neutered or spayed" because we are over populating the county and have run out of resources to take care of everyone.
Of course closing the border might help out on that front.

Nevertheless, government officials should stick to taking care of infrasturcture and basic services, not legislating rights away from pet owners.

[dog travel supplies]

thanks for posting this. no to animal cruelty!

I have researched both the positive and negative aspects of microchip placement in pets. There are many positive aspects of microchipping but there are some negative aspects as well. In spite of the positive aspects, I personally do not wish to have a microchip placed in my pet. Microchip placement should be optional not mandatory! If any of you reading this feel the same way, please contact the Huntington Beach City Council. A certain member of the council feels that microchip placement is "not controversial". Well, what about mandatory microchip insertion? I know that I am not the only one who thinks this is absurd. Am I??

[Jubal]

Rebecca:

You're presenting a false choice: that failure to enact a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance will result in neighborhoods being overrun by herds of perros y gatos.

If that were the case, virtually every human settlement in the state would be overrun.

This is a case of the Bob Barkers brigade using government to force its view on everyone else.

[Johnna]

I think Councilmen Bohr is right on!
I am tired of paying taxes for other people's irresponsibility and HB pays millions to the OC shelter to do jusy that.
Pets are property, but so are our homes, cars, boats, & other and all the above is regulated for the safety & benefit of the community, pets shouldn't be any different.
Nanny state, well someone's kid may watch tv too much, but I don't have to pay for it!