County adopts spay-neuter ordinance
One of the most divisive, and sensitive, topics to go before the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in months concluded yesterday with the adoption of an ordinance that requires most cats and dogs to be spayed or neutered.
The ordinance stops short of being an across-the-board mandate on pet birth control by allowing pet owners opposed to forfeiting their animal’s reproductive ability to purchase a $10 “unaltered animal license.”
County officials say the ordinance will help reduce the overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats, and in turn, cut the number of animals clogging shelters, many of which are euthanized.
During the last fiscal year, 1,121 of the 4,722 dogs taken into county shelters were euthanized, while 1,019 of 3,582 cats were killed.
Susan Klein-Rothschild, a public information officer for the county’s Public Health Department, said the new ordinance, which will be accompanied by a beefed up education and outreach program, will also help reduce costs at animal shelters.
While the ordinance received wide praise from many animal lovers, who showed up in droves to address the board during a three-hour hearing on November 3, and again yesterday, others believe the ordinance unfairly punishes responsible pet owners.
Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno, the board chair, rarely delivers fiery sermons from the dais, but when it came to neutering and spaying, the usually soft-spoken man opened up.
“There have been very, very few things that I’ve had the chance to weigh in on as a board member that even compares to this,” he said. “I feel really, really bad that we’re going down this path because I don’t think that we’re ever going to get the solution we want to this issue with this ordinance.”
Centeno joined a number of public speakers who shared deeply personal, and sometimes tear-jerking, stories with his colleagues.
He talked about his beloved Jack Russell terrier, which he had spayed several years ago. But in retrospect, Centeno, who said he’s been a responsible pet owner his entire life, wished he had made a different choice.
“I wish I would have kept her intact just so I can have a little puppy from her,” he said. “I’m saddened that I didn’t do that. I have spay and neutered almost all the pets we’ve had in our family [and have had] no regrets until this little animal came into our lives.”
Centeno went on to say how he’d gone to bed early on Monday night and the dog cuddled up next to him.
“I [woke] up this morning and she’s sleeping right between the pillows,” he said, “her little nose is about an inch from my face.”
Centeno’s beef with the ordinance stemmed from his belief that the $10 fee would unfairly target pet owners like him, not the “idiots” who let their fertile animals run free.
The $10 fee for an unaltered animal license will be used to spay and neuter other animals — a fact that fueled Centeno’s belief that his money would be used to bring less responsible pet owners into compliance with the ordinance for free.
“I have never been a burden to the county of Santa Barbara with my pet,” Centeno said. “Now I find that I’m going to be penalized for being such a great pet owner … This is supposed to be about irresponsible pet owners … Those are the people we need to go after.”
The ordinance was drafted over the course of a year by a Spay-Neuter Task Force, which narrowly voted 6-5 in favor. Centeno said the split vote was hardly evidence that the ordinance is in the best interest of most pet owners.
According to the board’s agenda letter, the task force apparently split over whether to grant an exemption to people who own some purebred animals. But because pet owners can receive an unaltered pet certificate, the majority of task force felt any special exemptions were unneeded.
Centeno’s colleagues held drastically different views. Without Fourth District Supervisor Joni Gray, who was absent, the board voted 3-1 to approve the ordinance.
Second District Supervisor Janet Wolf said she liked the fact that the ordinance was not mandatory. “I think it’s reasonable,” she said. “There is some common sense to it … In my mind, it’s not perfect, but I do believe it will reach the goals that we want.”
First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal, who often sees eye-to-eye with Centeno, said he hated to see the board split on the matter, but felt the ordinance wasn’t as intrusive as Centeno made it seem.
“I do feel that the exemption certificate really doesn’t make this as mandatory as some might see it,” he said.
Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr requested, and received, an exemption for pet owners whose property fits certain agricultural classifications.
While state law has long required dogs to be licensed, cats have not. However, the new ordinance will require unaltered cats to become registered. But unlike with dogs, cat owners will not have to show proof of a rabies vaccination.
Much of the effort to reduce unwanted pets in the county will hinge on a bolstered education effort called the Responsible Pet Ownership Program. Three outreach workers will be hired to implement the program, and officials said it would be paid for entirely through an anticipated spike in animal registrations.
The new ordinance will go into effect on January 1, but Klein-Rothschild, the Public Health Department spokeswoman, said pet owners will be given a six-month window to comply.
In order to encourage pet owners to register their animals, officials said fees will be waved for a brief time before the ordinance goes live. After the six-month grace period, owners of unregistered pets will be hit with a $250 fine.
Public health officials also must issue a report on the effectiveness of the new ordinance in the next 24 to 36 months.
During the roughly five hours of public comment spread over two days, some said quite broadly that pet owners who do not spay or neuter their animals are “irresponsible.”
Centeno said he found such statements “so offensive to me, I can’t tell you.”
“Millions of animals are euthanized and they don’t have a choice in the matter; that’s true,” he said. “But I can tell you there are millions and millions of animals that are spayed and neutered and they don’t have a choice either.”
More information about the ordinance and animal registration and spay and neuter services are available at www.www.sbcphd.org/as.
Comment on this article
a joke : 11/11/2009
If they really wanted to get this to work they should charge the amount of neutering which is at least $50 if not $200 for a female. If some one told me to opt out of paying for a neutering for $10 and I was short on cash it is pretty obvious how I would proceed. This ordinance has no balls.
dog owner
People Problem not Pet Problem : 11/11/2009
We need to fix the source of the problem and have people neutered. They are the ones causing the problems with over population and pollution. You do not need 3 to 5 kids anymore to work the farms. Government needs to limit the number of children people can have and charge a fee for each kid you do have. If you are going to use up the limited resources we have then you need to pay extra, not recieve a tax break.
Think About It
ineffective... : 11/11/2009
this is piece of 'feel good" legislation that nobody will pay any attention to. Not Mandatory?? I think it is.. if you have to pay even ONE CENT for keeping your pets in a natural state.. as God made them..then it is mandatory..or at the very least regulatory.. every regulation has a price.. called a TAX.. and that is what this is.. a TAX on people who make the choice to keep their animals in a natural state...even if they NEVER breed them.. for some odd reason legislators have bought the animal rights fable that every dog who is roaming ( and i do believe that dogs and cats should be contained or leashed) is reproducing.. NOT SO..any biology student can tell you that female dogs can only be bred for a few days out of a YEAR...this law will do one thing.. KEEP people from registering their pets.. funds will go DOWN ..not up.. and people who otherwise would gladly register their pets will now not do so... foolish.. foolish.. foolih.. not to mention a total waste of time and money.. Animal rights idiots keep passing this BS.. and stupid legislators keep buying it...at taxpayers expense....
alice in LALA land
County adopts spay-neuter ordinance : 11/11/2009
All this did was encourage pet owners to not even bother to register their pets; much less both to pay a stupid fee to keep them unaltered. Whatever happened to education? Supervisors will note that other counties/communities which have adopted similar ordinances have seen a major increase in pound seizures, and euthanizations, therefore costing the county more money. It's obvious that the County Supervisors don't bother to listen to constituents who have spoken loudly against these sort of ordinances as they feel that they should not be punished for obeying the current laws. Therefore they have just created a new class of "law breakers".
dog show exhibitor
Education not laws like this : 11/11/2009
Education works but laws like this do not: http://saveourdogs.net/category/successes/
dog lover
SPCA opposes mandatory spay/neuter : 11/11/2009
The ASPCA has come out with a statement that says, "the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law." http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/mandatory-spay-neuter-laws.html They also question any statements regarding the purported success of mandatory spay and neuter (MSN) laws due to the complications of statistical analysis.
dog lover
F* Devolutionist Liberals : 11/11/2009
Who the hell is the government to say that I can or can't breed MY animals!?!?!? THis world we are living in is full of pansies and crybabies. Great, so government can steal more money from us to waste it. I can't stand this world we live in. You people are a bunch of psycho-liberals. Grow a pair and man up.
The Real Deal
Centeno needs therapy : 11/11/2009
What animal could possibly care if it was spayed or neutered? Centeno makes no sense at all. Why is he emotionally wrapped up in whether an animal has the ability to have babies? That's his mental problem, not the animal's.
Reducing animal suffering and euthanasia a good thing. : 11/11/2009
The dreadful fact that millions of cats and dogs are euthanized each year is behind this ordinance, people. How could people object to any attempts to help reduce the suffering and deaths of millions of unwanted animals each year? Their quality of life is dreadful, and then they die. Let's do what we can to help. Quit quibbling about a lousy $10 bucks. That probably doesn't even feed a dog in a shelter for one week. Please, everyone pitch in to help animals, rather than be selfish and holler about "my tax dollars!" It's community effort that makes improvements in life, not selfishness.
implement ordinances that work : 11/12/2009
I'm all for saving animal lives but ordinances like this do not work in fact it increases euthanasia rates and it increases animal control rates. http://saveourdogs.net/category/population/ If there is money that is to be spent, it's best to put the money into programs that work like low cost spay/neutering and/or education. http://saveourdogs.net/category/legislation/
sensibility
More Gov't Intervention : 11/16/2009
Now this new board majority add yet another reason to get new members. First, they don't give a damn about what residents, not special interest, want with regards to Goleta Beach, which is to watch it wash away. Now, they want to tell us that are responsible pet owners what we can and can't do with our pets. What next???? Issuing permits to remove trees in our backyards? What we can grow in our gardens? Geez, it's getting worse every day. As if we don't have enough problems in the County and too few resources to deal with them
Tired of Micro Management
SB Supervisors : 11/22/2009
Why do the Supervisors put people on their "committee" who will benefit financially by such a law? It is set up so that the veterinarians, such as committee member Dr. Faro (sp?) will earn income from this and in order to opt out of the mandatory spay and neuter law you must pay him for a certificate; so either way it is a win, win for the vets. And allowing people in Animal Control or rescue to speak out is ridiculous when they have seen bad things happen they begin to believe all is bad and become so bitter and disenchanted that they think every responsible citizen in Santa Barbara is irresponsible if they don't abide by what THEY think is the correct way to live their lives. This law never should have been considered by the supervisors it was an insult to the citizens of Santa Barbara, shame on those Supervisors. Supervisor Centeno and past Supervisor Firestone seem to be the only sensible people the citizens have elected. Too bad Supervisor Firestone is no longer there to help Supervisor Centeno bring some sanity to this group of over zealous people who have so willingly stolen the rights of the citizens of Santa Barbara. A very sad day in the history of this County. And those statistics of 24% of animals impounded were euthanized, how many were old, sick injured, too aggressive to be handled or FERAL cats............. this is certainly a case of manipulated statistics and the Supervisors bought it.
mda
Farr has lost my vote. : 12/5/2009
I voted for Farr in the last election but I am not voting for her next time. She lost my vote with this ridiculous law. No matter what other issues, she has lost my vote! That's how strongly I feel about this law.
: 12/5/2009
http://www.sacforums.com/california/dog_owners_iced_out_of_spayneuter_mandate_planning-t1621.0.html;wap2=
At first I thought--- great!!! : 2/13/2010
then I thought of the administrative costs added on- the enforcement laws, the time for county employees to donate and the ineffectiveness- and I'm a person who believes in it- but perhaps not without total public consent.
Linda
: 6/2/2010
What makes them think that these unresponsible pet owners would even register their dogs or cats and pay the fee to have them neutered or spayed? How and when is this going to be enforced? The dog or cat would have to be caught by animal control to be fined? The biggest problem is cats and how often does someone see a cat mating and have time to call animal control. I really don't see this as solving the problem. Seems like a scam to get more money.
Contact Us!
411 E. Canon Perdido, Ste 2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone (805) 564-6001
Fax (866) 716-8350
Click here to view the PDF Edition
Subscription Required
Tile Ads
Most Read Stories
Check out these most read stories.
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Searching for a cure: Dos Pueblos graduate pursues stem cell therapy to battle Lyme disease
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Santa Barbara church hit by '666,' graffiti four times in year
- Rising pension costs sink city's budget
Most Talked About Stories
Check out these recent talked about stories, and voice your opinion...
- Report suggests Santa Barbara Police Department targets illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Arrests made in pot shop extortion
- ICE initiative targets dangerous illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara County greenhouse marijuana bust near Highway 101 leads to two arrests; pot value as high as $80 million
- Forum tackles Santa Barbara's homeless issues
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Lois Capps, activists rally in support of women's reproductive rights
