Rhode Island says spay it, or pay it

[Admin]

Looks like another way to get tax money...    

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

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (AP) -- Gov. Don Carcieri signed a law Friday making Rhode Island the first state to require cat owners to spay or neuter their pets.[/b]

Cat owners must spay or neuter pets older than six months unless they pay $100 for a breeder's license. Violators can be fined $75 per month.

"By signing this legislation today, we are taking the necessary steps to reduce the number of impounded cats that are euthanized in cities and towns throughout the state," Carcieri said in a written statement.

The law would also save money by cutting down on housing and feeding costs at city shelters, he added.

Private shelters and municipal pounds in Rhode Island killed about 1,600 strays in 2004, the most current figure available, according to the state Department of Environmental Management.

Some animal-rights advocates worried that the bill could lead cat owners to abandon their pets rather than risk a fine or pay for the procedures.

Under the law, low-income pet owners would be eligible for subsidies for low-cost surgery. Farmers are exempt.

[bartok]

Seems like it.  I can understand that spaying your pets might be the more humane approach on average, but it seems to me that a "no animal reproduction" law is an excessive approach.  I remember when I was a boy, and my cats had kittens.  They all found homes.  They want to deprive people of that experience because they're having a funding issue with the animal sheters?

[DJohnson]

Legislating common sense NEVER works! :X

What makes more sense?  Set up a fund to pay for/subsidize spay&neuter surgeries for those who can't afford it.  Probably cost less than issuing all those citations and using up court time with people appealing their ticket. JMHO

[Djaric]

God dammit.  Firefox is acting up again... Anyway..
No, they are not trying to deprive people of having kittens.  They are trying to change it so they dont have to destroy thousands of animals a year, which I agree with.
But if this is the right way, that im not so sure of.


[user=7]bartok[/user] wrote:

Seems like it.  I can understand that spaying your pets might be the more humane approach on average, but it seems to me that a "no animal reproduction" law is an excessive approach.  I remember when I was a boy, and my cats had kittens.  They all found homes.  They want to deprive people of that experience because they're having a funding issue with the animal sheters?

[wingo]

I have a 9 month old male kitten.  My logic is that I wouldn't want my balls cut off, so I'm not having his cut off.

[Tonto]

.......No, they are not trying to deprive people of having kittens.  .......

No, they are not depriving people of kittens. With no available kittens at a shelter, they are just making it so you must to go to a breeder to buy one & pay a nice price (& sales tax, I'm sure).


 

[Harpo Marx]

 

 

[Maduro_Scotty]

I hate cats.

[Beerlord]

What happened to "Live Free or Die".

[Tonto]

I hate cats.

Must.....hold.....tongue.............cannot.......say......it......................................