Yet another post in opposition to AB 1634, the Dead Pet Act

Two things. First, it's arrogant and offensive beyond words to suggest that people who don't have a few spare twenties on the money tree to pay for a spay or neuter are somehow less deserving of a pet's companionship than someone who can afford to help put the vet's kids through college. The latest version of AB 1634 screws the poor.

Removing body parts as a punishment reminds one of cultures where they cut off the hands of thieves. I thought we don’t do those things in America. [Laura S.]

Second: what Laura said. In at least two Scandinavian countries it is against the law to spay or neuter a dog without medical cause, and no, those countries don't have overflowing shelters.

AB 1634, at this stage, is a last-gasp power play that has everything to do with political egos and nothing to do with pet health, pet populations or anything else that involves improving the lives and prospects of shelter animals. Nathan Winograd writes about the parties involved here. And once again, here is a repost of the definitive comment on AB 1634, from Christie Keith of Pet Connection:

The answer [to the problem of homeless cats and dogs] is not some bitterly divisive, hard to enforce, punitive legislation that doesn’t solve the problem in the first place and tramples on people’s dreams, goals, and relationship with their animals. The day I let a politician or animal control officer force me to perform a medical procedure on my dog or cat against my will be a cold day in hell. All my current pets are altered so it’s all hypothetical, but I would never, ever comply with this legislation. I find it profoundly offensive, and if you can find someone who loves animals more than I do, I have no idea who it is.