Chicago Sun-Times Articles http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1079813,pets072908.article
Bob Barker asks City Council for pet control legislation
CITY COUNCIL | Retired host of 'The Price is Right' urges aldermen to OK ordinance requiring neutering, spaying ordinance
July 30, 2008
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
The cat-and-dog fight over whether Chicago’s cat and dog owners should be required to spay or neuter their pets will rage on, despite an emotional appeal from legendary game show host Bob Barker.
For 25 years, Barker signed off “The Price is Right” with a signature phrase: “Help control the pet population. Have your pets spayed and neutered.” Now, he wants Chicago to mandate it to solve an overpopulation problem he called “one of the most tragic animal problems” confronting the United States.
Bob Barker, the retired host of "The Price is Right," testifies in favor of mandatory pet neutering Tuesday at City Hall. (John H. White/Sun-Times)
After a three-hour hearing that starred the celebrity host, the City Council’s License Committee took no action on the spay and neutering mandate tailor-made to reduce animal aggression and Chicago’s stray population.
“I didn’t realize how passionate this issue was on both sides,” said co-sponsor Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th). But, like a political pit bull, Burke wasn’t giving an inch. He’s willing to make only one minor change to appease veterinary associations, who view the mandate as unenforceable and a disincentive to rabies vaccination. Burke said he’s willing to limit how long the ordinance is in effect, so it can be revisited to see if it’s working.
But, he warned, “I don’t think there’s any area of compromise on mandatory language.”
Barker was equally unyielding.
“When we come to this wall which is seemingly impossible to get over, the only answer is legislation. . . . The movement for spay and neuter legislation is sweeping across this country. It’s been compared to a tsunami,” Barker said, noting that Los Angeles, Dallas and San Antonio have passed similar mandates.
“It will help the animals themselves. It will prevent tremendous animal suffering. But beyond that, it will save taxpayers in Chicago thousands, millions of dollars probably. In California, it is now costing $250 million a year to capture the animals, house the animals and kill the animals.”
A City Council chamber packed with dog lovers on both sides of the issue greeted the celebrity witness with a standing ovation. Barker, 84, couldn’t get enough.
“The thing I miss most about ‘The Price is Right’ is the applause. No. I’ll correct that. The thing I miss most about ‘The Price is Right’ is the money,” he joked.
Some aldermen did not participate in the deferential reception.
They respectfully disagreed with Barker about the need for what they saw as yet another costly and intrusive government mandate on everyday Chicagoans.
“I don’t like when government gets involved in everything to try to solve problems. We’re starting with pets. . . . What happens with irresponsible parents — mothers and fathers [who] are having children out there that aren’t doing their job, either? What’s the next step? You have to be careful,” said Ald. Ray Suarez (31st).
When Aldermen Robert Fioretti (2nd), Isaac Carothers (29th) and Suarez raised questions about enforcement, Burke tried to reassure them.
“There’s not gonna be any task force going out and trying to find a dog that’s not neutered in your constituents’ homes. But, if they have an animal that is vicious or is picked up on the streets, that’s a different story,” Burke said. http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/1081177,CST-NWS-brown30.article
Pet-neutering law won't curb careless owners City Council's intentions good, but doomed to fail
July 30, 2008
BY MARK BROWN Sun-Times Columnist
I'm confused. Maybe you can help. If all the boy doggies in Chicago have to be castrated and all the girl doggies have to be sterilized, where will puppies come from?
As best as I can figure, they'll have to come from the same place Chicagoans go to find Republicans -- the suburbs, or points beyond.
Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown
Pardon me for being flip, but I sat through a couple hours of City Council testimony Tuesday concerning the proposed ordinance to require Chicago dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets -- and that question kept running through my mind.
Obviously, it's not a serious question inasmuch as nobody actually thinks there would be any shortage of dogs in Chicago if the ordinance were passed. Or cats, for that matter, if that's where your interest lies.
I'm sure they're correct, which is why I think it really is a serious question because it makes you wonder what the ordinance would accomplish if it did nothing more than move around the source of the animals -- if that.
And if our vision of utopia is supposed to be a world where such spaying and neutering requirements are universal, then are they telling me the only place to get a dog or cat in the future will be from a licensed breeder?
This is a tricky subject because nearly every responsible person involved in this arena agrees that household pets should -- as a rule -- be spayed and neutered. The disagreements start when you try to make it an actual rule, or in this case law, punishable by fine. In this corner . . .
Two influential Chicago aldermen, Edward Burke (14th) and Ginger Rugai (19th), are leading the way in saying mandatory spaying and neutering is the way to go.
They were supported at Tuesday's hearing by none other than retired game show host Bob Barker, an animal activist who was ahead of his time in making pet overpopulation his pet cause.
Burke and Rugai say their proposal would not only cut down on the number of strays roaming city streets, but would protect residents from "random, unprovoked attacks by overly aggressive animals."
Rugai, in particular, sees the measure as a way to cut down on pit-bull attacks, one of her longtime concerns.
But leading the opposition to the ordinance are dog breeders, and perhaps more persuasively, veterinarian groups, who say the ordinance won't accomplish its aims and instead would end up penalizing responsible pet owners while doing nothing about the irresponsible owners who already ignore the existing laws.
While they support voluntary spaying and neutering efforts, the veterinarians argued the evidence is mixed on whether the surgical procedures reduce dog bites.
They were especially disdainful of the notion the ordinance would have any effect on the practice of dogfighting by gang members, and they warned that it would discourage some owners from bringing in their pets for rabies vaccinations.
A number of aldermen -- many of them dog owners -- voiced their own misgivings. They ranged from Ald. Ray Suarez (31st), who cited it as another example of government interference in private lives, to Ald. Freddrenna Lyle (6th), concerned that under the ordinance she wouldn't be able to mate her Lhasa apso with another cute dog unless she obtained a breeders license.
Under the ordinance, the breeders license would require an annual fee of $100 per animal and a criminal background check. Female dogs and cats would be limited to one litter per year. The trouble with mandates
I'm with the veterinarians.
My spaniel-mix, Gilbert, as regular readers of this space know, was neutered as a prerequisite of our adopting him from the city pound. I remember being surprised at the time, but it made total sense. The fact that Gilbert was in the pound in the first place was evidence that his first owners had been irresponsible. So, I completely see the wisdom of spaying and neutering, which is just a nice way of saying that you're going to render the animal incapable of reproduction. I heartily recommend you take your pet for the procedure if you haven't already done so.
But I do have a problem with making it a legal requirement, especially when I can't see it being enforced any better than the current dog laws.
Burke didn't force the matter to a vote, explaining that too many people waiting to testify hadn't been heard.
The City Council doesn't usually like to move forward on something this controversial until there's more of a consensus, but that doesn't mean it won't.
Somebody will say this is an intentional distraction from the city's looming budget deficit. That may be true, but it will probably have more people interested. http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1080939,CST-EDT-edit30a.article
Proposed city dog law barks up wrong tree
July 30, 2008
In its understandable desire to do something -- anything -- about savage attacks by dogs bred to fight, the City Council's Licensing Committee has proposed a law that is all growl and no bite. Aldermen even enlisted TV's Bob Barker to help sell the idea.
Fortunately, Ald. Eugene Schulter (47th) curbed plans to move the proposal to the full Council for a vote today, noting that many people who lined up to testify at Tuesday's committee hearing didn't get a chance to have their say.
What proponents have sold as the answer to dog attacks and the gang-bangers who breed fighting dogs in reality penalizes law-abiding pet owners. What's more, the law looks largely unenforceable.
The proposed law requires spaying and neutering of cats and dogs. With some exceptions, owners who choose to casually mate their animals would have to go through a criminal background check to qualify for a $100 breeder's license.
We can all agree on the wisdom of widespread neutering for cats and dogs. Neutering reduces aggression in dogs and, more significantly, reduces the number of unwanted pets that wind up in shelters or go feral on our streets, reproducing at will. But responsible pet owners don't need to be forced to do what's right. With low-cost or no- cost neutering programs all over town, even families with few means can, and do, get pets sterilized. And some studies suggest such laws have the unintended effect of discouraging people from bringing in pets for rabies shots.
That leaves the lawbreakers. The idea behind breeder licensing and background checks is to flag those who have been involved in dog fighting. Past wrongdoers could then be denied a license.
As if. People who engage in the cruel blood sport of dog fighting aren't the types to be bothered by pesky laws.
The proposed ordinance, we agree, would give authorities stronger grounds to follow up on complaints by neighbors about possible dogfights and breeding operations. But we already have ways to go after dog fighters. A new city law slaps stiff penalties on dog fighters -- up to $5,000. Lawbreakers who refuse to turn in dangerous dogs face up to six months in jail.
The committee will take up the ordinance at a future date. Let's hope aldermen figure out before then that we should focus efforts on criminals.
As much as we respect Bob Barker's efforts to fight cruelty to animals, the last thing Chicago needs is another intrusive law that cannot be enforced.