Dog Regulations Run Amok? The CDOC vs The City of Los Angeles
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 07:04AM 
No area of the law or regulation creates more controversy and passion then anything linked to dogs, cats and other domestic pets and the lawsuit brought by Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC) against the City of Los Angeles over their mandatory spay and neuter regulations is no exception. Last year they filed a lawsuit to overturn the mandatory spay and neuter regulations imposed on all dog owners in the City, in which set dates for spay and neuter are established, civil and administrative penalties are outlined and entire categories of dog breeders, owners and hobbyists now fall under increasingly strict laws and oversight.
The questions raised in the suit look at the constitutional right of free association, the body of law in California regarding the right of the state to regulate animal ownership and standards and whether these regulations overreach in their goals to reduce the number of dogs and cats euthanized in shelters throughout the city. We asked Attorney John Jensen, who is bringing this case, to join us in studio, along with Cathie Turner, the chairperson of CDOC, to explain why they brought this suit, the perceived issues at stake and the relative merits of their case. We are also joined by David Frie, the voice of the annual Westminster Kennel Club dog show to discuss the historic roles of breed and kennel clubs in protecting dogs, avoiding needless euthanization of animals, as well as a look at some of the issues surrounding this growing national movement to increasingly regulate dog ownership.
In this three-part video series, the Legal Broadcast Network examines an area of the law that is growing in importance and relevance to not only lawyers, but lawmakers, dog owners, and breeders - that being the move by certain political and special interest groups to make mandatory spay and neuter laws part of the normal process of animal regulation in cities and states across the United States. While we touch on the motivation of these laws and the powerful lobbys behind them in this series, we are more concerned here at the Network with the legal discussion of whether or not these laws, while well intended, might, in fact, infringe on the rights of ordinary dog and pet owners to decide whether or not they wish to spay or neuter their animals.
It might seem like a fringe or novelty area of the law, but over 150 of the law schools in the United States now teach animal law and, given the American love affair with their pets, and the passionate advocacy on both sides of these issues, this looks to be a topic that is increasingly litigated in local, state and federal courts for years to come.
Video number one is Attorney John Jensen on the legal argument of the specific case of CDOC vs The City of Los Angeles.
Video number two is Cathie Turner, Chairperson of Concerned Dog Owners of California discussing the legislative battle they are waging against the State of California and Senate bill 250 and their contention that these laws do not, in fact, save dogs from needless deaths, but actually add substantial compliance and administrative costs to cities and towns at the very time when they are struggling with budget issues.
Video number three is David Frei of the Westminster Kennel Club, a long time dog breeder and advocate of responsible dog ownership discussing how mandatory spay and neuter laws can have unintended negative consequences on the dogs, responsible breeders and actually encourage “puppy mills” which is something breed clubs work to eliminate
Reader Comments (5)
I am fully aware, and indeed passionate about, the plight of unwanted animals in this country. However, I am also passionate about my personal freedoms in what I do with my own property, and I think we need to acknowledge that most of the reasons we neuter male dogs are either social or behavioral, and not for the benefit of the health of the dog, particularly the large breed dogs. As a responsible owner, if I make the decision that my dog should remain intact, that should be my choice.
I do spay any females that are not in a breeding program, because I believe that the risk of pyometra and mammary cancers, coupled with the inconvenience of seasons, at least in many breeds, outweighs any other health concerns. If an owner of a large breed dog would rather take that chance than the chance of a 10% incidence of spay incontinence in a large breed dog, then that decision should again be the decision made by the owner with the input of his veterinarian, not the decision of a legislative body with little background in science or medicine.
I also believe in spay-neuter of shelter populations, and any population at risk for re-homing or aggression, again, as long as we admit that we are doing it for social or behavioral reasons, and don’t lie to people and tell them that the dog will be medically “healthier.” The only way it will be healthier is if there are behavioral problems that would cause it to lose its home if it were to remain unaltered.
I have never neutered a male dog that I was keeping for my own. In non-aggressive male dogs kept by responsible owners, the health risks of castration outweigh the health benefits. Animal rights groups are constantly spouting dogma about preventing testicular cancer, when the truth is that the risk of testicular cancer is less than 1% and most often occurs in dogs over 10 years of age. Testicular tumors are usually found early and are often benign; testicular cancer is much less likely to be fatal than most other canine cancers. One vet I admire, Mary Wakeman, says that the only reason to neuter males are aggression or perianal adenomas.
Let's look at some of the more dangerous tumors:
Prostate tumors are almost always malignant and are often found too late to cure. Neutered dogs have a two to four times greater incidence of prostate cancer.
Bone cancer is at least twice as common in castrated dogs overall. Large breeds are more at risk than small ones, and some breeds more at risk than others.In a study of rottweilers neutered or spayed before a year of age,there was a four times greater risk of osteosarcoma. Indeed, those spayed or neutered before a year of age had a one-in-four chance of bone cancer during their lives.
For hemangiosarcoma, spayed females have twice the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma and 5 times the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma, compared with the risk for sexually intact females. Neutered males males have 2.4 times the risk, compared with the risk for sexually intact males.
There are risks for non-cancerous conditions, too. Almost 2% of large breed dogs rupture ligaments. The incidence is greater in neutered dogs than in intact dogs.
References from peer-reviewed studies below.
Dr. Leanne Bertani
References:
Duval JM, Budsberg SC, Flo GL, et al. Breed, sex, and body
weight as risk factors for rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament
in young dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;215:811–814.
Whitehair JG, Vasseur PB, Willits NH. Epidemiology of cranial
cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc
1993;203:1016–1019.
Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, et al. Canine ovariohysterectomy
and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury.
Clin Orthop 2004;429:301–305.
References:
Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982–1995. J Vet
Intern Med 1999;13:95–103.
Smith AN. Hemangiosarcoma in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North
Am Small Anim Pract 2003;33:533–552.
Prymak C, McKee LJ, Goldschmidt MH, et al. Epidemiologic,
clinical, pathologic, and prognostic characteristics of splenic
hemangiosarcoma and splenic hematoma in dogs: 217 cases
(1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988;193:706–712.
McCann TM, Simpson KE, Shaw DJ, et al. Feline diabetes mellitus
in the UK: the prevalence within an insured cat population
and a questionnaire-based putative risk factor analysis. J Feline
Med Surg 2007;9:289–299.
Prahl A, Guptill L, Glickman NW, et al. Time trends and risk factors
for diabetes mellitus in cats presented to veterinary teaching
hospitals. J Feline Med Surg 2007;[E-pub ahead of print].
doi:10.1016/j.jfms.2007.02.004
Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982–1995. J Vet
Intern Med 1999;13:95–103.
Smith AN. Hemangiosarcoma in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North
Am Small Anim Pract 2003;33:533–552.
Prymak C, McKee LJ, Goldschmidt MH, et al. Epidemiologic,
clinical, pathologic, and prognostic characteristics of splenic
hemangiosarcoma and splenic hematoma in dogs: 217 cases
(1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988;193:706–712.
elimination of all dogs in California. This is an untenable idea. This consequence far outstrips the desire to reduce
unwanted dogs. It will create the ceasation of the existence of dogs in our lives. Never mind the medical findings that people live happier and longer lives when they have pets. Hypertension is reduced just by stroking the fur of a dog.
The California Democrats have drunk the crazy-making kool-aid and for some unfathomable reason continue to push this anti-people legislation. We are watching the erosion of our inalienable rights by a previously fringe group that has turned mainstream. This group wants no freedom of choice but their own to exist for all people. They want no animals for food, no leather for shoes, no ownership of any kind, no connection between species no matter how beneficial it might be. It is a curiously sterile world run by Big Brother. This undercurrent of fringe thinking is well funded by ordinary folks who have been scammed into believing they are contributing to the welfare of homeless, abused, neglected dogs. The current power mongers forcing their will on the people are true con artists. It is a bait and switch situation where you are told one thing, such as help these poor suffering dogs by giving money to us and then switching the use of that donation to their nefarious real intentions of undermining the ownership of those very dogs. The California politicians in favor of this draconian legislation have been sold this same bait and switch bill of goods. We must oppose this and all legislation that takes away our freedoms to love, own, breed the dogs we chose to care for. We have rights as Americans to pursue this happiness.
There are good laws out there - but they are not enforced. . . . How about keeping stray dogs (especially pitbulls)
off the streets and quit punishing law abiding citizens! Spend time and money please in trying to get appropriate
education for our children - fitting them for work in the real world; spend time and money maintaining our freeways
which are an embarrassment compared to other states. The city of Los Angeles has many other problems - as does
the state of California - can we please address those instead of making "political hay" of this minor issue.