I recently expressed my surprise over the large number of online voters at the Gazette-Mail Pets website who were opposed to a mandatory spay/neuter law. I thought the need for such a law seemed to be a no-brainer.

Seems the no-brainer was me. Although the need for spaying and neutering wasn't disputed, the wisdom behind imposing a law requiring the procedure was heavily questioned.

Wrote T.F. Workman, "The opposition isn't to a spray/neuter program. The opposition is to ANOTHER LAW. Americans are slowly legislating away our civil liberates. We need to stop trying to legislate common sense or good habits. I think almost everyone would agree pets should be neutered or sprayed, but we don't want to be forced to do so by law. Some of us are just plain scared by the trend to pass legislation for everything."

In the forums of the Gazette-Mail Pets website, Firewolf4 wrote, "By making spaying and neutering mandatory, you're infringing on the rights of pet owners. Since pets are considered property, you're in direct violation with the Constitution.

"The only ones who will be impacted will be the responsible pet owners who take pet ownership to heart-not because it's mandated, but because they see themselves as the guardians of their animals. Backyard breeders and puppy millers don't care what laws are on the books. They'll break them anyway."

Firewolf4 also asked, "Who's going to pay the medical bills when the municipality is sued for wrongful death of a pet [due to] complications [for a procedure that] was mandated? You guessed it-the tax-paying public."

Wrote Vicki Aucremanne, "When something like this is made mandatory, many folks will simply give up their pets because the surgery is so expensive. If it's too expensive now, what changes with a mandatory law? We have to work with people, through education and other venues, to help animals find new homes."

Aucremanne included a link in her email to an article called, "The dark side of mandatory licensing and neuter laws," put out by nokilladvocacycenter.org, that warns against mandatory type laws requiring pet sterilization because they're often written in such a way that those who don't comply can have their animal seized, impounded, and euthanized, while the fines for lesser offenses can be so substantial that large numbers of animals end up being dumped at shelters or abandoned, and people refuse to care for homeless strays. 

The article cited research that shows that the main reason pet owners fail to alter their pets is the cost and the lack of access to spay/neuter services. "The higher the cost, the lower the rate of compliance." 

So what is the answer? We need to find ways to make the procedure so simple and affordable there's no reason for pet owners not to have it done. 

One caller said his idea for a possible solution came after hearing that the late billionaire Leona Helmsley had left $12 million to her dog. "An interest-bearing national trust fund should be set up and administered by the ASPCA. Anyone could donate to the fund, and I think there are plenty who would. The interest earned from the money could be used to help fund spay and neuter programs in every state."

Another emailer, philbarboxers, asked, "Why can't the state offer a license plate for vehicles with an animal theme, then donate a dollar or such towards the spay/neuter of pets in West Virginia?"

I was alerted to the existence of the FOHO Spay Mobile, which is a traveling low-cost spay/neuter clinic that operates within a 50-mile radius of their home base in Huntington. (They've attempted to get legislation passed allowing them to extend their borders so they can travel statewide, but have not been successful.) The mobile spay/neuter clinic was purchased in 2001 through a donation from Laura Davis of Clarksburg. 

Vicki Aucremanne wrote, "We need to work on getting low-cost clinics in place to help people. We have low cost rabies clinics. Why not work locally to create low cost spay and neuter clinics?"

I imagine most vets are swamped with requests to provide some kind of free or discounted service. I was once in a vet's waiting room when an injured dog was rushed in by a stranger who saw it get hit by a car, and I listened as the vet agreed to treat the animal even though no one there was willing to pay. Later, he told me that if he'd refused, everyone in that waiting room would've thought him cold-hearted. It would've damaged his reputation and their image of him. 

While most veterinarians have chosen their profession because of their love for animals, they still have a business to run. We can't expect them to discount their services to the point where they're losing money, but hopefully, we can find a middle ground that will satisfy them while also enabling more people to be able to afford to alter their pets.

Are there any vets out there who would like to add their two cents? Send me an email at karinfuller@cnpapers.com">karinfuller@cnpapers.com.