In America today, there are countries that actively encourage pet owners to be controlled by law. Countries such as California enact laws where pet owners are forced to spay or sterilize their pets. This is something that is widely discussed in response to population problems. Is this really the answer? Many leading breeders are annoyed with this effort to control the rights of individual pet lovers.
What is the right answer? Should the state be allowed to force individual pet owners to do this? What about puppy factories operated in states throughout the country, why something is not done to stop them, rather than forcing farmers to individually own their stock of breeders to be bathed and sterilized. Many do not realize that dog show sports require dogs on the show to remain intact; any sexually modified dog is immediately disqualified from the competition
This basically means, dog sports show in California and other countries to follow in the footsteps of being stopped. The dogs in the state will have to be repaired, with residents in that state repairing their dogs, or the population will move from California and other cities with the same philosophy. Is this really the solution to the problem of overpopulation? Most cities have many unwanted animals in pet shelters, but there is always a group of fresh animals coming every day, so it is clear that some corrective action is needed to solve the problem. However, as a country of animal lovers, this seems difficult to reconcile with public opinion.
How do we deal with this problem? Perhaps the answer is a cheaper and neutral sterilization program, offering this at a very reduced level, or even free for city dwellers so that animals can be easily repaired that are not intended to breed. Although this will be an expensive business, it can easily be cheaper and better for the problem of overpopulation than requiring all pets to be neutered and bathed.
Some countries are even looking to limit the number of pets allowed to be accommodated. The limit is usually two dogs, with all other dogs forced to be moved to another house. This causes the problem that the owner is forced to give the dog to the house who may not be able to handle, care for, or ensure proper medical care. Is this too far for the state to disrupt the rights of pet owners? To what extent should the government intervene in the way we treat our animals?
When do pet problems become government and state affairs? While there is a rope law, they are intended for pet safety, as well as public protection in general. This is a law imposed by states, which, although limiting the movement of pets, has good intentions that actually make sense and can be corrected. Neutral and spay needed is something that can endanger a person's livelihood, and disqualify a dog from the show that should be a champion dog.
Is this the place for the country to do it? How far too far before determining that the state does not have the right to tamper with and interfere with animals that are owned and cared for properly. Should individuals who seek appropriate medical care for their pets be punished? Is this something that should be raised in the state as a requirement for all pet owners? The problem of controlling pets is currently very hot, and it will be interesting to see the development of this problem in the coming months, years and decades when the steps implemented are observed and the results are monitored.