Animal sterilization and microchips

I came across the following user comment thread on statesman.com. One of the topics at our last meeting was how to speak more confidently and persuasively about TNR, so I decided to post the entire thread. There is a lot of support in these 63 comments, but it’s more important to understand why some people are not in favor of feral colony management so we can better communicate our message.

One of my first thoughts was that many of the commenters (63 is a very small random sample of the Austin population) in opposition fail to realize that the speutered cats will maintain their territory, not put out the welcome mat to new potential colony mates. Mass euthanization of feral colonies does not eliminate the problem, it only eliminates those particular cats. More will move in to take their place which does not happen when speutered cats defend their territory.

They also don’t seem to realize their tax dollars are already paying for the actions of irresponsible pet owners. If this program had been implemented 20 years ago imagine the potential uses for the taxes that have already been spent to kill unwanted animals. Spay/neuter is a long-term solution to a long standing problem for feral cats as well as family pets.

This is the thread:
Austin American Statesman
Sunday, August 20, 2006, 10:11 PM

Do you support the increased sterilization and microchipping of pets? Would you pay higher taxes for the project?

Comments

By Scout Martinez
September 14, 2006 08:55 AM
I sterlize ALL of my female dogs because I don’t want to have nightmares worrying about what happened to my beloved puppies! Also, THE NEW WORLD ORDER had better stay out of my personal life. They can cause those microchips to explode with those new Microwave weapons the Secretary of the Air Force ws bragging about on the news reently and I don’t want that mess in my dogs and I am NOT going to put them there!

By Keith
August 30, 2006 10:33 PM
with as many strays that are out there today, it has come to the point where sterilization is a necessity – too many people get an animal (breeder or the pound) and they decide later it’s too much of a burden and let it loose…if that animal isn’t spayed/neutered, then it just makes the problem grow, not to mention cruel….plus chipping your animal proves it’s yours, espcially if it slips out and someone finds it without a tag…

By Gayle Borst
August 26, 2006 05:52 PM
Yes, I support the proposals. We humans created this problem by not following through on the responsibity that goes along with domesticating cats and dogs, so we are ethically bound to remedy it.

By Sigmund’s mom
August 24, 2006 11:49 AM
The people I know who trap neuter release also support feral cats. They provide them with food, so they don’t need to hunt. Yes, they still kill some wildlife, but they are not the main cause of harm and destruction of wildlife. That “distinction” must be reserved for another animal—also introduced! As for saving tragically abandoned pets, we are all responsible whether we own pets or not. We live in a civilization that working animals helped create. Yes, I support this program.

By Jean Ann
August 23, 2006 03:00 PM
I take an active roll in saving lives of abused, neglected and unwanted animals. I take them and nurse them back to health. Then comes the Spay/neuder, shots , heartworm testing and prevention , 5 & 7 way shots, food , shelter etc.$$ I do without new clothes and alot of wishfull purchasing in order to fund my rescue.I also pet sit just to supplement my rescue efforts.I would strongly support reasonable plans of action that will assist the non-kill program.Thanks for asking! Jean Ann

By Robert
August 23, 2006 08:56 AM
There is a difference between feral animals and unwanted pets. Spending $30,000 on a feral animal spay and neuter program only to release them back into the wild will not lower the population significantly (there’s a huge difference between the size of a college campus and the size of the county.) Any responsible Parks and Wildlife program would euthenize feral cats, not return them to the wild to kill all the living wild birds and other small native animals they can find.

By Trish
August 22, 2006 02:26 PM
I can’t believe that anyone would callously think that euthanizing animals is the answer. The pet overpopulation problem is huge and THOUSANDS of dogs and cats are euthanized every year at TLAC alone. Humans domesticated dogs and cats to be our companions and now we don’t want to take care of them? I think we need to make sterilization more affordable, we need to pass ordinances to require it, and we need education programs to teach people the importance of spaying and neutering.

By Debra
August 22, 2006 12:27 PM
no,please put the extra animals to rest. We don’t need more taxes. the cost is horrible trying to keep so many problem animals alive. Why pay taxes so people can spend less than $100 to pick up a problem animal. the natural thing in the old days to take extra problem pets and put them to sleep. private shelters of do-gooders are receiving income for their efforts not wanting to part with the animals they so called “saved”.

By Robert
August 22, 2006 09:37 AMr anyone who doesn�t think feral cats should be trapped/neutered/released (Robert)”
The problem is the fact that they are an introduced species, not native. Spaying and Neutering does not solve the problem of them killling off the local wildlife. The ferals should be euthenised, like any other responsible wildlife management program in the nation does (the spay/neuter feral cats programs are typically only done at colleges in cities, because of students not wating “Kitty Cats” killed)

By linda
August 21, 2006 10:28 PM
YES to higher taxes for the benefit of our furry friends, and anything else it takes to help our animals…

By Andrea
August 21, 2006 10:15 PM
I believe Austin can do better by its animals and would happily pay to support a no-kill shelter. Some other ideas: 1) signs on our highways encouraging people to take animals to a shelter rather than dumping them to be cruelly run over and 2) the designation of “safe havens” where animals could be left with no questions asked. If a society can be judged by how it treats its animals, we all have an interest in protecting our animal population, pet owner or not.

By sharla and dan petersen
August 21, 2006 07:19 PM
We would absolutely be willing to pay higher taxes to be used for the sterilizing and microchipping of pets. In addition, we are appalled that the extra money spent by taxpayers to buy a pet friendly license plates is not being given to the appropriate organizations, as per the article in your newspaper. When will the nonsense stop?

By Deb
August 21, 2006 06:56 PM
I have several rescused cats and have sterilized many many others. You want to stop overpopulation stop the sell or give away of all animals in stores/at homes/on the side of road. Get the private Veterinarian community involved in low cost services. Educate the people and go door to door with mobile units for free or reduced services in all neighborhoods. We won’t solve the problem until we get all the animals sterilized.

By Deb
August 21, 2006 06:47 PM
It’s a people problem!!Stop all selling of animals in stores/homes/on the side of the road/and sterilize everything. People who don’t sterilize create feral cats and unwanted animals that are put out or abandon and the growth continues. More needs to be done in the private Veterinary community with low cost services. Mobile units going into all neighborhoods and going door to door for free or reduced services if it stops reproduction.

By Lacy
August 21, 2006 04:54 PM
ABSOLUTELY I would pay higher taxes! The system we have now is obviously not working. Please keep us posted on what more we can do.

By Jan Shrode
August 21, 2006 04:46 PM
For anyone who doesn’t think feral cats should be trapped/neutered/released (Robert) or this this type of program doesn’t work, check out what staff volunteers have been doing for the last 10 years. The Campus Cat Coalition has some excellent statistics for their program. www.ae.utexas.edu/cats

By Jerry Dunham
August 21, 2006 04:11 PM
Yes, I support increased sterilization and microchipping of companion animals and support increasing taxes to pay for it. I also support more resources being applied to education programs to reach those who keep their animals intact because they do not understand the impact to animal populations or because the culture they grew up with taught them that animals should stay intact.

By cynthia
August 21, 2006 03:56 PM
No, catching a bunch of feral cats and fixing them and releasing them is plain stupid. They should be destroyed. They will devour every bird, lizard, frogs and many other beneficial animals in an whole eco system with out regard to anything. If people want to be responsible for an animal that fine but just to release them is crazy. Domestic cats are the number one preditory animal in the world. Feral cats are a pest!!!

By B. E. Williams
August 21, 2006 03:29 PM
Everything possible that can be done, should be done, to increase the awareness of the pet overpopulation in this city (and elsewhere).

By Sue, Denny, & Elizabeth Rausch
August 21, 2006 02:35 PM
100% YES X 3!

By Jenalou Hunsucker
August 21, 2006 02:21 PM
In my opinion this is much more important than a day labor facility.

By carol
August 21, 2006 02:15 PM
Yes, I absolutely support this plan.

By Joe
August 21, 2006 01:43 PM
I think the taxes for these things should be paid by breeders and people who choose to purchase animals. Taxing people who don’t even own pets is wrong. We have enought taxes as it is. Also, people should choose whether or not to chip their pets or animals. Mandatory chipping of any kind is troubling,whether it’s for pets, livestock or….

By Allforit
August 21, 2006 01:42 PM
Let people with kids pay all the school taxes in the world and the animal owners without kids pay theirs. That’s fair. Regardless, I would gladly pay higher taxes for the purpose of saving animals.

By Jeff
August 21, 2006 01:28 PM
Absolutely. And for those selfish folks that say the tax should only be paid by pet owners, I have a proposal for you. I’ll agree with you, and in exchange, I will divert the $6,000 annually I pay in school taxes to RRISD. No kids at my house, and won’t be, and I don’t buy your argument that your decision to have kids benefits our society. At least, any more than an action to help this city KILL less animals. Deal?

By JK
August 21, 2006 01:22 PM
I think Robert has a very valid point. The money spent to sterilize ferals should be spent on adoptable animals and public education. Cats are DOMESTIC animals, they do not belong in the wild.

By Jolly’s, Happy’s, Perky’s, Ringger’s, Baby’s and VeVe’s Mom
August 21, 2006 12:17 PM
Yes, I support the increased sterilization and microchipping of pets. All of my cats have been rescued. Rescued because someone else couldn’t or wouldn’t sterilize and care for them. Animals have no say, but we as caring humans do.

By Robert
August 21, 2006 12:14 PM
One issue with feral cats is that they are introduced animals, and are killing of all the local native wildlife. I support euthenasia of feral cats and dogs, and adoption and microchipping of tame domestic animals, but ferals should not be returned to the wild under any circumstances. I have a feeling that in reality, sterilization will only be performed on a small percentage of the feral population, therefore, any such program is useless unless it is performed on all the animals at once.

By Erin
August 21, 2006 11:56 AM
I adopted a cat from the shelter last year. She was given a microchip and I’m happy she has it. She is 7 yrs. old, spayed, declawed, obviously someone’s kitty at one time…no one knows how she ended up lost, scared, and painfully thin in the shelter. If she and I are separated, the microchip makes sure the shelter can contact me. I’d advise other pet owners to look into registering their pets. The price is worth it, no one wants a beloved pet to simply “vanish.”

By Lucy’s Mom
August 21, 2006 11:45 AM
Not at this time. The funds that people have provided through the animal friendly plates were misdirected. So, I would require financial accountability. Additionally, the problem needs to be addressed at the root causes: 1. irresponsible breeders, 2. irresponsible pet owners and 3. lack of enforcement. Thus, pet ownership education must be incorporated as well as infrastructure for enforcement and certification of responsible breeders.

By Craig D.
August 21, 2006 11:41 AM
Yes, sounds like a great plan to me!!

By George
August 21, 2006 11:34 AM
I would happily pay more taxes to make TLAC a no kill shelter. I don’t see it as just a problem for pet owners. After all I quite happily pay taxes for schools and I don’t have children myself. I know people can argue that those children are our future and one day I’ll need their expertise. But tighter animal control, with more money pumped into educating the public and spay/neutering programs, microchipping etc will surely benefit us all. Less ferals/lost dogs equals less disease and rabies.

By Patricia Keosheyan
August 21, 2006 11:31 AM
In a perfect world all pet owners would do the right thing but unfortunately they don’t. I’ve done shelter volunteer work. $155,000 is nothing compared to the need. Sadly it is all about money. It is criminal that funds are being diverted from the license plate fund while adoptable animals are being euthanized. Donate, volunteer, adopt, foster, do something. It all helps.

By A-M
August 21, 2006 11:10 AM
Yes, ABSOLUTELY! Instead of spending the money I often waste on coffee or fast food, I would gladly spend that in taxes to save more animals’ lives.

By Elizabeth
August 21, 2006 10:22 AM
Yes, I support spay/neuter. Emancipet and like programs should have all the funding they need. And to the folks who work at Emancipet, you are my heroes. You are the best! You should be recognized and compensated for the great job you do.

By Cleva Gandy
August 21, 2006 10:21 AM
Yes we need to do every thing to help the pet population.I think it is every ones problem.Need more one or two days clinics that offer specils for spay and neuter.I have have always had all my pets fixed.They need to charge less to adopt a pet from the shelters.

By Debbie
August 21, 2006 10:15 AM
I support this 100% and would gladly pay higher taxes to help reduce the killing at TLAC. Other commenters have stated this is the responsibility of pet owners, but sadly not all pet owners take proper care of their animals, and it is these animals and their offspring of their animals who pay with their lives! So it is up to all of us as a society to protect the lives and wellbeing of homeless animals.

By Meera
August 21, 2006 10:10 AM
No – no more taxes. What we need is mandatory S/N performed by vets that owners pay for, and a law preventing unnecessary crop/dock surgeries for (ie, where it is not a working/hunting dog that will benefit from surgery). And mandatory microchipping by vets when treating a non-chipped animal.

By Animal Lover
August 21, 2006 10:00 AM
Absolutely Yes! I would almost go as far as saying I would support a law making it mandatory to spay and neuter your pets unless you are a legally licensed breeder. This would also put an end to the mom and pop breeders who sell pets on the side of the road to make a few bucks. Let licensed breeders handle the demand for pedigrees and everyone else can adopt the millions of homeless mixed breeds (spayed/neutered) who have just as much love to give!

By Bill
August 21, 2006 09:41 AM
City/counties must take a stand to stop killing and support adoption..here it cost over $200. to adopt a kitten or pup..living at the end of a city road,I find cats/dogs dumped by people. the city says that is my problem, all they can do is take them to a place that kills them all. an employee told me this was true.. I don’t want all these animals, but I want them to have a life..all I ask is they not be killed.. all help is needed.

By Kelly
August 21, 2006 09:41 AM
Absolutely need to do this for all animals. I just read that San Antonio’s City Animal Shelter kills 40,000 dogs and 10,000 cats every year. That is 50,000 animals euthanized at a City Shelter a year. Austin has a severe animal overpopulation program as well. Anything to help make a difference in creating responsible pet ownership.

By Elaine DiRico
August 21, 2006 09:31 AM
Absolutely! Americans have been horrified by the slaughter of animals in CHina to contain a rabies outbreak. They have killed 500,000 animals to our 5 million animals annually. Not a very strong argument for our compassion….

By Catherine Davis
August 21, 2006 09:26 AM
Absoulutely, I support mandatory microchipping pets. I have also taken it upon myself to resolve the feral cat problem in my small corner (literally) of Allandale and have fixed 33 ferals and released them. I feed approx. 10-12 to visit my carport regularly. I hope the city council will support the trap and release program proposed by the Town Lake Animal Shelter. If anyone reading this post supports this idea, please write or call your council representatives.

By Leasa
August 21, 2006 09:15 AM
A few months ago, our beloved yellow lab got out of our back yard accidentally. Thanks to microchipping and a kind and educated neighbor family, he was returned to us the following day. I can’t advodate microchipping enough— we tell our story to anyone who will listen so that they, too, can learn about the power of microchipping. Microchipping should be as common as spaying/neutering for responsible pet owners and veterinarians!

By Donna P.
August 21, 2006 09:13 AM
I agree with the sterilization and microchipping idea for pets. I think the money for these programs should come from pet owners only. It’s a shame people are more interested in rights for animals as “family members” than they do for people “family members.” I guess it is true what my grandfather used to tell us, “people are just goin’ to the dogs.”

By kathy
August 21, 2006 09:11 AM
Yes, I support it. It is terrible the way we kill animals every year because of people are not responsible for their pets. I also think there should be higher fines and jail term for animal abuse and neglect. Anyone killing, hurting or dumping an animal should be forced to pay high fines and go to jail. People who abuse or neglect animals will do the same to children. It is time our society opens their eyes to the problems of animals, children and the elderly.

By carol burton
August 21, 2006 09:03 AM
yes yes yes

By Susan
August 21, 2006 09:02 AM
Absolutely. And I would gladly pay higher taxes to support these programs. In a humane community like Austin, spay/neuter should be the rule, breeding (responsibly!) the exception, and euthanasia of healthy animals a distant memory.

By petowner
August 21, 2006 08:54 AM
Anything that would help the defenseless animals in our city would be great! I too believe that education along with helping the animals would be the best thing the city could do.

By Caldwell County Commuter
August 21, 2006 08:53 AM
Yes, but for more humane reasons. I live in a very rural area and am tired of seeing unwanted pets from city citizens wandering along the road or into my yard. If you could see the wretched condition of the pets that are abandoned to fend for themselves it would make you herat sick. Your unwanted pets DO NOT understand how to survive in the wide open spaces.

By Sylvia Griffith
August 21, 2006 08:35 AM
I support city, county, and state ordinances to require pet owners to spay and neuter their pets. Responsible breeders could apply for exemption, with proof of legitimacy. Free-lance sales of pets at unregistered locations should carry a hefty fine to finance spaying and neutering of all animals involved, and community service in an area animal shelter. I would pay additional taxes to establish and enforce these ordinances, but fees for spaying and neutering pets should be paid by pet owners.

By Blue Texas
August 21, 2006 08:30 AM
RC has a good point, but the problem effects everyone. If one dumps an animal they are no longer a pet owner, but I think they should pay (twice).

By jfrederick
August 21, 2006 08:30 AM
I already pay extra for Animal Friendly plates to help spay and neuter animals, but our legistlature in it’s infinate wisdom has stolen than money for other projects. We must hold them accountable and have the money spent for the purpose it was collected for. Also, pet owners must be held responsible for their pets. All mine are vaccinated and neutered. Animal Friendly plates were supposed to pay to help low income owners get their pets neutered.

By Beth
August 21, 2006 08:21 AM
I can’t agree more! Yes, lets make it easier and less expensive to spay/neuter pets. Put the owner of the pets that are not fixed at risk of somesort of punishment since they are the negligent party. If you are responsible enough to have a pet, you need to be responsible enough to take responsibility. If they love their pets, They should take care not to risk the lives.

By Blue Texas
August 21, 2006 08:13 AM
Yes I would support a project of this nature. I think Tom stated the situation well,”we need to more aggressively attack the problem. Our current programs are not adequate as can be seen by the increasing number of dogs and cats that have no chance of being adopted”. In our case we see the packs of dogs roaming the roads. I would support a proven program in my community, area, state, …

By welsh
August 21, 2006 08:03 AM
No, I would not support an increase in taxes. I own dogs, horses and cows. I vacinate or have vacinated by my vet all of my animals. I have had my vet fix all my dogs (four). It needs to be the pet owners responsibility. If a pet owner will not do this, then they should not own any pets.

By RC
August 21, 2006 07:57 AM
increased sterilization and microchipping absolutely but the funding should come from taxes to breeders, sellers, buyers, and adoptors. NOT from non-pet owners.

By MSue
August 21, 2006 07:43 AM
YES. If mobile units are taken to community meeting places, you can educate neighbors and get more participation.

By Jean
August 21, 2006 07:42 AM
YES, YES, YES!!
Killing perfectly good domesticated animals is horrible.
A better idea: Every pet store ought to provide free neutering/spaying services when pets are sold.

By Helen Chieco
August 21, 2006 07:39 AM
Too many pets, too few responsible pet owners. I would not mind paying higher taxes for this cause. Also, if there was an ordinance inforced to have all pet owners spay & neuter their pets that would also help. People need to step up & do the right thing. Its sad that most people do not even have a clue on the amount of animals put to death every day becuse of over population.

By kim
August 21, 2006 06:48 AM
I am a animal lover of every sort and if I new my taxes where actually going to a good cause, of course I would. More people need to be educated on why it is important to have your pet fixed if you dont plan to have more. Also I know the cost in some vet hospitals can be pretty high but, in the long run it will save them money and maybe the dogs life.

By Tom Haycraft
August 21, 2006 05:27 AM
Yes, by all means, we need to more aggressively attack the problem. Our current programs are not adequate as can be seen by the increasing number of dogs and cats that have no chance of being adopted.

By peter Ten Eyck
August 21, 2006 04:58 AM
ABSOLUTELY