During an emotionally charged hearing in Santa Maria on Nov. 10, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors listened to recommendations from the public and a county task force on a draft ordinance that would require pet owners to have their pets spayed or neutered.
A crowd of about 40 people, split roughly in half for support and opposition, packed the Betteravia Government Center to air their opinions.
Supporters of the ordinance wore yellow ribbons tied at the elbow, while detractors sported green stickers reading, “No to MSN [mandatory spay/neuter], Yes to Choice.” About half spoke before the board.
The proposed ordinance, drafted by the 11-member task force, would require pet owners to spay and neuter dogs and cats who are at least six months old, unless the pet has a note from a veterinarian.
Supervisor Salud Carbajal said the ordinance is designed to reduce the amount of animals euthanized by the county.
Task force members were deeply divided on the issue. Bonnie Royster, a 5th District member, spoke out against it. Pointing to a similar ordinance enacted in Lompoc in 2006, she said the measure would actually increase the number of county euthanizations.
“The task force found no cases where mandatory spay and neuter laws decreased the amount of animals euthanized,” she said.
Another member, Linda Greco of the 4th District, backed the ordinance, saying it would allow for much-needed low-cost spay and neuter services. She said the North County, where animal overpopulation is a “more prevalent problem,” would most benefit.
Hazel Mortensen, an animal rights activist who attended the meeting, told the Sun that something must be done to restrict the amount of euthanizations.
“As far as I’m concerned, one is too many,” she said. “I haven’t a problem with putting down animals that are sick or old, but these are perfectly healthy animals.”
The ordinance would only pertain to unincorporated areas of the county, and would add a surcharge on licenses for “unaltered” pets.
Santa Maria Mayor Larry Lavagnino, representing the city, also spoke against the ordinance. He said the measure would cause fewer people to license their animals and would penalize responsible pet owners.
He contended that the ordinance would ultimately be unenforceable and added that if it raised county animal control fees, the city would be forced to terminate its contract.
“As a dog owner, I don’t want to see any more dogs euthanized, but that’s the way life is,” Lavagnino said. “As far as the cost of county operations increasing, we’re at the tipping point in the city of Santa Maria.”
Task force member Heidi Thorson, who supported the ordinance, said that even with the surcharge, license fees in Santa Barbara County would remain among the lowest in the state.
Following the hearing, the board directed its staff to return in 24 to 36 months with a report on the effectiveness of an ordinance.
This article appears in Nov 12-19, 2009.