Lawsuit Filed Over Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance
Issues Pertain To Every State And Municipality>
> by JOHN YATES
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance
>
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org>
> LOS ANGELES, CA – Concerned Dog Owners of California filed a
> lawsuit this week against the City of Los Angeles, seeking to
> overturn a new ordinance mandating the spaying and neutering of all
> dogs.
>
> The lawsuit is primarily based on constitutional grounds, and
> alleges that the ordinance violates the civil rights of dog owners
> in several ways.
>
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that the importance of
> this lawsuit extends far beyond the City of Los Angeles. It marks
> the first of several anticipated legal challenges to onerous laws
> and ordinances as dog owners turn to the courts to fight for their
> rights on constitutional grounds. This lawsuit is based on legal
> issues that exist in every state.
>
> An estimated 1.85 million Los Angeles residents have at least one
> dog or cat.
>
> The ordinance mandates the sterilization of all pets at four months
> of age. An exemption can be obtained by purchasing a breeder’s
> permit, for a dog registered with an approved national registry and
> is being shown or used in competition, and for other categories
> such as seeing-eye dogs and police dogs. Fines and penalties are
> provided for violations.
>
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) strongly supports
> Concerned Dog Owners of California in this lawsuit. Mandatory
> sterilization laws and ordinances violate the basic rights of dog
> owners in many ways, and ASDA considers them a major part of the
> hidden animal rights agenda to eliminate the private ownership of
> animals. We urge our members and all dog owners to offer their full
> support to Concerned Dog Owners of California, and also to
> financially assist this group to pay for the cost of the lawsuit.
> They can be reached online at
http://www.cdoca.org/.
>
> Here is a summary of the legal issues in the lawsuit:
>
> It violates the rights and familial relationships of 650,000 pet-
> owning households.
>
> The options provided in the ordinance to avoid pet sterilization
> are not constitutionally valid. It infringes on basic rights of
> freedom of association, freedom of speech, the guarantee of due
> process and freedom of religion.
>
> It won’t work. The evidence is clear in communities that have
> passed similar ordinances. Similar ordinances have been proven to
> increase the number of dogs euthanized, increase shelter
> admissions, increase the costs of dog control programs and increase
> noncompliance with licensing requirements.
>
> It will increase the number of puppies born, because people will
> choose to get a breeding permit and to breed their dog simply to
> avoid mandates to spay and neuter.
>
> It exposes pets to unjustified risks to their health. Current
> research shows that many significant and sometimes fatal health
> problems are associated with sterilization, especially at a young age.
>
> Pet owners are threatened with immediate and irrevocable injury
> when the ordinance takes effect October 1.
>
> Existing laws are not being enforced. An estimated 75% of the pets
> in the city are not even licensed. Other proven means of reducing
> shelter admissions and euthanasia rates have not been tried.
>
> Much of the ordinance, including the basis for exemptions, is
> arbitrary and capricious, ambiguous and discriminatory.
>
> The lawsuit states its case succinctly: “Owners who wish to keep
> their healthy pets unaltered have no constitutionally valid options
> to the MSP (mandatory spay and neuter) ordinance. Although the
> ordinance provides for six alleged ‘exemptions,’ and a breeder’s
> permit, these exemptions and the breeder’s permit are, in
> actuality, nothing more than arbitrary and capricious compelled
> associations that violate an owner’s fundamental free speech rights.”
>
> The ordinance forces a dog owner to join an organization approved
> by the city, and to identify her/himself as a breeder, which is
> state-compelled speech, the document says. By requiring the city to
> approve of a dog owner’s membership in an organization, such as a
> dog registry or club, government is both compelling membership and
> dictating a list of acceptable organizations that a person is
> forced to join. The ordinance then mandates that a dog must compete
> in an event sanctioned by one of those approved organizations, or
> is in the process of being trained to compete.
>
> To obtain a breeder’s exemption, a dog owner also is compelled to
> join one of those approved organizations and identify him/herself
> as a participant of that organization, which is an infringement of
> free speech, the documents show. The right of free speech is
> infringed by forcing a dog owner to identify her/himself as a
> breeder on government documents that are available to public
> inspection.
>
> In essence, a person is forced to say, “I am a breeder,” even if
> the person does not consider her/himself to be a breeder, or if he/
> she is personally opposed to breeding.
>
> Documents were attached to the court filing to show examples of
> harassment and vilification of breeders that were distributed by
> the groups that support the ordinance. In essence, identifying
> oneself as a “breeder” exposes the person to danger, harassment and
> defamation of character as consequences of government-compelled
> speech.
>
> Several religious groups prohibit their members from sterilizing an
> animal. These groups include Orthodox Judaism and the Jehovah’s
> Witness faith. Members of these faiths are unable to sterilize
> their pets without violating their religious beliefs, which puts
> the city in the position of violating their constitutionally
> protected freedom of religion. Los Angeles has the second largest
> community of Orthodox Jews in the nation.
>
> The ordinance also gives the city the power to forcibly seize and
> confiscate pets that are not spayed or neutered, if their owners
> are not granted one of the arbitrary allowed exemptions. This
> violates the pet’s owner constitutionally guaranteed rights of due
> process under the law, that also are violated because the ordinance
> does not provide recourse through a hearing.
>
> Forcing a dog owner to spay or neuter also represents an
> unconstitutional “taking” of property rights, as the ordinance
> compels taking away the value of a dog’s reproductive capacity, and
> due process is denied.
>
> To compel pet sterilization also is to deny an owner the freedom to
> act according to her/his own religious beliefs, personal ideology
> or political viewpoint, all of which are protected under the U.S.
> and California Constitutions.
>
> The lawsuit also contends that the City of Los Angeles has failed
> to take far less draconian actions that have been proven to reduce
> the number of animals entering shelters, such as enforcing
> licensing requirements (a reported 75% of the dogs in Los Angeles
> are not licensed), offering low-cost licensing for puppies that
> would allow their owners to be educated about the issues, or
> mandating permanent identification of pets so that animals taken to
> the shelter could be returned to their owners.
>
> Because of the reported dangers of spaying and neutering
> (especially at an early age) shown in numerous research findings,
> the city also is denying dog owners the right to protect their
> pet’s health and infringing on the relationship between a pet owner
> and his/her veterinarian.
>
> The ordinance also infringes upon the basic concepts of the liberty
> and happiness of a pet owner, and also of the relationships between
> an owner, her or his family, and the pets that are part of their
> family. Although most pet owners consider their dogs as family,
> rather than property, they are legally defined as personal property
> and protected as such under the fundamental right of property in
> the California Constitution. The ordinance is an arbitrary and
> capricious “taking” of those property rights by government,
> especially since the evidence from other communities shows that the
> ordinance will be counterproductive to its stated goals.
>
> The lawsuit also alleges that the ordinance contains much vague and
> ambiguous language, such as undefined concepts like “adequately
> trained” and “poor health,” or not stating clearly what registries
> have been approved, and which have not.
>
> The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the ordinance
> unconstitutional, and to order the city not to enforce it.
>
> Please feel free to use any information contained in this report,
> and also to cross-post it and forward it to your friends.
>
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance is the unified voice of sporting
> dog owners and professionals in America. We work at the grassroots
> level to defeat unfair legislation and policies that are harmful to
> dogs and the people who own and work with them. Our work to protect
> your rights is supported solely by the donations of our members.
> Your participation and membership are vital to our success. Please
> visit us on the web athttp://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
>
