California Spay/Neuter Bill in Limbo

S.B. 250, as the bill is known, would criminalize people who cannot afford to pay for spaying and neutering. When surveyed, cost was the #1 factor in keeping people of lower incomes from spaying and neutering their pets. In fact, 80% of owned cats are already spayed and neutered. Most of those are owned by middle and upper class owners, because they can afford the cost. Not every area has free or low-cost spay and neuter clinics which are readily available to those who need them. A better law would be to provide more free or low-cost spay and neuter clinics to those in lower income brackets. In addition, there are people who are taking care of stray/feral cats, but who lack the funds needed to take all of them in for spaying and neutering. And what if one of these carers has no means of getting them to a clinic, in addition to not having enough money to spay/neuter the cats they're trying to socialize and find homes for? Remember, the poor do things like this because they genuinely care; the rich only do stuff like this because it makes them look good for publicity purposes. And let's not forget the fact that the majority of people who have contributed to the arts and sciences, etc., were poor or came from a poor background. Spaying and neutering prevents a lot of diseases in both cats and dogs, and makes a pet calmer and less likely to roam. People need to be educated as to the benefits of spaying and neutering, but if there are no facilities for it, especially for lower income people or those that come to the pet, or are otherwise more easily accessible, that education is useless. S.B. 250 is approaching the problem of pet overpopulation and roaming animals from the wrong end. Typical politicians--they don't go out and see what the actual cause of the problem is, so they think if they pass another law that criminalizes somebody who can't afford to get their pet fixed, that solves the problem. Write your elected officials about this, people, that's why you have the right to vote!
Just because you're low-income doesn't mean you shouldn't have a pet--pets never nag you to get a job/better job, they comfort you, give proven health benefits, etc..--and in this economy, those in need are the ones most in need of a pet's comforting presence.

great bill