Completely DISAGREE. Goverment should stay out of peoples back yards. I hope every councelman gets voted out because of it.

I do not necessarily disagree with the ordinance, but I do think it was enacted at the wrong level of government. How many people live in Waco proper--about 120,000. How many people live in the County outside of Waco proper--about 100,000 and growing. That tells me that McLennan County should have enacted this ordinance. By the Waco city council passing the ordinance, it only addresses half the county. You live outside the city limits of Waco and the ordinance does not apply.

I agree 150% in the ordinance. I have two of the best dogs from the shelter. It breaks my heart to think of them going unwanted, hungry or abused.

Agree: People buy pets thinking they will just have one. And when that one becomes 10 they start dumping them, giving them away and abusing them. It is more humane to spay one pet and be able to care for it than all the above mentioned.

DISAGREE -- But what does that matter? By the time the vote was taken, the new spay & neuter clinic across from Smoot Anderson was already built and people moving in. The city already knew how they were going to vote for it even though most of those showing up to speak against it.

Mandatory spay and neuter is a universal failure in every city that has enacted this law. Animal rights groups would have you believe it is a success, but it isn't. I have attended the animal rights workshops put on by different groups and this law is in their playbook. Here is how they want it to work. First convince the council to pass the msn law. Then when the killing rates rise they are suppose to come back to the council and say we have an even bigger problem and we must tax or fine the breeders and lower the number of all puppies being bred. Then they increase the fee for intact dogs and lower the number of intact dogs one can own and lower the age to four months and label a four month old puppy an adult dog. They know that all show breeders keep their puppies up to 4 to 6 months of age to ensure they are keeping the best of the litter for showing. This way they stop the responsible breeders who had nothing to do with creating the problem in the first place. Those who work in shelters go to these animal rights workshops all the time and get their orders from HSUS, PeTA or the so called Texas Humane Legislative Network. I can tell you first hand that everyone of these workshops serves only vegan food, and the goal is always the same to remove all domestic animals from human ownership which means extinction for most dogs and cats. Cattle ranchers and livestock breeders they are already on your doorstep.

I can see/read and understand both sides of this . But if a lot of you iresponsible people that are against thiswould only take the time to go to the Animal Control Center and see how many animals they have to euthanize every week, you might change your mind about this. Thanks to Fuzzy Friends and some other private agencies in the area a lot of animals are saved and put up for adoption which all of the animals medication/shots/food/being spayed/neutered is getting very expensive also. So if you want to own a pet then it is going to cost you any way you go. And you have to be responsible for it also! So lots of luck, and become a responsible pet owner!

I STRONGLY disagree! Something of this magnitude should be on a ballot, not decided by a small group of people. This is supposed to be a free country. Why should I be penalized for wanting to maybe have baby animals at some point in the future? You want to penalize someone? Then make sure that the fines for animals that get out without leashes are higher. Don't penalize us for something that MIGHT happen.

Everybody in Waco. If you don't agree with this plan and I don't, STOP USING MCLENNAN COUNTY VETS. Take you animals to nearby town for service. I'll bet that will get some attention.

Strongly oppose. From a taxpayer point of view, at what point do you want your taxpayer dollars (yours!) going to support discount spay/neuter operations for those people who "can't afford" spays or neuters? For those of you who think a $300 spay is outrageously high, consider that your veterinarian that is graduating today is over $100,000 in debt, and student loans approaching the size of a house payment. I am so against the "non-profit" status of organizations that have tax advantages over private veterinarians, and then decry the fact that we in private practice charge too much. Added to that, spay/neuter programs generally aren't successful, they only make the activists feel better. Owning pets is a financial burden for the owner, and should not be supported by the community. The city of Austin has determined the cost of picking up a stray, spaying/neutering/, vaccinating, then adopting that animal is about $350 with in-house veterinary support. They then adopt that animal for $75. The taxpayers of Austin then blindly subsidize each adoption about $275. It is expensive no matter how you figure it. But it is also a choice to own animals. Mandating registration and spaying/neutering has such a poor compliance it's not worth the bureaucracy,

Strongly Oppose. Forcing people to buy a permit to keep their pet intact will not keep the irresponsible people from letting their dogs run free and breeding. If they can't afford to spay and neuter, they can't afford the permit. Permits are for the revenue, only. Animals will be abandoned even more because some people won't want a pet that will cost them more money. People won't take their pet to a vet for fear of being discovered that they are out of compliance. That means less rabies vaccinations and, duh, more rabies outbreaks. Maybe they would like to put the responsible breeders on notice. Perhaps they would like to stop the breeding of purebred dogs. As a breeder, I also take in strays and rescues. So, don't say I don't do my part to help out with the problem. My dad was always bringing home lost and abandoned animals. I inherited his gene. I also love a certain breed of dog. I'm very careful who my pups go to: prospective owners are screened carefully; non-show quality puppies are sold on a spay-neuter contract. If the puppy does not work out with the new owner, I take the dog back. I only have a litter on the average every 2-5 years. It is a carefully planned out process, breeding specifically to improve the breed standard. If I happen to make any money after all the expense incurred with a litter, I invest that money back into my dogs. They are well taken care of and never allowed to roam, are never neglected. I am careful and responsible--why should I pay a permit when other people could give a flip. How fair is that? How does that solve the problem of overpopulation? It will not.

I thoroughly disagree. Where does the Constitution of the United States give the government the authority to interfere in a private person's life to this degree? It is not there. I rest my case.

1st things 1st. There are several people that are upset about this new ordinance without fully understanding the ordinace intention and purpose. The intent of the ordinace is to provide sometype of discipline aimed towards the pet owners that do not take care of their pets in the 1st place. If you allow your pet to run loose, and Animal Control captures your pet, you should be fined. Most responsible pet owners have taken the steps necessary to contain their animals and spay or neuter them. I know that I have. If you dont want to pay a fee, contain your dog or cat and keep it from running loose. That way, ACU wont have any reason to come known on your door to check for the necessary paperwork.

Agree 100%! I work for the local Animal Shelter and have to bear witness to hundreds of unwanted puppies/kittens dumped off on a weekly basis. It makes me sick that people will just let their animals run around breeding when a simple and relatively inexpensive procedure can, not only reduce the amount of unwanted animals but also provide a healthier lifestyle for their pets. Trust me people - it's NOT playing God or depriving the animals of anything. Get your animal spayed/neutered and consider opting for adoption over a breeder! Having received numerous breeder dogs from raids I can tell you without a doubt that most keep their animals in deplorable conditions! ANIMALS ARE COMPANIONS NOT A SOURCE FOR INCOME!!!!

Another dumb-butt move by ignorant city officials. Sounds like Albuquerque all over again.

Totally against it. My Yorkies are inside dogs. The people that you are wanting to do this will not be the ones who actually take their pets in for the procedure. If I am required an to buy "a license" when I go to the vet because my dogs are not spayed...I'll just use a vet outside the McLennan County. Clifton,Gatesville,....all have good vets. SO YOU MCLENNAN COUNTY VETS MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THIS. The City of Waco - so stupid.

No. Some have good intentions, but this will not help any but those who collect the fees and fines. Multiple thousands of people have pets in their homes or yards and they are well cared for and confined, but the owners cannot afford more costs added to their cost to care for them food and shots are really hard to come by for many. Many of these folk will have to abandon the pets if someone reports them and they are fined, or even if the threat exists. I think it is sad for the pets and owners who take care of them. They are not strays and they will not overpopulate. Requiring the pets to be confined within a fenced area or a dwelling seems to make more sense.

MY BAD too many talking OVERPOPULATION...but Linda A is MISINFORMED....and animals are being TRUCKED all over the USA in the name of RESCUE???? on TOP of the IMPORTATION of animals!!

ANON, those cities are WACKO too! and for ERIN, there IS NO PET OVERPOPULATION, its a MYTH...why are animals being IMPORTED from FOREIGN Countries without OUR VACCINATIONS and BRINGING DISEASES if there is an "OVERPOPULATION" and YES they ARE by the PLANELOADS!!

The overpopulation of dogs and cats is a heartbreaking concern (so manyy don't know the warmth of a home in the winter; have any respite from the summer heat; are chained to a tree for their lifetime; are in need of medical care they may die without receiving; have litter after litter of unwanted puppies; and sadly lack the quality of of a loving home life they deserve) ...but, I don't believe that enacting a "spay or pay" ordinance is the answer. If it does take effect... at least 50% of it needs to be used to subsidize low cost spay neutral program (no cost if the owner's income is below a certain level or they are over 65); with 40% divided up between the animal rescue/shelters in the Waco area (Waco Humane Society and Fuzzy Friends); remaining 10% for specific administration cost/overhead (not some municipal employees' salary).

I am opposed to the ordinance but my comment is in regard to several entries calling Waco 'Wacko' for passing it. Los Angeles, Dallas, Las Vegas, and Mesquite already have similar laws and New Orleans is considering it. But those cities are not thrown into the 'Wacko' category in the same manner that Waco constantly seems to be referred to even when its actions are identical to 'respected cities'.

This will not work. The cities that have tried it are resending the law because of lack of compliance. The only people who will abide by this law are the law abiding people and they are not your problem. If you work in a shelter and don't like your job it's time to get another job. Quit passing the buck on to hobby breeders and dog show enthusiasts who contribute nothing to your problem. If you own 4 intact show dogs and pay the $50.00 per year fee at 200 per year for the life of the dogs equals $2600.00. Who gets this money? Why should you pay this fee wether you breed the dogs or not? This law is a shameful Radical Animal Rights tactic that will result in less pet registration, lower registration income, and selective enforcement which is unconstitutional. What a shame.....

my dog, in my yard, who has his shots, see's the vet once a year, has nothing to do with anyone elses problems, be it the city or my neighbors. Why punish me?

I disagree because the council should have had an ordinance that would actually work before they voted it in. Instead, the thought was "we'll make it law now, and then 'fix' it later". Does that sound familiar to anyone else? I don't know why the COW insists on doing what others have tried and it didn't work.

I disagree with it. My dog stays in my yard. Neutering a dog can make it mean and I will not do that.

Just another example of Waco's hick town thinking. The president called it a stimulas package, Waco calls it a spay or pay. Where does the money go? If it is like the Humane Society of the United States, the money will not be used to offer better care for animals, but better pay for Waco's city administrators. It is the most idiotic idea that has been proposed in the last decade. Welcome to Waco. (otherwise spelled Wacko)

Again, I oppose. The people causing the problem are not the people who will comply. Most people do not want the inconvenience of a litter of puppies or kittens, but many cannot afford to spay or neuter. If you want to make a difference, increase the availability of low or no-cost spay or neuter! Unfortunately, that will cost the city money - but since they don't license pets and have a set contract for animal control services, this misguided attempt to placate the animal rights faction will not cost the city a dime. It will cost the animals their lives. It is not a good idea to make it more inconvenient to own a pet. Unfortunately people get rid of inconveniences.

This is such a ludicrous example of government at work, the only folks that will follow the letter of the law are the ones that do it all ready. This ordinance cannot be enforced, except by the "nosy" neighbor, who will report non compliants, this WILL not change neglect, it will enhance it.

Reasonable adults" don't have dangerous surgery for no good reason. Those that think this type of surgery is neutral to all anilmals of all sizes and breeds is not keeping up with what's been found recently. It should only be an issue between you and your vet, nit you and your animal activist.

AGREE - Some comments have stated opinion, others out right fabrications. We are all entitled to our opinion, and the voicing of it. When opinion becomes fact and others state these opinions as facts, then we get into trouble. How can the actual numbers of homeless, unwanted and euthanized household pets be ignored by reasonable adults? Millions of tons of euthanized animals have been put into our landfills, with more to come. One female dog, and all her offspring, can be the source of 67,000 puppies over 7 years. One female cat, and her young, can produce 420,000 kittens. Yes, the numbers involve females, as the female gives birth. These are not miraculous conceptions, however, as females can not give birth without fertilization from a male. The ordinance needs to address male and female, as those irresponsible owners who simply 'own' and do not take their responsibility to society seriously have led cities to this place. Shameful lies and threats to prove a point are not the way responsible people act. Waco is making an attempt to become a better city, and for that I applaud them.

Disagree - Good owners get punished. Waco is now another City in Texas that I'll never vist. Maybe that's what they want.

First the pets and now they will go after the local teenagers....

Dallas lost whole groups of businesses, (office rentals), and all that sales tax when they passed theirs....not to mention they lost LICENSE MONEY (I heard $400,000 from the fellow pushing it in the DMN) and you know, they aren't killing any LESS DOGS and CATS....hmmm wasn't that what it was for? to stop the killing???

Unconstitutional. Sounds like Waco has put itself at risk of a future class action law suit.

While the law it's self may be unenforceable I do agree with what it is trying to do. no one is saying that anyone who wants to can not have an intact pet they are simply stating you will pay a premium to do so. Hopefully this will make people think twice about leaving "Little Miss Fluffy" intact just because she is so darn cute. Pet overpopulation IS a REAL problem. I have worked in rescue and the number of perfectly fine, happy, adoptable, dogs euthanised every day is overwhelming. I do agree that radical organizations like the HSUS and some factions of PETA are wrong in thier "one generation and out" stance but just because there are some fanatics in this world it does not mean that we can not start to put SOME regulations on what is becomeing an increasingly large problem. If you talk about "tax payers dollars" I would be interested to see the figures on what SPCAs cost the tax payer. If these fees could go to fund those organizations that woudl be great, and if the imposing of these fees cuts down the need for those oranizations even better. No one is trying to take away our priviledge of owning animals, they are merely attempting to adress a new and growing problem.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter never works. Didn't WACO have enough BAD publicity over the ATF and "religous" compound issue some yrs. ago? Won't CNN & Fox have a ball on this one? I agree with all the anti ?N comments posted. WAKE up council members and RESCIND this STUPID attempt. Can your city afford to waste TAX payers money on law suits? thnk again.2

Disagree completely, Do some research and see some of the consequences and failures of this type of legislation that was passed in other cities. For example, increase in rabies in Ft. Worth. Waco City Council members are prime examples of gutless followers who also are lucky enough to fall in the stupid category too for not doing their research. Just another politician not looking in the people's best interest. Google FAILURE OF MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER AND BREEDER LICENSING LAWS

DISAGREE!! Unenforceable, makes responsible owners the ONLY ones that will be effected, to much Government interference. San Antoino got it right, Waco should be pittied for their stupidity. Will only INCREASE dumping and killing in shelters. Provide free or very low cost spay/neuter! Animal RIGHTS mean the extention of ALL pets, not the saving of ANY animal. Nathan Winograd and RPOA are working toward NO KILL SHELTERS and is the ONLY real answer. Better watch out or YOUR city will be next! Be ready to fight for your pets because it's coming! I'll keep my dogs inside and only let them out at night when I can be out with them and it's to dark for the neighbors to see if they are intact or not! I am AHAMED of you Wacoites!

Disagree. This law will be unenforceable. HSUS would like nothing better than to eliminate pets. For those of you that agree; where do you think your next dog/cat will come from. The entire pet "over population" story is just that - a story perpetuated by HSUS. I know that in our area there aren't enough adoptable pets, so the shelter brings them in from Mexico. Let's face it, adoptions are big business for many of these shelters. Animals are property, and I'm not going to be told what I can or cannot do. I'm not their "guardian" another nice warm fuzzy term concocted by Wayne Pacelle, I OWN them.

NO! I do NOT agree. This will put all pets in jeopardy of EXTINCTION! Like NO MORE PUGS, POODLES.... Please renounce the S/N law. Thank you.

I most emphatically do NOT agree with mandatory S/N laws. they have been proven repeatedly to fail. who enforces this? the overworked animal care people working for the city? someone else noted that the only ones who will comply are those ALREADY complying. those who can't/won't pay the fee will just dump the animal(s) causing a greater problem. I implore law makers to research more and stop just jumping on the animal rights bandwagon. everyone who researches the ARistas knows their bottom line is NO MORE PETS and NO MORE ANIMAL 'USE' of any kind.

S/n should be the choice of the owner as there are health and longevity risks in altered pets. The rosy picture of all positives is just something the proponents of s/n painted for us. Just what we don't need, more taxes!

This ordinance really has nothing to do with the stray problem as much as it has to with revenue for the City. I would venture to say that it's all smoke and mirrors with very little enforcement.

This is absolutely ridiculious, It amazes me that the Waco City Council dosen't have enough backbone to stand up from the hot air of the PETA and HSUS nut jobs. Even more amazing is that they passed something that they probably never researched. There are countless examples of mandatory spay/neuter failing in San Mateo County, CA, Los Angeles (city), California, Montgomery County, MD, Fort Worth, TX, Camden County, NJ, King County, Washington, Aurora, CO, Santa Cruz, CA, Athens, AL....Come on people, wake up and see that Waco is going nowhere with idiots who waste our time and money by passing this garbage.

This type of regulation is useless in solving the pet overpopulation problem. The on people who will comply are those that are currently acting responsibly. The irresponsible will just dump their pets creating more homeless pets.

No! We already have to much Government in the U.S.

Hmmm...no exemptions for working dogs? So...is the city going to neuter Waco PD K9s or how exactly does the city pay itself intact dog permits? Careful Waco or you'll be in violation of your own ordinance! Dog owners of Waco may just let themselves be known come elections.

AGREE. Four million dogs and cats are euthanized in U.S. shelters every year. There are two kinds of pet guardians: those who embrace pets as family members and a lifetime commitment and those who don't. Anyone who would choose to abandon a pet rather than have him/her sterilized would just as quickly abandon them for any number of reasons--new baby, moving, not willing to invest in training, barks too much--I've heard every excuse in the book. Instead of "owner's rights," we should be concerned about our responsibilities to the animals we have chosen to domesticate. RPOA is no friend to animals, and they should be ashamed that they oppose every piece of animal-friendly legislation that comes along.

These kinds of laws don't really do any good: the only people who would comply are the people who are already RESPONSIBLE; the problem people won't comply with this law any more than they do the leash laws, the licensing laws, etc. The people who can't afford to spay/neuter will just leave their dogs at the pound (to be killed) while they go get another pup off the back of someone's pickup truck. People who have accidental litters will dump the pregnant mom and/or pups to avoid fines. Try community outreach and free to low-cost spay/neuter programs; those actually work.

These restrictions DO NOT WORK, there are better ways to get people who are irresponsible pet owners to take better care of their animals. RPOA being malighned for someone's personal vendetta reaps nothing but hostility. Common sense needs to prevail, I am a dog show person, we have large dogs and are responsible for all of our dogs, including two mixed breed rescues who are both altered. We also have three retired Terriers who are also altered. Our animals are contained within two fences, so nobody gets loose unless it is an accident of major proportions. Still, I have six intact animals who are in some stage of being exhibited at shows. I don't agree with the law, San Antonio has tried and proved it is not a workable law. If someone is drinking funny Kool-Aid, it is those who want to do away with ALL ANIMALS for all time.

I got news for you people that support this. if challenged in court, it will be struck down as unconstitutional and illegal. when it comes to taxation, you cannot set different tax rates (fixed vs unfixed) for the same items because one is not altered. throw away the HSUS/RPOA debate about overpopulation, kill rates at shelters, etc. based on Tax laws, it is an illegal taxation. if you want outright absolutes, those who passed this ordinance could also be brought of on charges of treason. adn people want to endorse them? Amazing.

Opposed Mandatory S/N laws do not work and have the opposite effect- it cause more people to turn in their pets. The vast majority of shelter pets are mixed breeds. I am a show hobby breeder and all my companion pups go out on spay/neuter contracts PLUS if at ANY time for ANY reason we will always take a dog back that we breed and rehome it responsibly!

Will the owners of the pets that end up on the street and in shelters be the ones who comply with this new bill of lost rights?? NO only the responsible with comply. AS is always the case. Let's not be regulated at every turn. Let us, the American people, return to individual responsiblity and thank GOD we still live in the land of the free.

I am a dog breeder living in the state of Florida, for every puppy I sell I collect and remit sales tax to the dept of revenue. And as far as I am aware, in the 11 yrs I have been breeding & showing, none of my dogs have ended up in shelters. Any time I have visited my local pound or dog shelter, the majority of the dogs are mixes, not purebreds. I always encourage my new puppy buyers to spay or neuter their pets. I have several of my own altered pet dogs. And as a serious dog breeder I still want the right to be able to breed and show dogs of my choosing.

Won't work... Oh,no exemption for working dogs? So Waco PD k9s will lose their testicles? Or will the city be required to pay for intact dog permits? And we all know that won't happen,so the city will be violating its own ordinance. That's rich!!! The responsible owners always end up paying!!! Tlm

Disagree wholeheartedly...I'm a 'show' & pet person, not a breeder, who OWNS 3 dogs that get all their exams, shots, heartworm & flea prevention, etc. 2 out of my 3 show dogs have been altered by choice, 1 after finishing his championship, the other after my hubby put 5 pts on her. There are several health clearances our breed must pass before the parent club allows them to be bred; if they don't pass even 1 of those health screenings, they shouldn't be bred--ever. Our 2 altered dogs, though good representations of the breed in the show ring, have not nor ever will be bred because they didn't pass 1 of the health screenings. Our 3rd dog has passed several of her screenings & still has 1 to go. If she passes, we MAY eventually breed her. If we choose to breed her, we will raise her litter & keep the pups till at least 10 wks of age & will only let them go to responsible pet or show homes. These homes will be screened as if they were adopting a human child & we will ALWAYS take back any puppy we've bred. In fact, it will be written in the contract that the pup cannot be dumped at a shelter, sold, or given away. They MUST be returned to us & all pets will be sold on a spay/neuter contract. This is the way all responsible breeders handle their breedings. This is the way the breeder we got our dogs from handles her 1 or 2 litters per year. We are not all cut from the same cloth but, unfortunately, responsible breeders are lumped into the same pile as puppy mills. All cities, towns, & municipalities have some sort of pet ownership laws. The answer to the problem is not to create more laws that punish the innocent along with the guilty, but to enforce the laws already on the books.

From reading these comments the folks who drank the Kool Aid at the last R.P.O.A.meeting have weighed in. You know R.P.O.A. right? The folks who opposed the Lillian Styles Law? The law that says a dog owner can be held responsible if thier dog injures or kills some one. That's the same R.P.O.A. that was able to defeat a Puppy Mill regulation bill in the Texas House last year. God knows R.P.O.A. never ever wants any one to be held responsible when it comes to dogs, catsd or any other animal. Congratulations to the City of Waco and to the good folks who didn't listen to R.P.O.A. Thousands and maybe tens of thousdands of unwanted cats and dogs won't be forced to suffer. Waco's taxpayers won't be shouldered with the burden of managing all those surplus dogs and cats. When it comes to R.P.O.A. and common sense; well it just isn't.

I disagree with it.... An Intact Dog Permit was just rescinded in San Antonio as being a failure. The only permits sold were for impounded dogs being reclaimed by their owners. Unfortunately this legislation makes city officials believe they have addressed their animal problems when in reality problems are exacerbated. It also ONLY makes the honest person honest, and the person who doesn't care will still go on with an intact dog not caring. If the dog is caught they will not claim the dog (if its caught running at large). San Antonio did not go yard to yard looking for intact dogs, they expected neighbors to turn in neighbors. From the sound of it, Waco is hoping for the same.

DISAGREE. There are many reasons. First, s/n clinics or vets charge from $50 to $500. I have found that vets are taking advantage of people by raising their prices. There is data to support early s/n is unhealthy for pets. Hormones are necessary to support healthy heart, muscles, bone & other tissues. To punish people because their dog/cat is intact by levying a large license fee can cause the animal to loose its home and end up in the shelter or worse. The key is educating the public in keeping their pets on their property, not letting them roam. I find the public is absolutely ignorant when it comes to care of the family dog or cat. It is not fair to punish the pets because of their owners.

This law will not have the results some of you have cited. San Antonio has had such an increase in shelter numbers since passing a similiar law, that they have rescinded it. Spend the money it will take for enforcement, and offer low/no cost spay and neuter. This law is just the first volley in the war with the animal rights wackos!! If you love your animals, wake up, their agenda is to do away with the "enslavement" of animals. Personally, I want to eat meat, wear leather, and own pets!!

There is a side of this issue which never gets considered. Research shows that spayed and neutered dogs and cats have a reduced life expectancy. Taking away the ovaries in the first four years of life erases the normal female over male survival advantage. Dogs that have ovaries for at least six years have the greatest longevity advantage. Furthermore, spay/neuter has a negative breed specific effect on both males and females, increasing onset of certain diseases: a few among them being bladder cancer, osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, CCL rupture, diabetes mellitus. (See Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 231, No. 11, December 1, 2007.) Waco's ordinance unfairly penalizes responsible pet owners who must now, if they wish to be legal, pay a license fee to buy their pets a longer life. Responsible pet owners are not the ones whose animals are running loose and reproducing unplanned litters! It is a pity that Waco's local government did not do its homework and discover how these spay/neuter ordinances are failing and being rescinded in other municipalities. Ordinances like this are straight out of the Animal Rights agenda. I can only assume that Waco's animal advisory council is stacked with Animal Rights people. Spay/neuter ordinances do not work. In San Antonio which formerly had a spay/neuter ordinance, no one was buying intact licenses except those who were reclaiming animals. And more animals were running loose on the streets.

Absolutely agree! Other places that have mandatory spay/neuter has proven to reduce the shelter population. We have tried voluntary spay/neuter for years/decades, but it hasn't worked. Shelters without the requirements are still overflowing with pets. Breeding permits are available, and if people plan to sell puppies for several hundred dollars or more each, they can afford a breeding permit. Breeding should be treated as an official business with regulations and licensing and not as a "hobby" with no regulations or rules. The animals and shelters have paid too long for this good ol' american greed. Let's stop it once and for all.

Owning a pet is a financial burden to any family with food, shelter, vet visits, shots, meds, etc, and having the dog or cat spayed or neutered is just part of it. Why is this even a problem? For people complaining about it, does your pet visit the vet periodically? What about heart worm meds, vaccinations, etc? The cost of spaying or neutering your pet isn't much more than one normal vet visit, and it's a one-time thing. This isn't the city trying to make a buck or tax pet owners, it's a forced hand to make people do what they should be doing on their own. Pet owners have chosen to take on this responsibility, and not following through is a burden to the owner, the pet, and the community. Why is this logic so hard to digest???

I am all for it!!! Low income families that can't take of themselves and their kids sure as heck can't take care of an dog or cat but they do anyways and it is pathetic. I have neighbors that had a dog neglected it, with no food or water, no shelter nothing and it was 9 degrees outside!! They said they could not afford a dog house, but the big dollar rims on their vehicle, what you can buy that for your car but can't buy a dog house.

Some of the comments here just amaze me. First, it doesn't have to cost up to $300 to spay or neuter a pet. You can utilize the ABC clinic for $100 tops. And if you are low income and are currently receiving assistance, ABC will spay/neuter your pet at either no cost or a fraction of the cost. And as for spaying/neutering too early, yeah, maybe you have a beef with your vet, because the vets I know won't even think about it before the age of 4 months, and sometimes, not even then. There are kinds of conditions that come into play, such as gender, weight, and development. Those who are showing or breeding responsibly, will pay the fee. This law is about reducing the number of unwanted dogs and cats in the central Texas area. Period. If it shuts down a puppy mill, GREAT! And if you have a problem with that, well, shame on you.

I disagree totally. They are punishing all pet owners. Not just the unethical ones. Kinda like spanking the whole class because one student messed up. Also, pets are considered property in the state of Texas. Read the law. Next they will ban the killing of animals for food. Where will it stop. It won't until you have people in office that have common sense. Enforce the laws we have now don't add more.

Vet Tech, i see your side and raise you "that it is all about the money"!! People will dump these pets instead of paying!! Calling a Vet isn't going to help that. Right now where i live a neighbor has a pup that was dumped and i have seen a pack of strays (5) that come through my place and eat my 15yr old labs food and i have to run them off. I haven't resorted to gunfire but it is next on the list!!

I believe in spay and nueter but not under those rules if you wish to show a dog it has to have all its furnishings breeders that show and sell pupies aways sell on a spay nueter contract so I think this is hurting people that are responsible for what they do I know the shelters spay and nueter I think you should go after pet stores and backyard breeders !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have found that the minute cities even start to discuss MSN (pay or spay) that vets go up on the cost of those to risky surgeries.

El Diablo, being able to throw money away for UNNECESSARY OVARIOHYSTORECTOMY SURGERY and/or SURGICAL CASTRATION/VASECTOMY is by far and away different than other veterinary procedures. If an emergency situation arises then some vets will allow clients to pay it off, but MANDATORY may not be the reason for their kindness. ANYTIME one is put under anesthetic THEY COULD DIE.

Whenever I've asked anyone with an intact pet, "Do you want puppies/kittens?" their response has invariably been a variation of "No, but I can't afford the spay/neuter fees" or "the earliest appointment I can get is still months away." Waco's dollars that will be spent enforcing this ordinance would be more productively put to use making timely and affordable surgergies available to low income pet owners. EDUCATE - DON'T LEGISLATE!

Shelby, it simply puts the animals at DIFFERENT risks and often shortens lifespans and impairs quality of life when done too early, before the animal has properly matured physically. I have a rescue dog who hasn't been spayed yet because she was too ill when she came to me. Looking at her physical development compared to my prior pets who were, as advised, spayed early just makes me sick to know that the veterinarian advised and I bought into costing them their health when keeping them from breeding for a few cycles to allow proper development is really no big deal. My rescue girl WILL be spayed and she will NOT have puppies but she will be spayed when my vet and I think it proper for her to maximize her health and longevity and I should NOT have to pay a fee for being a GOOD owner.

An undetermined fee, an undetermined fine, undtermined enforcement. What could be the problem?

How much did it cost to spay and neuter pets in Waco a year ago? It always goes UP when vets hear MSN and make no mistake, that is what this is, this "Pay or Spay" anti-pet law. Vets are funny creatures, when they realize they will be out of work in a while, all the prices go up!! Their best shot at staying in business is to alter too young and make a sick animal out of a well one, I fear...one of those damned if they do, damned if they don't kind of things.

If you can't afford to spay/neuter your pet, you won't be able to afford all the other vet bills. It takes a lot of money to have a pet, and it's not a right.

I am opposed, and have several comments: I feel this ordinance will burden lower and fixed income people adversely. Responsible owners ALREADY spay and neuter their pets IF THEY CAN AFFORD it. Proponents said this ordinance offers a choice - sure it does. You can PAY to keep your dog intact (and the $50 fee is just a proposal, not set in stone) or you can PAY to spay or neuter your pet. There is not a "no cost" option available if the citizen wishes to remain law-abiding. Unfortunately the most effective solution will actually cost the city money - to increase the availability of low or no-cost spay or neuter, and to educate people on responsible ownership. Research has shown that in cities where similar laws have been enacted euthanasia rates have actually gone up since people dumped dogs rather than comply. I firmly believe in spaying or neutering my pets, but that is a decision made by me and my veterinarian - not forced upon me by a government. I did not see exceptions in the law for show or working dogs - which I guess means Cen-Tex Kennel club will have to take their dog shows and all the revenue produced (easily $200,000 in the show weekend - spent on hotels, gas, food...) out of the city, as show dogs cannot be shown if they are spayed and neutered. My last problem is with enforcement - it will be complaint-driven (but again, nowhere in the ordinance does it say that - leaving the door open for the "speuter police" to cite people right and left). Let's hope everyone gets along with their neighbors, or it could get REALLY ugly.

Erica is right, Wayne Pacelle says "one generation and out" for all the animals.....I have news for you folks, ONE GENERATION in animals is, at best, 5-8 years. No more pets, especially high quality ones from responsible exhibitors who's pets aren't the ones randomly reproducing in any event, but those people will be the one being made criminals or paying more to have their pets! Empty leads in a few years and no way to come back from extinction.

Disagree. Why not fix all these unwed mothers, spitting out child after child, flooding our welfare system at tax payers expense?

Strongly Disagree. Taxation is not the answer to everything. Next you'll have to have a license just to own a pet. Why not neuter/spay the people spreading aids around Waco? Do you actually think the money collected will be used soley for this purpose? Kind of like the Lottery. Taxation is not the solution to ignorance!!!!!

I am all for it. The animals do not need to suffer with unwanted pregnancies any more than humans. I see nothing wrong with the passing of this.

Am I the only one who believes in your personal right to have a pet, and whether or not to spay or neuter my pet? Actually all my pets are fixed. But I don't want someone telling me I have to do so. If you want to breed you should not have to pay through the nose to do so. This law will make more animals euthanized, not less. The ultimate goal of the animal rights groups is to END, yes END pets in your home, and meat on your table too. Wake up and smell the coffee. They keep nudging us with this ordinance, or that, and it keeps going in the direction they want. They want us all to be vegetarians and not even eat eggs. They can take their Sea Kitten baloney and stick it. It is time to stand up and say enough. This dogooders have an agenda, you better learn what it is before it is too late. Spay and neuter clinics have helped tremendously. Pour money into that animal rights folks, leave the citizens alone.

This law does the opposite of what people think it will. Most people choose to spay and neuter without it being mandatory. The cost of spaying here is $300 and neutering $125. There are a lot of good animal owners that just can't afford to have their animals done. They are suddenly turned into criminals. They face a fine and sometimes jail. Rather than face that they will let the animal go. The shelters are already overcrowded which means more will be euthanized. The economy isn't good right now to force this on people. People should be able to control thier pets from breeding with a small amount of effort. Instead of the money spent enforcing this law, it could be used to help people that cant afford the surgery to have it done. With the cost of licensing intact animals going up so high, and the other requirements in housing for small breeders, all that will be left selling dogs will be puppy mills. They wont follow the law to begin with. And, what money they'll make when the good breeders are gone and they're the only ones selling puppies. Unhealthy puppies on top of it. Spay or neuter all the dogs, stop good breeders from breeding, and when the present dogs are gone, there will be no more. After all, that's the real plan.Please see both sides of this and check out humane watch.org

Why would city pass a law they can't enforce? This will cost the city much more than any fines they get.What a waste of tax payers money.

RESPONSIBILE CITIZENS don't have unwanted litters. The last time I looked, you CAN NOT LEGISLATE RESPONSIBILITY!

NO, its taking my civil rights from me to do this, no cities who have done this type of ordinance has had it work. Taxing honest people or making them criminals just goes against all rights of citizens. Yes, I have been involved in breed rescue for more than 20 years so do not go there with me on this. It is discrimination at its "finest". My right to own my animals is my RIGHT. When the civil rights trials get started, the City will pay the bill.

I think it's a good thing, it reduces unwanted litters and unwanted animals who do get dummped in rural areas. I work in the Vet community and own 5 dogs all except 2 who I have adopted from the Waco Humane Society, all are spayed(GIRLS) or neutered (BOYS) and are happy, healthy dogs who are not overweight or depressed. Weight and excitment level have nothing to do with whether or not they have reproductive organs, it's the animals PERSONALITY, and Metabolism!! I recieve calls everyday asking to make appointments because my dog accidently got bred and I DON"T WANT PUPPIES!!! Thats being a responsible owner, and making sure that your animal doesn't contribute to the huge amount of unwanted animals, or eventually end up with Pyometra which can be a fatal uterine infection, or testicular cancer which yes male animals can get! If you have questions or concerns about the effects or benefits from having your animal spayed (GIRLS) or neutered (BOYS) call your local Vet, they would be happy to answer your questions.

DISAGREE. I have been a pet owner for many years and always spay and neuter my animals. This is a ploy by the city to get an additional source of revenue without the taxpayers approval. It is going to place a hardship on the old and poor. How is it going to be enforced? I would never obey this law at the whim of the city council. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't do with my animals? I understand what they are trying to accomplish, but this is not going to work, but it will generate them some of the citizens hard earned dollars which is the ultimate goal.

No I don't... I take care of my animals, make sure they get their shots, I take them to the vet when they are sick, I give them heartworm prevention and flea meds, I keep them in the house most of the time and they stay in my yard!! I pay enough already and I don't want to start having to pay a fee or for special food when my 2 year old male rat terrier get neutered and becomes depressed and overweight!! My miniature schnauzer is now spayed and she has had one litter to calm her disposition down which worked wonders and I took the responsibility of finding good loving homes for her 3 puppies. I think if someone like me already does the right thing imposing a fee will just make the person lean more towards not caring for the animals real needs because they will have to pay for it regardless. The right thing to do would be to impose fees on the people who don't take care of their animals, not on the ones who already do. Animals are wonderful and great to have, please don't make ownership a nuisance.

NO!!! All this will do is have more illegal dumping of animals in rural communities surrounding Wacko. The County will not come out and catch these animals and the Sheriff Dept tells us to shoot them. If you catch one of these animals and take them to a shelter most of them have conditions and the Wacko Humane Society looks at you like your the guilty one and then guilts you into a donation. Certain shelters will tell you they are full or don't take that sort of breed. So thanks Wacko for messing with our rural way of life!!!!

AGREE. I'm sick of paying (via taxes) for too many folks who are irresponsible enough to not spay/neuter their pets. Does anyone take personal responsibility for anything any longer?

I absolutely agree in passing this ordinance. I work in a shelter/rescue and see daily the consequences of irresponsible behavior. I'm all about limiting goverrnment involvment in our lives, but pet owner neglect and irresponsibility has forced the need for a spay/neuter ordinance.

Yes, not only does it prevent unwanted litters(there are plenty of pets from rescues and shelters) but prevents cancer of the uterus and false pregnancies.