St. Louis Considers Mandatory Spay, Neuter Law

Life With Dogs is reader-supported. We may earn a small commission through products purchased using links on this page.

The city of St. Louis is weighing a proposal that would require residents to spay, neuter and microchip their pets.

In an effort to relive overcrowding at shelters and reduce the stray population, an aldermanic committee granted initial approval to the bill last week, which would also ban area pet stores from selling dogs and cats.

The bill was introduced by Central West End Alderman Lyda Krewson. Aldermen also considered and ultimately rejected a proposal to give $250,000 in tax payer donations to Stray Rescue, the nonprofit dog shelter run by Randy Grim. Stray Rescue is the city’s only official dog shelter so the refusal to fund it is perplexing.

Grim was not happy: current construction at the shelter could be suspended or substantially delayed, and he said he may have to stop answering residents’ calls for assistance with loose animals. That would be especially bad news for the city’s stray population given Grim’s substantial efforts to date.

25 thoughts on “St. Louis Considers Mandatory Spay, Neuter Law”

  1. too bad the people who don’t spay or neuter seem to be the ones who are casual enough to just let their pets out the door to roam and populate……….. maybe those people should be the ones feeding offspring that end up on death row……….

    Reply
  2. oh ? not true? then someone please explain to me how all of these unwanted litters happen? please – i’d like to know…… where do they come from?

    Reply
  3. I would have preferred that my pound puppy had not had to come home with me the same day she was spayed. I would certainly have had it done at a less traumatic time for her. But, no dice with treating lifetime responsible pet owners like adults here in California — Nanny State central. It was not ideal, but it was better, for me, than a rescue organization. I know many do fine work, but again, I know how to take care of a dog, thanks, and I don’t need visits, niggling contracts, or a “relationship” with people I don’t want a relationship with either. I just wanted a dog.

    Reply
  4. Early spay and neuter actually causes dogs to get TALLER – this is why allowing the dog to mature is standard practice for working dogs of all varieties. The overall cancer burden is also higher in altered animals than intact animals, females have more behaviour issues and endocrine disorders can also be an issue.

    The point is that in 15 or so years of owning intact animals we have NEVER had a litter or even anything approaching an “oops”. We’ve had males and females, often simultaneously. We have made the decision to keep our pets intact until they reach a certain age, and each age is different for each pet – although all of them are allowed to mature entirely BEFORE being altered.

    Reply
  5. Thank you Kim! You are correct, early sputer does make them taller and does not stunt their growth. in addition, the lack and imbalance of steroids alters the way joints develop which ‘straightens’ angle joints and makes them more suseptible to OCD. wut you end up with more often than not is an overly tall, lanky, straight legged animal. On top of it all, early spay in females very commonly leads to Spay Incontenence. this is not old wives tales at all, and infact are supported by the vast majority of studies in the last 5-10 yrs.

    Reply
  6. Yes, spay incontinence – which I did fail to mention, thank you. The two links provided really do spell out each issue and it’s severity. Of course, each dog is going to be different and as such medical decisions should be between that dog, the dog’s owner and the dog’s veterinarian.

    Think about all the other things that government could regulate and actually have some positive impact. Cars are a great example – why are gas guzzlers allowed to be produced when other technology is available? Why are cars able to go far above the hightest legal speeds in the country? Why doesn’t every vehicle have a built in system to defeat drunk drivers?

    To suggest that it’s ok for government to be involved in making medical decisions for my dog is crazy. We’ve seen what vaccine legislation has gotten us – decades of yearly vaccines that brought harm to millions of pets – and yet here we go again, making decisions for others as if the average pet owner is too stupid or irresponsible or lazy or… whatever – to make their own educated decisions. So, you’re smart enough to vote and put these politicians in power – but dumb enough to require your pet’s medical decisions to be legislated.

    Reply

Leave a Comment