Mandatory Pet Spay-Neuter Bills Filed in Texas

Identical proposals require cats, dogs older than 6 months to be spayed or neutered.

Posted: March 18, 2009, 5 a.m. EDT

Two bills that would require the sterilization of all cats and dogs over the age of 6 months have been filed in the Texas Legislature. The identical bills, House Bill 4277 and Senate Bill 1845, state that an agency may not release a cat or dog for adoption unless the animal has been spayed or neutered.

There are exemptions to the mandate. For instance, if a pet owner chooses to keep an animal intact, he or she has the option of buying a $300 permit per intact animal under the proposal.

In addition, HB 4277, sponsored by Rep. Jose Menendez, and SB 1845, by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, both of San Antonio, would make each violation of the law a class C misdemeanor, liable for fines up to $500 per violation.

This legislation does not apply to an animal less than 6 months old; a service animal; or an animal that a veterinarian has certified should not be sterilized for health reasons.


4 of 16 Comments View All 16 Comments

Give us your opinion Give us your opinion on Mandatory Pet Spay-Neuter Bills Filed in Texas

User Avatar

julie   Rockwall, TX

8/31/2009 1:06:52 PM

Wonderful idea

User Avatar

Jeff   Frisco, TX

5/20/2009 10:44:16 AM

Most of the articles I have seen on this bill focus on two things: requirements for adopted animals and the impact on breeders. I opposed this bill, but for different reasons.

Regarding adoption, I agree with the changes to chapter 828 proposed in this bill, but really it just clarifies rules already in place. The real impact is the addition of chapter 830 which requires people to sterilize animals they already own or obtain from any source, unless they are willing to pay a $300 fee. I think if the state funded free or cheap sterilization and left the choice to the owner, the amount of unwanted offsrping would decline

Regarding negative impact to breeders, I think this argument is exactly backwards. This bill will help breeders, and to me that is a bad thing. If individuals are discouraged from owning unaltered animals, then just about the only place to aquire them will be from breeders. Breeders tend to focus on so-called "pure" breeds, and that practice restricts the natural flow of genes and produces inbred animals that are much more susceptible to defects and disease.

Read the current law
and the proposed changes
http://www.capitol.state.tx. us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB4277

User Avatar

Manny   San Antonio, TX

4/21/2009 7:48:08 PM

Poor people do have options for spaying and neutering their pets. Please look into these programs like SNAP. They also offer low or free shots and neutering. They even have a mobile clinic. People just need to be informed in order to take action. I beleive we have horrible pet population where thousands of cats and dog are killed every year. This number could be greatly reduced if people would spay and neuter their pets. And stating that poor don't have options is so untrue. I hope the bill passes.

User Avatar

Andy   Terrell, TX

4/5/2009 7:13:30 AM

To everyone that thinks this law is great you should read the entire bill itself. Yes there are puppy mills out there and this will not correct it in any way. Furthermore this will more than likely increase them due to people going black market to bypass these laws. Responsible breeders are being punished along with all the bad individuals who do not care about doing what is right for the animal. There is no way a responsible breeders, such myself, can afford these outrageous fees and maintain a kennel with USDA fees, quality feeds, quality vaccines and medications, regular vet visits, registration fees, certifications, and utilities. If we were to survive with neighboring states being unregulated in the same manner, these fee would be passed on to the consumer and no one but the rich could afford a pet. With fewer and fewer pets, your pet food, vet care, and other services would greatly increase. While I do believe that there should some regulator means in the state, this bill goes WAY TO FAR.

Login to get points for commenting or write your comment below

First Name : Email :
International :
City : State :

Captcha Image

Get New Captcha

Top Products