A new pet needs to be fed, cleaned, and cared for. If the Pet Responsibility Act gets passed next year, sterilization may be added to your pet care to-do list.

The Pet Responsibility Act builds upon the pet licensing law that is already in place. This act aims at decreasing the overpopulation of California animal shelters.

If passed, the law would require pet owners to get their dogs or cats spayed or neutered. If owners don’t want their pets to be fixed, they have to apply for a license to keep them “unaltered.”

But do we really need a nanny government to nag us to clean up after ourselves?

Though the legislation has good intentions, enforcing this law would be too tough for police to enforce.

“The best law (in place) right now is the leash law, and they can’t even enforce that,” said Richard Gray, a breeder of American Staffordshire Terriers.

Shelters are overflowing with homeless pets. Often times this includes unwanted litters that have resulted from free-wandering pets, ownerless street animals, and reckless breeders.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, main supporter of the Pet Responsibility Act, reassures that proper pet owners would not suffer under the new law.

If that’s the case, how does the local animal control intend to crack down on backyard breeders, who are the biggest offenders?

“They’ll be relying on neighbors to snitch on neighbors, but (it won’t work). ‘That’s not my dog, I don’t know how it got there.’

That’s what’s going to happen if this legislation is passed. People aren’t going to stand up for their dogs,” Gray said.

People who mind their own business and avoid confrontation are the problem with relying on a “neighborhood watch” system. Especially when those same people are afraid of the perpetrator next door taking revenge on them.

Most pet owners are attached to their pets and would likely spring for surgical sterilization rather than surrender the family pet.

There’s the matter of cost, too. Mandating sterilization does not magically turn spaying and neutering into free services.

PetPAC, an organization founded on the protection of pets and their owners, argues that the legislation would be costly for pet owners, many of whom cannot afford surgical sterilization for their pets.

To illustrate this, they referred to similar legislative action that’s been tried in Los Angeles.

When Los Angeles adopted a similar mandatory sterilization legislation, pet owners’ inability to pay for alteration led to a spike in the surrender of animals. Shelters were flooded, ultimately amounting to a 24 percent increase in euthanization.

This doesn’t offer up much hope for the senate bill.

It comes down to recognizing the commitments we make and taking responsibility for them.

Would we support a policy mandating daily tooth brushing and flossing to reduce bad breath in public?

No, because relying on the government to remind us of our obligations is juvenile and careless.

Take personal responsibility for your pets. It’s that simple. No government official or senate bill should have to tell you that.

[email protected]