ISAR Hits A Nerve

Corrected Version

As ISAR supporters (and by now countless others in the animal protection movement) know, our Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statute has attracted considerable attention because of its unapologetic restrictions on breeding. Comes now a May 15, 2009 column—Reflections, by Frank L. Martin III, in the Missouri West Plains Daily Quill—in which the author does us a great service. After quoting at length the breeder-restrictions in our model statute, Mr. Martin regurgitates the tired and indefensible false alternative of “since when do animal ‘rights’ prevail over human rights?” As our supporters know, recognizing the one is not to denigrate the other, animal protection can comfortably coexist with human rights and, as even Mr. Martin recognizes, putting “puppy mills out of business” is a “laudable goal.” His mistake is in not understanding that while puppy mills are the worst example of breeders, there are others who contribute to the overpopulation of companion animals—and that ISAR’s Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statute seeks not to put them out of business but merely to slow down their production, and thus feed fewer of them into the pipeline of death. (ISAR’s thanks to John Rothgeb, whose letter-to-the-editor observes that our Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Statute aims to eliminate “abusive breeding.”)