Home
Guest Posts
Print|Email|Text Size: ||
New Way to Pay for Spay
[Web exclusive] Can Washington State alter 70,000 more cats and dogs
Spaying is an important tool in the fight against crowded shelters and high euthanasia rates.

It’s Spay Day, and all around the country, animal welfare organizations are offering discounted spay/neuter surgeries and spreading the word about the importance of altering pets to reduce unwanted litters, overpopulation, abandoned and neglected pets, crowded shelters and high euthanasia rates.

In Washington State, legislators are considering an unusual bill to increase funding for low-cost spay/neuter surgery. As proposed, Senate Bill 5329/House Bill 1406 will reimburse private and nonprofit veterinary clinics that perform the surgeries for the pets of low-income guardians, as well as feral and free-roaming cats, keeping the out-of-pocket cost (like a co-payment) to no more than $10 for cats and $20 for dogs.

While funding low-cost surgeries has long been an important tool in the spay/neuter effort, the Washington bill tackles the problem during tight financial times and relies on a unique funding mechanism—fees on pet food distribution.

Tomorrow, February 25, the Senate Committee on Agriculture & Rural Economic Development decides whether to vote the bill on to the Ways and Means Committee, and, eventually to the floor for a vote of the full senate. It’s an important hurdle for the legislation.

Helping to spearhead the bill is Andrea Logan, co-founder and president of the board of Pawsitive Alliance in North Bend, dedicated to ending the killing of adoptable dogs and cats in Washington. While Alliance efforts are most frequently focused on providing adoption events to help rural shelters, Logan says, “I’m a spay/neuter girl at heart; this is the only way to solve the problem.”

While she waits to hear the fate of the spay/neuter assisance program and drum up last minute support, she answered a few questions for TheBark.com.

TheBark.com: What makes you sure that reducing the cost of these surgeries will increase the number of animals spayed and neutered?

Andrea Logan: There are a lot of studies that cite cost as the reason most people give when they say their animal isn’t altered. We know that people want but just can’t afford the surgery. In the first few years after New Hampshire passed similar legislation, the state saw a significant decrease in shelter admissions [34 percent] and euthanasia rates [75 percent].

Bark: How likely is it that legislators will agree to additional spending when the State faces an $8 billion shortfall?

Logan: The good news we have gotten so much support from legislators. But it’s hard and very challenging. We’re offering a program that’s going to ultimately save money (for example, New Hampshire reported savings from animal impoundment costs due to its program), and we’re not taking money from the general fund. We’re saying here’s our best option, specifically pet owners helping other pet owners. It doesn’t take away from other people. We’ve given them a way to pay for it. We think that most pet owners would pay a small fee to save other dogs and cats.

Bark: Funding would come from an increase on the fee pet-food distributors pay for inspection of food distributed in Washington by 3 cents per pound (with distributors of less than one ton every six months exempt); won’t this be passed along to consumers, making pet food more expensive during a recession?

Logan: If the fee is passed along, which we expect, we think the impact would be pretty modest. We estimate that someone living with one cat and a medium-size dog is looking at an additional 9 dollars a year, less than 1 dollar each month.

Bark: Have other states used a fee like this to pay for spay/neuter?

Logan: Yes including Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont. But other states rely on fees from sources like statewide licensing, which Washington does not have. Maine is the most similar with a fee on pet food registration.

Bark: According to your column in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the funding will help pay for at least 70,000 additional spay and neuter surgeries each year. If there are more than 1.66 million unaltered dogs and cats in the state, what difference will 70,000 make?

Logan: Basically, what we’re tying to do is strike a balance between the number of surgeries we could hope to accomplish and a fee that we could pass, based on the examples of the other states. Still it’s a large sum of money even with the modest fee. Importantly, the bill requires the Department of Agriculture to evaluate the program’s impact.

Bark: How can supporters, especially in Washington, help?

Logan: Contact your legislators and urge them to support the bill’s passage and spread the word to others.

 

Learn more about taking action and also about other Spay Day activities and activism in your neighborhood.

Print|Email
Lisa Wogan lives in Seattle and is the author of, most recently, Dog Park Wisdom. lisawogan.com
CommentsPost a Comment
Please note comments are moderated. After being approved your comment will appear below.
Submitted by Anonymous | March 4 2009 |

From SaveWashingtonPets.Org website: February 20, 2009 and February 25, 2009: Last day for HB 1406 and SB 5329 to pass out of house and senate agriculture committees, respectively. The bills were not acted upon by the committees within deadline (HB 1406 was not passed through the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, and SB 5329 was not passed through the Senate Agriculture and Rural Economic Development Committee). Bills are still alive until until the session ends, but there is not a high likelihood of passage this session. If bills do not pass in the 2009 session they will be reconsidered in the 2010 session (second year of the biennium).

Submitted by gphx | January 28 2010 |

I am a big fan of no-kill shelters and subsidized spay/neuter for low cost individuals. However, many families are taking their animals to shelters to be killed because they are losing their homes and can't afford to feed their human members. Some people who can't feed their pets won't take them to shelters, they'll just release them and they'll starve to death. Many elderly are eating petfood themselves. The idea of taxing petfood in these times to make it even less likely people will be able to feed their pets is akin to the idea of trying to cure human hunger by taxing food. While I wholeheartedly support both no-kill shelters and subsidized spay/neuter I ask the public not to support funding such efforts through additional taxes on petfoods because it is counterproductive and adds to the problem it is professing to cure.

More From The Bark

By
Rebecca Wallick
By
Julia Kamysz Lane
By
Julia Kamysz Lane
More in Guest Posts:
Time Magazine and Designer Dogs
The Difference Between Guide Dog Breeds
Spice's Amazing Transformation
Career Moves
Timmy's Amazing Transformation
Learn How To Train Dogs at ClickerExpo 2015
Defusing Awkward Situations
From the Streets to the Gallery, All Thanks to the Dog
Jedi Surfs
This Dog Loves Guitar!