The American Kennel Club sent a letter to Mayor Gist in 2009, explaining why that organization is NOT in favor of a spay/neuter ordinance. They come to the same conclusions, that an ordinance "fails to address the heart of the animal control problems - irresponsible ownership."

"The unintended consequences of these higher fees could be more animals relinquished to shelters. In these challenging economic times residents simply may not have the ability to pay for an expensive elective surgery to spay/neuter their pet, and if the animal is not causing a problem for the community then its reproductive status is irrelevant."

In a memo written by Dr. Vicki Lake dated Oct. 3, 2008, it was proposed that members of the Animal Advisory Commission were to serve no more than 9 years. Also highlighted below are duties of the committee: drive.google.com/file/d/1hBkKh_sVSz_1bwNFs8lMC-Q6vRNkiQ5a/view?usp=sharing

Interesting points here with references. Breeding associations and vet groups are ALSO against mandatory spay/neuter laws. There are reasons a responsible pet owner might choose not to fix their pet, based on that dog, breed, age, etc. Some health issues are correlated with either choice (fixed or not), especially in bred animals... So to control the pet over-population problem we are right back at having VOLUNTARY low-cost spay/neuter available for folks who don't want to breed! We are talking about helping folks who are taking in strays, who need financial and logistic help, not penalties: bit.ly/2Vj1VjG

A version of the ordinance is at this post, starting on page 13: thejacksonpress.org/?p=95747

Jackson City Council approves spay-neuter despite opposition from local spay-neuter organizations

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/09/jackson-passes-spay-neuter-law-despite-opposition-animal-groups/3656421002/?fbclid=IwAR0XWl4hB55lAru4mZli3j8jte4WmKYtUAbPjuVMdIKzfxVqyQSDH7pUqOQ

Jackson City Council approves spay-neuter despite opposition from local spay-neuter organizations

Every step of the way the City of Jackson has run into controversy with trying to take better care of the city's pets and solve the pet overpopulation problem.
"I've been working on [the animal care issue] since 2009," Director of Community Development at West Tennessee Healthcare Dr. Vicki Lake said. "I was part of a neighborhoods task force where part of it was dealing with how to solve Jackson's animal care problem."
The task force Lake was apart of was asked to help solve the funding problem at the Jackson-Madison County Humane Society. The city took over the shelter in 2017 after complaints from residents about the treatment of the animals.
The city then renamed it the City of Jackson Animal Care Center and planned to build a new facility in the future. The city originally set aside $240,000 for the new animal care center. The West Tennessee Healthcare Foundation would also contribute $150,000 per year toward the new center.
Lake along with West Tennessee Healthcare Foundation President McMeen were then tasked with recommending a proposal for the new animal care center. By the time the recommended proposal came up for a vote at city council the cost of the project was $1.3 million, far exceeding the amount the city set aside.
The city council passed the funding for the new animal care center in October of 2018 and accepted a construction bid for it in April.
As part of the animal care center plan Lake also proposed that the city adopt a spay-neuter ordinance.
Why spay-neuter groups are against the ordinanceThe ordinance the city passed on at its May city council meeting requires all pet owners with pets over six-months-old to have it spayed or neuter.  If it's discovered that that the pet isn't fixed the city would fine the pet owner $50 per animal.
Both West Tennessee Spay Neuter Coalition and Spay Tennessee oppose the animal care ordinance because they feel it doesn't solve the underlying problem that Jackson doesn't have low-cost spay-neuter available.
"Spay-neuter ordinances don't work," Program Manager for Spay Tennessee Julie Jacobson said. "The results are unintended consequences. The goal is to reduce shelter intake. But people then think they can't afford to spay or neuter their pet so they surrender the pet causing shelter populations rise."
The city wants to adopt the ordinance as an encouragement for people to get their pets fixed while hoping it solves the pet overpopulation problem which caused the animal care center financial issues in the first place.
The groups in opposition to the ordinance are also opposed to the animal care center project as a whole.
"A lot times people think when you build a new facility it will solve the problem," Jacobson said. "But intake at these facilities often skyrocket. A lot of people see a new facility and will just drop off all the stray pets they find off."
"A new facility can be part of the solution but you need more low-cost spay-neuter."
In the past American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has cautioned against mandatory spay-neuter laws. 
The statement said the main barriers to spaying and neutering pets is accessibility of services, which is not addressed simply by making spaying and neutering mandatory. Cost is one of the primary barriers in many communities.
"We need to be incentivizing people to spay-neuter but not through a mandatory ordinance," West Tennessee Spay Neuter Coalition Founder Karen Byers said. "We need to target people with lots of stray pets and use volunteers to help them spay-neuter them for a low price."
Those in favor of the ordinanceWhile the ordinance might be opposed to by local spay-neuter groups in both Mayor Jerry Gist and the city council seemed to be in favor it.
During a discussion about the ordinance at May's city council agenda review meeting Councilman Johnny Lee Dodd said that to him it seemed like the city could adopt the ordinance, build the animal care center and still try to fund low-cost spay-neuter.
The city plans to offer affordable spaying and neutering services at the animal care center, according to Gist.
What's nextThe city council approved the spay-neuter ordinance 7-2 on its first reading at May's city council meeting. The votes in opposition were Ernest Brooks II (District 3) and Charles Rahm (District 8). 
The ordinance will come up again at June's city council meeting on June 4 for a second reading before its adopted as a ordinance.

The public has learned about the proposed spay/neuter ordinance, thanks to WBBJ News. The Facebook comments are wide-ranging, and many folks are weighing in that they are NOT in favor of the ordinance, for various reasons that you can imagine. Those of us doing spay/neuter argue that it will be ineffective against the backyard breeders but will instead penalize poor people who need access to services. Click on the comments icon below to go to that debate.

Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws
Background
Per capita shelter intake and euthanasia have been in a steady decline nationwide for the past several decades. Research has indicated that one reason for this decline is the increasing incidence of spayed and neutered animals in the pet population (Zawistowski et al., 1998; Irwin, 2001; Clancy & Rowan, 2003, Miller et al, 2014). In fact, the veterinary community recently formally acknowledged the importance of safe, efficient, accessible sterilization programs as the “best antidote to the mass euthanasia of cats and dogs resulting from overpopulation” (Looney et al., 2008). However, this decline has not been uniform; levels of shelter intake and euthanasia vary across communities and are different for dogs and cats. As a result, many communities are currently searching for methods to reach those who are still contributing disproportionately to companion animal homelessness. Attempts to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia through the passage of legislation mandating the spaying and neutering of companion animals has recently garnered much attention and debate.
To the knowledge of the ASPCA, the only humane method of population control that has demonstrated a correlation with long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the number of animals entering animal shelters is the voluntary sterilization of owned pets (Clancy & Rowan 2003; FIREPAW, 2004; Secovich, 2003).There is also evidence that sterilizing very specific, atrisk sub-populations of companion animals, such as feral cats and animals in shelters, contributes to reductions in population (Zawistowski et al., 1998; Clancy & Rowan 2003; Levy et al., 2003; Lord et al., 2006; Natoli et al., 2006). However, the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law of general application to all owned animals within a community. Indeed, mandating spay and neuter for owned pets can have the unintended consequences of increasing shelter intake and impeding the return of strays to their owners when the costs associated with spay and neuter are prohibitive.
Caution must therefore be applied when interpreting existing claims regarding the effects of local mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws. First, because per capita shelter intake and euthanasia are in decline due to a variety of reasons, it is impossible to determine the effect of an MSN law without comparing a community’s trends in shelter intake and euthanasia for several years before and after the law was enacted to trends in adjacent, similar communities without MSN legislation. Furthermore, to determine with confidence the effects of any spay/neuter program on the animal population, which naturally fluctuates somewhat from year to year, population trends must be examined over a period sufficiently long to absorb those natural fluctuations. Claims based on one or two years of data can be misleading.
In addition, it is imprudent to generalize about the effects of MSN laws. One reason is that the definition of “mandatory” varies greatly across communities. In some localities, a citation may be 2 issued for any animal over the age of four months seen unaltered, while in other communities, a citation results only when another animal control offense has been committed or if more than one intact female lives in the household. Another complication is that it can be extremely difficult for even a veterinary professional to visually determine if an animal, particularly a female, has been sterilized; it would be virtually impossible for an animal control officer to make those determinations in the field. For these reasons and due to variation across communities in law enforcement funding and personnel support, actual enforcement of MSN laws varies widely, making comparisons between MSN laws or predictions about their impact very difficult.
Another reason for caution when interpreting the effects of MSN legislation is that shelter intake and euthanasia statistics are often presented as a total number of dogs and cats. In some communities, the number of dogs entering and being euthanized in shelters is dropping significantly while the number of cats is declining more slowly or even increasing. Therefore it is critical to examine population and shelter statistics for dogs and cats separately, so that reductions in dog intake and euthanasia do not mask increases in cat intake and euthanasia. This issue is particularly critical in the analysis of the effect of MSN laws, since feral and unowned stray cats continue to represent a substantial proportion of the shelter population and euthanasia at shelters. This major contributing factor is not addressed by MSN laws that, by nature, target owned animals.
Even when an MSN law seems to have a positive effect on one aspect of animal welfare, it may have a negative effect on another. For instance, in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were subsequently licensed, likely due to owners’ reluctance to pay either the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet altered (Office of Legislative Oversight, 1997).
The ASPCA is also concerned that some communities may rely primarily or exclusively on MSN legislation to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia even though the animal shelter population is actually very heterogeneous with no single cause or source (National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, 2001, American Humane Association, 2013, Weiss et al 2014). Many social, cultural and economic factors as well as animal health and behavioral issues contribute to shelter intake; therefore, no single program or law can be relied on to solve the problem.
Furthermore, one of the main barriers to spaying and neutering of pets is accessibility of services, which is not addressed simply by making spaying and neutering mandatory. Cost is one of the primary barriers to spay/neuter surgery in many communities (Patronek et al., 1997; Ralston Purina, 2000; Frank, 2001). In fact, low household income and poverty are statistically associated with having a sexually intact cat (Patronek et al, 1997; Chu et al., 2009), with relinquishment of pets to shelters (Patronek et al., 1996), and with shelter intake (Frank, 2003). Recent research indicates that intake into shelters is greatest from areas where human poverty levels are high (Miller, et al 2014; Patronek, 2010). As a result, a higher proportion of pets from impoverished communities are entering shelters, and data suggests that these pets may be at a significantly higher risk for euthanasia (Patronek, 2010).
Each community is unique, however, in terms of the particular sources and causes of companion animal homelessness and the primary barriers that exist to having pets altered. No one-size-fits-all solution is therefore possible. In examining communities around the country that are having significant success in reducing companion animal homelessness, it appears that the common denominator is a multifaceted, targeted community program that:
- is based on careful research to determine which segments of the animal population are actually significantly contributing to shelter intake and euthanasia and then targets efforts to those segments of the population;
- focuses on the particular barriers to spay/neuter that are predominant and strives to overcome them;
- is well-supported and well-funded; and- has an efficient voluntary spay/neuter infrastructure in place to service the populations it targets.
ASPCA Position
The ASPCA does not support laws that mandate spay/neuter of all owned animals within a community; however, based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce shelter intake. In particular, the ASPCA supports voluntary, affordable, accessible spay/neuter programs for owned pets, Trap-NeuterReturn (TNR) programs for feral cats and the mandatory sterilization of shelter animals and dogs and cats prior to sale by pet stores1. For all of the reasons articulated here, the ASPCA does not support laws that mandate spay/neuter of owned animals that come to shelters as strays as a prerequisite of returning them to their owners. However, provisions that incentivize spay/ neuter in these situations can be an effective strategy that does not create unintended negative consequences, such as preventing low income owners from reclaiming pets due to inability to pay applicable fees. For example, localities and shelters may consider waiving redemption fees if owners opt to spay or neuter their pets (at no or low cost) to incentivize spay/neuter, ensure it is not cost prohibitive to pet owners, and reunite more pets with their families.
In order to assure the efficacy of any spay/neuter program designed to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia, the ASPCA believes that each community must conduct credible research into the particular causes of relinquishment and abandonment and the sources of animals in its shelters, including the barriers to spay/neuter services that are faced by those populations contributing disproportionately to the problem. Each community must address these issues with a tailored, multifaceted approach as described below:
1) The community should have in place an adequately funded, readily accessible, safe, efficient, affordable spay/neuter program.
2) Community research should identify the particular segments of the population that are contributing disproportionately to shelter intake and euthanasia, and the community should produce programs that are targeted to those populations.
3) The community should strive to maximize the accessibility of spay/neuter services and provide compelling incentives to have the surgery performed.
4) The spay/neuter program should be developed with the guidance of veterinary professionals who are committed to delivering high quality spay/neuter services to all patients (Looney et al., 2008).
5) The program must adequately address the contribution that feral and stray animals make to overpopulation.
6) The program must be adequately supported in terms of financing, staffing and infrastructure.
7) The efficacy of all aspects of the program must be monitored and revisions made as necessary to achieve its goals.
In summary, the ASPCA recognizes that sterilization is currently the best method to reduce companion animal overpopulation and therefore to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia. The most important step a humane community can take to decrease companion animal overpopulation is to make a safe, effective, voluntary spay/neuter program available and readily accessible to the community, and create programs and incentives targeted to the populations known to be contributing disproportionately to shelter intake and euthanasia.

https://spayneuterjackson.tumblr.com/post/184560713967/here-is-a-map-of-the-counties-that-have