Story by Adam Friedman. Originally published May 9, 2019, updated with photos May 17:

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 a part 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 ordinance

The 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 neutered.  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 ordinance

While 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 next

The 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 it is 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.

There is only one high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter clinic west of the Tennessee River in TN. There is only one spay/neuter ordinance in Tennessee, in Memphis. Areas with clinics are making a difference in reducing the need for sheltering, rescue and euthanasia.

Jackson City Council candidates are being asked in WBBJ interviews: "What would you do to address the animal over-population problem?" This is curious because the current city council and mayor already answered this question when they voted in April to move ahead with construction of a new Animal Care Center building currently costing $1.5 million, and hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to operate. Despite efforts over the last three years to have spay/neuter be part of the discussion (attempts and arguments are documented at westtnspayneuter.org/news), the organizers and approvers of this plan did not avail themselves of public input, nor experts willing to counsel, nor did they seriously consider solutions or ideas from most area rescuers or spay/neuter groups, nor did they appear to consult any data or research. If they had, they might have learned that an expensive scaling-up of the existing Humane Society business model will be ineffective to address the flood of unwanted animals that plague Jackson and west Tennessee.

Experience shows us that we cannot rescue our way out of our pet over-population problem. Rescuing is expensive (in time, money, resources) and inefficient, while accessible and affordable spay/neuter options prevent and correct. In committing the City to be in the animal rescue business for decades to come, our leaders have missed a huge opportunity to do the preventative work that is so desperately needed here, with a business model that can operate in the black - that of low-cost spay and neuter services for area pet owners. A clinic would be an economic generator: while this facility will take in animals from Jackson residents only, a spay/neuter clinic would be a destination and resource for folks from all surrounding counties - pet owners, rescues and s/n assistance volunteers who will avail themselves of shopping, restaurants, and entertainment for the day while they wait for services.

Kennels and cages will fill up whether there are twenty, forty or two hundred. Animals will be turned away at the door to remain in over-burdened homes, un-sterilized and reproducing, or left to run loose to be a hazard, or someone else's stray (or rescue), or will end up in shelters and eventually euthanized. It is disingenuous to call a facility "no kill" when animals are living in cages for weeks and months and the larger animal welfare ecosystem is unhealthy.

During this election there have been calls for transparency, communication and fiscal accountability in our government. Here is an excellent example of what not to do. There are many questions about the plan that are not being answered:

No one has provided numbers of how many animals will be adopted from this larger facility and the per animal cost is unknown. We know that the cost of housing, feeding and vetting animal in a facility is high - my back-of-the napkin figures have each animal in this facility costing at least $300 to rescue. In contrast, providing a low-cost spay neuter option can be done in the equivalent of a storefront for $50 per pet, and these animals already have homes.

Some pets are very attractive to adopters, others are difficult to place. Will the city give area rescues the adoptable puppies and dogs or the less desirable ones that need rehabilitation? How will the city enact trap, neuter, release (TNR) projects that are so needed and necessary to control cat populations? How will they work with Animal Control to do necessary euthanasia for un-adoptable animals? The city has controlled the Animal Care Center facility for two years - Can they tell us how long will animals stay at the facility or what will be done differently to ensure that pets get adopted quickly? How will having a larger facility bring more families to adopt when our region is already saturated with strays and nothing is being done to staunch that flow of homeless animals?

The final folly of this plan is the proposed spay/neuter ordinance, which is set to be voted upon at the next city council meeting on May 7. Had the authors of this plan asked anyone working in spay/neuter they might have learned that we do not support ordinances because they are practically unenforceable, or will be enforced unevenly, penalizing those who can least afford a retail vet experience. Having talked with hundreds of pet owners, I can attest that our clients love their pets dearly and want to be responsible by fixing them. (Those who are willfully allowing their animals to breed are guilty of other offenses that are not being enforced.) The ASPCA has a detailed paper which looks at research and concludes that s/n ordinances are not effective and can have the opposite effect of causing animals to be surrendered to shelters. This is available at https://www.aspca.org/position-statement-mandatory-spayneuter-laws

So, what is the community to do about the pet over-population problem? One councilman I spoke to last year shrugged his shoulders and told me "the City spends money poorly all the time". For those who care about animals and our city's residents (and our neighbors), however, shoulder-shrugging is not an acceptable answer. I hope our electorate will hold elected officials accountable to do what is best for the financial health of the city, physical health and care of the city's companion pets, and the happiness and well-being of its citizens.

I was forwarded this letter written by a representative from PETA in support of the ordinance. In this response I have disputed her conclusion and found common ground as well.