What would it take for pet overpopulation to be conquered? It will be a great day when there are enough homes for the animals that are bred every year. But how might we as a community get there?

In California, state lawmakers are working on a bill that would make spaying and neutering of a cat or dog over four months of age mandatory. There would be exceptions for breeders, for seeing eye dogs and for service and police animals; those not qualifying for the exception would face a $500 fine if they were found to have an unfixed animal.

There are pros and cons to such a measure.

On the pro side, it would save money that’s currently devoted to housing and euthanizing unwanted animals. California officials estimate that their state and local governments spend around $250 million each year, and that doesn’t include figures for privately funded shelters. As well, fewer unwanted animals means fewer animals euthanized, a goal that most people (not just animal lovers) would like to see.

Spaying and neutering also tends to improve individual animal health.

Besides reducing the risks of reproductive system cancers, animals who are altered tend to roam less, fight less and act less aggressively. That reduction in fighting and aggression is also a benefit to public health — most notably, fewer dog bites to kids.

The problems? Many pet owners don’t want the government to tell them what they can and cannot do with their animals. A lot can be said about government control versus individual liberties that’s well beyond the scope of this column, but most city and county governments require that dogs must be licensed. We’re already requiring that responsible pet owners cede some control to the government — are we willing to give more control?

Another argument against mandatory spay/neuter: We don’t want pet ownership to become so expensive that it’s only something the middle and upper classes can afford. Any discussion on mandatory spay/neuter laws should require a parallel discussion of how we can make the surgery less expensive for lower-income families. (Let’s also remember that having to feed litters of puppies or kittens and find them all homes can be expensive.)

The California measure has been moved to the Appropriations Committee, and if passes through that committee, will go to the full state assembly. It will be interesting to see if it moves forward and how the lessons learned there can be applied to Oregon, no matter which side of the debate you’re on.

LAWSUITS FILED: About 50 class-action lawsuits have already been filed in federal courts against pet food manufacturer Menu Foods, whose products used in dozens of brands of dog and cat food were apparently contaminated with tainted wheat gluten and rice protein.

The owners filing these suits are asking to be compensated for the deaths of their pets and/or those animals’ medical expenses. Most also want to have future medical treatment and monitoring covered by the company.

One or more of these cases have the potential to change how courts have historically viewed animals — as property. When something happens to your property, you can sue for the costs you have had to bear but not, for example, for emotional distress. In this instance, pet owners have suffered from the deaths and medical problems to their companions and feel they should be able to collect damages for more than the bottom-line value of their animals. We’ll have to see how this one turns out — it will take quite some time to sort out.

GOOD NEWS: To celebrate Pet Safety and First Aid month in April, Animal Crackers Pet Supply is offering specials on first aid supplies and gear this weekend. You can still take advantage of the deals today. They are also offering a buy one, get one free special on pet identification tags — very important for all dogs and cats, even those who are primarily indoor animals.