I am totally against it, and my bitches are not spayed. My last three dogs were not neutered. So, at this point, I am the one who voted that way.
I am ok with shelters and rescues alterring dogs in their possession or requiring the people they sell their dogs to, to get them spayed or neutered. The way I figure that is, these dogs are getting an extension. For whatever reason, they landed in a pound, which is often a death penalty. If they are given a new lease on life but must be spayed/neutered to assure they are not perpetuating the problem, then it makes sense.
But I am against doing an operation on a healthy animal to remove hormones that are a part of the intricate systems of their anatomy. I do not buy that they only affect the dog's reproductive system. I believe that the risks of spay/neuter outweigh the benefits, so long as the people owning them are responsible and do not allow them to breed indescriminately.
Making laws that require dogs to be spayed or neutered or charging people more on licensing fees for having intact dogs is completely disgustingly unfair and wrong.
Cats create as much if not more of a problem than stray dogs, and no one is even asked to register them. No one has to pay extra for an intact horse or cow or pig or chicken. You can argue that dogs make up more of the shelter population, but out here, they just claim there is no more room for cats once they are full up. And though horses and cows, sheep, goats and other livestock are not siezed as often, they take a lot more space and care when they are.