Full Version: Under the knife
The California legislature is currently considering a bill(AB1634) that would mandate the spaying/neutering of people's dogs and cats. Here's an article about it. There is an exemption for breeders from what I understand, but I still question whether or not this law is a good idea. I'm really torn by this concept.
Anyone who has spent much time here knows I really love animals, especially dogs, cats and eagles. I could never work at an animal control center because I'd want to adopt them all and bring them home. The thought of how many of them are put to death simply because nobody wants them is horrible to me. They didn't do anything wrong and they're good dogs and cats. They just need a home and someone to love. But, when nobody shows up for them, they die. We kill them and the intent of this bill is to stop, or minimize that from happening. So, it sounds like a good idea. BUT.......
There's always a BUT isn't there? Breeders only breed pure-bred dogs. Those are the ones in dog shows and the most valuable (and I assume the same is true for cats, but I don't know so much about them). I don't have anything against pure-bred dogs, I have three of them myself, all rescue dogs in one way or the other(and all spayed.neutered), but generally speaking the "best" dogs are the so-called "mutts". They have a much wider gene pool and don't suffer from some of the medical afflications that pure breeds do. So, is limiting the reproduction of dogs to only pure bred species really such a good idea? That is really the effect of this bill should it become law. So, it seems like a bad idea.
Good intentions, bad effects. Help me out here folks.......
Is this legislation to mandate spaying/neutering of dogs and cats a good idea? Why or why not?
Aquilla
Anyone who has spent much time here knows I really love animals, especially dogs, cats and eagles. I could never work at an animal control center because I'd want to adopt them all and bring them home. The thought of how many of them are put to death simply because nobody wants them is horrible to me. They didn't do anything wrong and they're good dogs and cats. They just need a home and someone to love. But, when nobody shows up for them, they die. We kill them and the intent of this bill is to stop, or minimize that from happening. So, it sounds like a good idea. BUT.......
There's always a BUT isn't there? Breeders only breed pure-bred dogs. Those are the ones in dog shows and the most valuable (and I assume the same is true for cats, but I don't know so much about them). I don't have anything against pure-bred dogs, I have three of them myself, all rescue dogs in one way or the other(and all spayed.neutered), but generally speaking the "best" dogs are the so-called "mutts". They have a much wider gene pool and don't suffer from some of the medical afflications that pure breeds do. So, is limiting the reproduction of dogs to only pure bred species really such a good idea? That is really the effect of this bill should it become law. So, it seems like a bad idea.
Good intentions, bad effects. Help me out here folks.......
Is this legislation to mandate spaying/neutering of dogs and cats a good idea? Why or why not?
Aquilla
I don't think that spaying/neutering a pet should be mandatory.
Why should procreation of animals become proprietary? It seems to me that it gives those who breed pets for a living a monopoly.
In addition, should people actually be penalized if their Siamese cat slips out of the house while she happens to be in heat and then has kittens? I can see the idea of fining and/or jailing people who habitually neglect their animals (and certainly if they mistreat them!), but there's got to be some room for "whoopsies," especially in households where children might inadvertently let an animal out.
Aren't our lives regulated enough already?
Why should procreation of animals become proprietary? It seems to me that it gives those who breed pets for a living a monopoly.
In addition, should people actually be penalized if their Siamese cat slips out of the house while she happens to be in heat and then has kittens? I can see the idea of fining and/or jailing people who habitually neglect their animals (and certainly if they mistreat them!), but there's got to be some room for "whoopsies," especially in households where children might inadvertently let an animal out.
Aren't our lives regulated enough already?
Is this legislation to mandate spaying/neutering of dogs and cats a good idea? Why or why not?
With the AKC and other reputable dog breeding organizations opposing the legislation, California should probably rewrite the legislation more carefully.
Here's 1 article that talks about the threat that this legislation could pose towards rare species of cats and dogs. If an owner of a rare breed of dog or cat could not obtain a breeding license, that particular breed could go extinct in the foreseeble future.
http://saveourdogs.net/registries.html
Nonetheless, California does have a problem with pet overpopulation and out-of-state puppy mills raising animals in squalor conditions and then smuggling the puppies and kittens to California for a quick profit. The legislature has to do something about the problem.
With the AKC and other reputable dog breeding organizations opposing the legislation, California should probably rewrite the legislation more carefully.
Here's 1 article that talks about the threat that this legislation could pose towards rare species of cats and dogs. If an owner of a rare breed of dog or cat could not obtain a breeding license, that particular breed could go extinct in the foreseeble future.
http://saveourdogs.net/registries.html
Nonetheless, California does have a problem with pet overpopulation and out-of-state puppy mills raising animals in squalor conditions and then smuggling the puppies and kittens to California for a quick profit. The legislature has to do something about the problem.
Is this legislation to mandate spaying/neutering of dogs and cats a good idea? Why or why not?
I think this legislation is well-intended, as too many dogs and cats die every year in California shelters. As with every bit of legislation, it has flaws. I do believe that those who intend to keep their pets intact should pay for the “privilege”. There is no reason to have an intact animal if you are not a breeder. And if you are a breeder, then you should have a breeder’s license. I believe irresponsible owners with intact animals are one of the main reason there are so many unwanted puppies and kittens born every year. People anthropomorphize their sexuality onto their animals, with disastrous consequences for the resulting offspring. Spaying and neutering is the responsible thing to do, but as we all know, not all people are responsible. And I'm not sure we can legislate responsibility.
The problem with this law is in the execution. How are they going to enforce it? LA doesn’t have “animal cops” like Houston or NYC. Why not funnel the money into providing spay/neuter sponsorships, like Tacoma did, or education programs? Or, heck, some animal cops of our own? Why not channel some of that energy into shutting down the pet stores that still sell animals (a HUGE market for the unscrupulous puppy mills)? Why not force the AKC to regulate their breeders more effectively? Why not regulate veterinarian fees (which have skyrocketed in recent years)? Only responsible breeders will apply for the licenses; the Joe Schmoe backyard breeder won’t bother. And the law may actually increase the unwanted animals in the shelter, as people will be unwilling to acknowledge ownership of an intact animal that has been caught. I find this particularly distressing for the fate of cats, who already have the image as a “disposable” animal in so many peoples’ minds.
Yes! This is precisely the behavior that needs to stop. When you have an intact animal, you are responsible for what happens to it. If the animal is spayed/neutered and gets out, then the only worry is getting the animal home safe and sound. (Honestly, though, I don’t see too many animal cops in our future prowling the neighborhood looking for illicit doggie and kitty nooky.
)
I think this legislation is well-intended, as too many dogs and cats die every year in California shelters. As with every bit of legislation, it has flaws. I do believe that those who intend to keep their pets intact should pay for the “privilege”. There is no reason to have an intact animal if you are not a breeder. And if you are a breeder, then you should have a breeder’s license. I believe irresponsible owners with intact animals are one of the main reason there are so many unwanted puppies and kittens born every year. People anthropomorphize their sexuality onto their animals, with disastrous consequences for the resulting offspring. Spaying and neutering is the responsible thing to do, but as we all know, not all people are responsible. And I'm not sure we can legislate responsibility.
QUOTE
In fact, these laws have produced mixed results in some municipalities. Sometimes after the passage of these laws, there has been a slowing of the decline or even increases in animals taken in by shelters and euthanasia rates The cost of administering and enforcing laws in some locales has been prohibitive. Breeder licensing laws, for example, can be expensive to administer because they often require the local government to evaluate the suitability of the breeder’s facility and the animal for breeding, track all sales of litters, and assure compliance with the permitting requirements. In some areas the laws have resulted in decreased licensing compliance, further reducing revenues. With fewer people licensing animals or obtaining mandated breeding permits, it is not clear the laws are having much effect on backyard breeders or puppy mills. If a person has no qualms about running a backyard breeding operation or puppy mill, it is difficult to imagine they would bother to comply with the regulations necessary to maintain a breeder’s permit.
An example of a successful model is the ordinance in Tacoma, WA. The Tacoma ordinance requires mandatory spay/neuter of animals impounded for the second time in a 12 month period. Sec. 17.010.110. No animal can be released for adoption unless it has been spayed/neutered. Sec. 17.010.120. There is also an increased licensing fee for unaltered animals. Sec. 17.05.040. There is a municipal spay-neuter fund. Local animal rescue groups also provide funding for spay/neuter. Owners can use their vet at their own expense for the spay/neuter, with the shelter making the appointment and transporting the animal to the clinic. If the owner is low-income qualified, the shelter will transport the animal to a participating vet and will pay the cost for the spay/neuter from the municipal fund. At last count between 80 and 100 sterilization vouchers are provided each month to low-income residents. Another program provides a voucher for a free spay for female cats when an owner brings in a litter of kittens. Best Friends
An example of a successful model is the ordinance in Tacoma, WA. The Tacoma ordinance requires mandatory spay/neuter of animals impounded for the second time in a 12 month period. Sec. 17.010.110. No animal can be released for adoption unless it has been spayed/neutered. Sec. 17.010.120. There is also an increased licensing fee for unaltered animals. Sec. 17.05.040. There is a municipal spay-neuter fund. Local animal rescue groups also provide funding for spay/neuter. Owners can use their vet at their own expense for the spay/neuter, with the shelter making the appointment and transporting the animal to the clinic. If the owner is low-income qualified, the shelter will transport the animal to a participating vet and will pay the cost for the spay/neuter from the municipal fund. At last count between 80 and 100 sterilization vouchers are provided each month to low-income residents. Another program provides a voucher for a free spay for female cats when an owner brings in a litter of kittens. Best Friends
The problem with this law is in the execution. How are they going to enforce it? LA doesn’t have “animal cops” like Houston or NYC. Why not funnel the money into providing spay/neuter sponsorships, like Tacoma did, or education programs? Or, heck, some animal cops of our own? Why not channel some of that energy into shutting down the pet stores that still sell animals (a HUGE market for the unscrupulous puppy mills)? Why not force the AKC to regulate their breeders more effectively? Why not regulate veterinarian fees (which have skyrocketed in recent years)? Only responsible breeders will apply for the licenses; the Joe Schmoe backyard breeder won’t bother. And the law may actually increase the unwanted animals in the shelter, as people will be unwilling to acknowledge ownership of an intact animal that has been caught. I find this particularly distressing for the fate of cats, who already have the image as a “disposable” animal in so many peoples’ minds.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
In addition, should people actually be penalized if their Siamese cat slips out of the house while she happens to be in heat and then has kittens?
Yes! This is precisely the behavior that needs to stop. When you have an intact animal, you are responsible for what happens to it. If the animal is spayed/neutered and gets out, then the only worry is getting the animal home safe and sound. (Honestly, though, I don’t see too many animal cops in our future prowling the neighborhood looking for illicit doggie and kitty nooky.
)
I think you are right to have reservations about this bill, Aquilla. I don't like such all-encompassing legislation, and I've been burned by it myself in the past. A direct, though different, example: There was a law passed in Texas that required every animal who attacked a person to be held in quarantine for ten days at the owner's expense. Upon the second attack, the animal was to be euthanized. Sounds simple and fair...who could argue that a dog which attacks people shouldn't be quarantined, right? One morning, my dog woke me at six AM because he wanted to go out to urinate. He woke me in the usual way, by lifting his paw and patting me. Unfortunately, one fateful morning my face was pointed off of the bed, and I woke up just in time for my eyeball to meet his lifted paw nail. The dog was 90 pounds, so the nail and paw were large. it scratched my eye and I went to the hospital to make sure it wasn't damaged. To make a long story short, I should have said I grazed my eye on a rosebush, because animal control gave me a phone call and I was obligated to have my own dog quarantined for a week and a half at my expense, and my dog was placed on a list to be terminated for any further offense. Seriously. Wish I were kidding. These types of laws can go wrong.
In this case, I know of dogs that were spayed and damaged irreparably from the operation. This is major surgery for some dogs, particularly the smaller ones. My mother had a yorkie she had spayed and it became incontinent and had other related other chronic problems until she had to be euthanized. It was awful, and my mother would never spay another yorkie because there was no need. The yorkie was never out of her sight.
In this case, I know of dogs that were spayed and damaged irreparably from the operation. This is major surgery for some dogs, particularly the smaller ones. My mother had a yorkie she had spayed and it became incontinent and had other related other chronic problems until she had to be euthanized. It was awful, and my mother would never spay another yorkie because there was no need. The yorkie was never out of her sight.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
In this case, I know of dogs that were spayed and damaged irreparably from the operation. This is major surgery for some dogs, particularly the smaller ones. My mother had a yorkie she had spayed and it became incontinent and had other related other chronic problems until she had to be euthanized. It was awful, and my mother would never spay another yorkie because there was no need. The yorkie was never out of her sight.
I’d be willing to bet the risk of complications from spay/neuter surgery is very, very small. Any surgery carries an element of risk, however small; factors like the quality of the surgeon, the overall health of the animal, etc. But the risks of NOT spaying/neutering are far greater (uterine and mammary cancer for females, testicular and prostate cancer in males, behavioral issues, shorter life). None of the animals I’ve had spayed or neutered have had any complications, from the smallest kitten to the largest dog. Teeny tiny toy dogs, like the Yorkie, have many breed-related health issues and it isn't fair to condemn a consistently safe practice because of one bad experience that may have had other factors leading to the complications.
I don't feel that pointing out the dangers of spay/neuter to small breeds is necessarily condmening the practice. I think it is important to realize that for the smallest breeds, it is a completely unnecessary risk. Owners of animals this small would not be likely to subject their animal to conditions where unplanned breeding would be likely, as the pregnancy is also a pretty big risk to the animal.
I have no argument that it is a good, sound practice to spay and neuter pets, however I cannot get behind this being mandatory. I have three large male dogs, and two are neutered, however Sweety is my main guard dog, and is the family protector. Nothing on Earth could move me to have him neutered, as it just takes a little too much edge off a male. I also wish I hadn't been so quick to neuter Santana, as I would love to breed him, as he is such a wonderful dog that it's a shame he is the end of a line. Out other big dog, Gunnar, was neutered too young as a pup, by the ASPCA, which is their practice. They actually neuter before the testicles drop, which can be detrimental to the dog's spirit. Gunnar is a big fraidy-cat, and we blame the premature neuter for that.
Most of my cats are not neutered. I have a very hard time keeping up the population as it is. Life on the farm is hard on cats; there are numerous deaths awaiting them at every turn. I have never had more than 12, as much as I try. Right now I have only 7, and one male is missing. I would have liked to have neutered him, as it is his sex drive that endangers him so much, but he keeps fathering the best kittens you could ever have.
Spaying and neutering are hard choices sometimes, and for a state to govern their practice is beyond ridiculous. If government involvement is required, I would rather see it at a much more local level, such as within city limits, etc.
I have no argument that it is a good, sound practice to spay and neuter pets, however I cannot get behind this being mandatory. I have three large male dogs, and two are neutered, however Sweety is my main guard dog, and is the family protector. Nothing on Earth could move me to have him neutered, as it just takes a little too much edge off a male. I also wish I hadn't been so quick to neuter Santana, as I would love to breed him, as he is such a wonderful dog that it's a shame he is the end of a line. Out other big dog, Gunnar, was neutered too young as a pup, by the ASPCA, which is their practice. They actually neuter before the testicles drop, which can be detrimental to the dog's spirit. Gunnar is a big fraidy-cat, and we blame the premature neuter for that.
Most of my cats are not neutered. I have a very hard time keeping up the population as it is. Life on the farm is hard on cats; there are numerous deaths awaiting them at every turn. I have never had more than 12, as much as I try. Right now I have only 7, and one male is missing. I would have liked to have neutered him, as it is his sex drive that endangers him so much, but he keeps fathering the best kittens you could ever have.
Spaying and neutering are hard choices sometimes, and for a state to govern their practice is beyond ridiculous. If government involvement is required, I would rather see it at a much more local level, such as within city limits, etc.
QUOTE(fbwc)
Out other big dog, Gunnar, was neutered too young as a pup, by the ASPCA, which is their practice. They actually neuter before the testicles drop, which can be detrimental to the dog's spirit. Gunnar is a big fraidy-cat, and we blame the premature neuter for that.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe it wasn't the neutering, but how he got to the shelter in the first place? Like, maybe he was tossed out a car window/dumped by the side of the road/thrown in a dumpster (insert your own scenario here) by someone who had intact pets and had to get rid of those unwanted pups somehow? Maybe the dog's personality just isn't aggressive? Maybe your unneutered male intimidates him? There are myriad reasons he is a "scaredy cat", and I doubt neutering is at fault. I have a female spayed Chow, and she's as protective a dog as I'd ever want.
A barn cat's life is short and hard. Cats aren't wild animals, even though they are assumed to be.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 25 2007, 02:52 PM) 
QUOTE(fbwc)
Out other big dog, Gunnar, was neutered too young as a pup, by the ASPCA, which is their practice. They actually neuter before the testicles drop, which can be detrimental to the dog's spirit. Gunnar is a big fraidy-cat, and we blame the premature neuter for that.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe it wasn't the neutering, but how he got to the shelter in the first place? Like, maybe he was tossed out a car window/dumped by the side of the road/thrown in a dumpster (insert your own scenario here) by someone who had intact pets and had to get rid of those unwanted pups somehow? Maybe the dog's personality just isn't aggressive? Maybe your unneutered male intimidates him? There are myriad reasons he is a "scaredy cat", and I doubt neutering is at fault. I have a female spayed Chow, and she's as protective a dog as I'd ever want.
A barn cat's life is short and hard. Cats aren't wild animals, even though they are assumed to be.
Gunnar shares a space with two males, one neutered and one not. They both defer to him, as he is alpha dog in the pack, (not including me.) He has no problem asserting himself with the other dogs, but he is afraid of stairs, getting into cars, and was frightened of a wooden pole with a piece of plastic over it in our cornfield. While there is always a possibility of him being abused very young, (he was very young when the ASPCA got him and his brother,) there is plenty of reason to believe that neutering before testes drop can break a dog's spirit. My vet strongly believes a dog should be a bit older before being neutered, and I agree. I neutered Santana at about six months, and he has a lot more spirit.
QUOTE(fbwc @ Jun 25 2007, 12:08 PM)
Gunnar shares a space with two males, one neutered and one not. They both defer to him, as he is alpha dog in the pack, (not including me.) He has no problem asserting himself with the other dogs, but he is afraid of stairs, getting into cars, and was frightened of a wooden pole with a piece of plastic over it in our cornfield. While there is always a possibility of him being abused very young, (he was very young when the ASPCA got him and his brother,) there is plenty of reason to believe that neutering before testes drop can break a dog's spirit. My vet strongly believes a dog should be a bit older before being neutered, and I agree. I neutered Santana at about six months, and he has a lot more spirit.
Please provide a link with proof that neutering an animal too young can "break their spirit". I believe it's a fallacy. The HSUS, the AVMA and the CVMA all advocate early spay/neuter and the only effects they list are beneficial, not detrimental.
QUOTE(fbwc @ Jun 25 2007, 12:08 PM)
Gunnar shares a space with two males, one neutered and one not. They both defer to him, as he is alpha dog in the pack, (not including me.) He has no problem asserting himself with the other dogs, but he is afraid of stairs, getting into cars, and was frightened of a wooden pole with a piece of plastic over it in our cornfield. While there is always a possibility of him being abused very young, (he was very young when the ASPCA got him and his brother,) there is plenty of reason to believe that neutering before testes drop can break a dog's spirit. My vet strongly believes a dog should be a bit older before being neutered, and I agree. I neutered Santana at about six months, and he has a lot more spirit.
I would certainly agree with your vet on the idea of waiting a little longer before having a dog "fixed", certainly in the case of a male. What I've noticed with my male dogs over the years and they've ranged from a small dog (7 pound Pekingese) up to a huge Golden Retriever that topped the scale at around 125 is that neutering took the edge off their aggression towards other male dogs. But, it really didn't seem to effect them much when it came to responding to a human "threat". With a female I've always been told it's best to wait until they are right at the edge of sexual maturity and about to go into their first heat. That might perhaps lessen the chance for the kind of tragic circumstance Mrs P related to us about her mother's Yorkie. Spaying is indeed major surgery especially to a smaller breed of dog. One of the things about those little ones is that when something goes wrong with them, it goes wrong in a real hurry and by the time you see there is something wrong, it might be too late to do anything about it. When I had my little Pug, Abigail Adams, spayed I was a wreck for two days checking her and making sure she was okay. Even had the emergency vet on speed dial.
But, it was something we needed to do. Abby is a "perfect" Pug, all the markings and the double curled tail, personality out the wazoo, smartest dog I've ever known and she would have kicked butt in any dog show. We briefly thought about showing her and breeding her, but when I read up on breeding Pugs on the Internet, NO WAY! Pugs have a pretty high mortality rate giving birth, even if a C-Secton kind of thing is involved, and there is no way on God's earth I would put Abby at risk like that. I'll take my Abby over 10 Pug puppies worth about 2 grand a piece. So, she's got the AKC papers, all dressed up and no party to go to. And that, (finally) brings us back to where I was kinda of going in this thread......I don't have any links handy for this, but the fact of the matter is that multi-breed dogs, so-called "mutts" are generally healthier and "better" dogs. Makes sense. They have a larger gene pool, survival of the fittest and all that. Under this proposed California legislation should it become nationwide. the "Heinz 57" would eventually die oiut. Nobody breeds them because they aren't worth that much, except to the people who love them for what they are. They can't compete in AKC dog shows and nobody knows where they came from, but they are GOOD DOGS! They are darn good dogs. So here is my quandry. On one hand, we have too many stray dogs and cats running around looking for a home and killing them is a cruel thing to do. On the other hand, do we want to eliminate them entirely by only allowing breeders to breed pure-bred animals?
Aquilla
We had a wonderful Australian shepherd/smooth collie-mixed pet named Bitsy whom we loved dearly. She was a "freebie" who was with her brothers and sisters in an old car parked on the outside of a K-mart parking lot. Kids were running around advertising the fact that they were giving away puppies. This wonderful young dog placed her paw in my hand as if to say "I choose you." My heart melted.
We decided to have her spayed to pay less money for her license and because we did not want her having puppies, although they would have been wonderful. I remember the pain Bitsy went through post surgery and the particularly ugly scar she had. Not all veterinarians are skillful at this.
Since Bitsy we have had other dogs and a cat. All of our animals have been spayed or neutered (except the bird!).
I am in favor of not having unwanted animals neglected, or abused, or left to die somewhere.
But to say that all animals have to be that way except for those owned by people who breed them for a business seems excessive, and again, I resent the idea that only animal breeders should have the privilege and can set their prices accordingly. The best pets I have ever had have always been free.
Just how much do we have to regulate these days?
Yeah, I know of houses that are filled with stray cats and people who are irresponsible about owning and caring for pets. But why penalize people who aren't negligent or abusive?
(Edit: fixed misspelled word: "Australian")
We decided to have her spayed to pay less money for her license and because we did not want her having puppies, although they would have been wonderful. I remember the pain Bitsy went through post surgery and the particularly ugly scar she had. Not all veterinarians are skillful at this.
Since Bitsy we have had other dogs and a cat. All of our animals have been spayed or neutered (except the bird!).
I am in favor of not having unwanted animals neglected, or abused, or left to die somewhere.
But to say that all animals have to be that way except for those owned by people who breed them for a business seems excessive, and again, I resent the idea that only animal breeders should have the privilege and can set their prices accordingly. The best pets I have ever had have always been free.
Just how much do we have to regulate these days?
Yeah, I know of houses that are filled with stray cats and people who are irresponsible about owning and caring for pets. But why penalize people who aren't negligent or abusive?
(Edit: fixed misspelled word: "Australian")
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 25 2007, 01:44 PM)
Yeah, I know of houses that are filled with stray cats and people who are irresponsible about owning and caring for pets.
Perhaps we might consider the idea of spaying/neutering them. I could get behind an idea like that!
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla)
I don't have any links handy for this, but the fact of the matter is that multi-breed dogs, so-called "mutts" are generally healthier and "better" dogs. Makes sense. They have a larger gene pool, survival of the fittest and all that. Under this proposed California legislation should it become nationwide. the "Heinz 57" would eventually die oiut. Nobody breeds them because they aren't worth that much, except to the people who love them for what they are. They can't compete in AKC dog shows and nobody knows where they came from, but they are GOOD DOGS! They are darn good dogs. So here is my quandry. On one hand, we have too many stray dogs and cats running around looking for a home and killing them is a cruel thing to do. On the other hand, do we want to eliminate them entirely by only allowing breeders to breed pure-bred animals?
I really don't think we're in any danger of "mutts" dying out. Just look at some of the latest trends. I find it hysterical that what were once mixed-breed "mutts" are now considered fashionable dogs (e.g. Labradoodle, Goldendoodle and all the other doodles, Cockapoo, Puggle, etc.). I don't think it's even possible to catch every single dog owner with an intact animal. There will always be mixed breed dogs as long as dogs keep being dogs. And all dogs are good dogs, regardless of their breeding or lack of it and sometimes in spite of humans.
The law has little chance of success, IMO. Like Aquilla said, good intentions, bad execution. I would like to see more support for TNR programs for feral cats, low-cost spay/neuter clinics and mobile clinics to make it easier and more convenient for pet owners and more education for pet owners. It never ceases to amaze me the misconceptions people have about pets.
QUOTE
"The goal of reducing the number of animals in shelters and euthanasia rates is critical," wrote Laura Allen, attorney for the Best Friends Animal Society and head of its Animal Law Coalition. "But to suggest numbers of animals in shelters and euthanasia rates will decline if there is a ban on breeding is a little like saying we could find homes for all the unwanted children if people stopped giving birth to their own children." Best Friends via rgj
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 25 2007, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 25 2007, 01:44 PM)
Yeah, I know of houses that are filled with stray cats and people who are irresponsible about owning and caring for pets.
Perhaps we might consider the idea of spaying/neutering them. I could get behind an idea like that!
Aquilla
When these houses are reported, the animals are "taken care of." I suppose I should have said, I knew of houses filled with stray cats, because the last cat lady I knew of was my husband's ex-wife.
In the county we're currently living in, I don't know of anyone like that--haven't lived here that long.
Animal hoarding is a completely different animal (pardon the pun). It is a mental illness. The animals pulled from hoarders' homes are generally sick, underfed and undersocialized. I know in the case of cats, the authorities tend to euthanize them right away. For some reason, they'll move heaven and earth to care for dogs discovered in the same situation. I saw one case where the dog had a deformed head and back legs and still they worked to save him. There was a woman here in Long Beach who ran a supposed rescue organization, but she was essentially a hoarder. Her dogs were even given a euthanasia reprieve by the city shelter that took them in. As far as I know, there are still a bunch of Noah's Ark dogs available for adoption through various agencies.
Cats always get the short end.
Cats always get the short end.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 25 2007, 03:39 PM)
Please provide a link with proof that neutering an animal too young can "break their spirit". I believe it's a fallacy. The HSUS, the AVMA and the CVMA all advocate early spay/neuter and the only effects they list are beneficial, not detrimental.
No, I can't provide a link. It's what my wife and I believe, due to experience, and what our vet believes. Hey, we could be wrong! (I've been wrong before)
There's a lot of things animal organizations believe and advocate that I think are not so necessarily true.
I agree with Aquilla that there are some really fine mutts out there, and I'm not talking about this silly "designer breed" trend.
Gunnar is part German Shephard, and part Rottweiler
Santana is part White German Shephard, and part Cattle Dog (and probably part something else!)
Sweetie is part Great Dane, and part Pitbull (whose idea was THAT?)
As for the little dogs, we have a Malti-Poo, a purebred Toy Poodle, and a microscopic Teacup Maltese who is more than a fashion accessory to us.
To get back to the topic at hand, for the most part I agree on spay/neutering.
I totally disagree with state or federal regulation, though.
It seems to me that it might be better to have a very strong low-cost (or free) spay and neuter service offered by local authorities, than attempt to enforce criminal penalties against those who will not offer this kindness to their animal companions. Perhaps I am not cynical enough about human nature, but my experience has been very few people who live with animals want them to suffer. People being what they are, they usually fail to sterilize their pets because it's "too expensive," or they're "too busy," or some other form of simple carelessness. Let's make it cheap and easy.
A useful analogy might be drawn with the laws dealing with children. Parents and guardians have a great deal of leeway as to how they may raise their dependents. The law enters when there is actual neglect or abuse. If someone takes care of the offspring of their pets, let them be. If they fail to do so, let the law step in.
A useful analogy might be drawn with the laws dealing with children. Parents and guardians have a great deal of leeway as to how they may raise their dependents. The law enters when there is actual neglect or abuse. If someone takes care of the offspring of their pets, let them be. If they fail to do so, let the law step in.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 25 2007, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 25 2007, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 25 2007, 01:44 PM)
Yeah, I know of houses that are filled with stray cats and people who are irresponsible about owning and caring for pets.
Perhaps we might consider the idea of spaying/neutering them. I could get behind an idea like that!
Aquilla
When these houses are reported, the animals are "taken care of." I suppose I should have said, I knew of houses filled with stray cats, because the last cat lady I knew of was my husband's ex-wife.
In the county we're currently living in, I don't know of anyone like that--haven't lived here that long.
Actually, I was suggesting that we spary/neuter the humans involved in this sort of thing. That would certainly stregthen the gene pool.
Aquilla
LOL, I am totally on the same page with you, Aquilla! 
This sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Why deny a right to someone who has not shown that s/he is irresponsible or in violation of the laws?
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
A useful analogy might be drawn with the laws dealing with children. Parents and guardians have a great deal of leeway as to how they may raise their dependents. The law enters when there is actual neglect or abuse. If someone takes care of the offspring of their pets, let them be. If they fail to do so, let the law step in.
This sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Why deny a right to someone who has not shown that s/he is irresponsible or in violation of the laws?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 26 2007, 07:53 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 25 2007, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 25 2007, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 25 2007, 01:44 PM)
Yeah, I know of houses that are filled with stray cats and people who are irresponsible about owning and caring for pets.
Perhaps we might consider the idea of spaying/neutering them. I could get behind an idea like that!
Aquilla
When these houses are reported, the animals are "taken care of." I suppose I should have said, I knew of houses filled with stray cats, because the last cat lady I knew of was my husband's ex-wife.
In the county we're currently living in, I don't know of anyone like that--haven't lived here that long.
Actually, I was suggesting that we spary/neuter the humans involved in this sort of thing. That would certainly stregthen the gene pool.
Aquilla
Now that's good, clear thinking.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
Actually, I was suggesting that we spary/neuter the humans involved in this sort of thing. That would certainly stregthen the gene pool.
On a pet-related forum I frequent, there's a guy whose signature line is "Sometimes I think we're spaying and neutering the wrong species." Can I get an amen? 
I would think that demographics would indicate if there is a problem in a particular area. In rural areas, for example, I would not think it to be a problem. Because the problem may have a geographic dimension to it, legislation should be restricted to a given city which is having a problem with it. That being said, I am not entirely convinced it is necessary in most areas of the country.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 26 2007, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla)
Actually, I was suggesting that we spary/neuter the humans involved in this sort of thing. That would certainly stregthen the gene pool.
On a pet-related forum I frequent, there's a guy whose signature line is "Sometimes I think we're spaying and neutering the wrong species." Can I get an amen? You get a big amen from me, sister. And I doubt it will be the last.
QUOTE(metropolitical @ Jun 26 2007, 11:45 PM)
I would think that demographics would indicate if there is a problem in a particular area. In rural areas, for example, I would not think it to be a problem. Because the problem may have a geographic dimension to it, legislation should be restricted to a given city which is having a problem with it. That being said, I am not entirely convinced it is necessary in most areas of the country.
I agree with this. For example, city folk can just go right ahead and live by those spay/neuter rules. Pets in cities don't need to populate so much. They are usually limited in space, and have to be more carefully controlled. In some city areas, there is a limit on how many pets you can have.
That would pose a problem for us here, considering we have
Six dogs
Seven cats
Nine Rabbits
Two turkeys
Thirty seven Chickens
Now some of you consider chickens livestock, but my chickens all have names, and they come when called.
I know you think I'm just making that up, but I'm not.
And I'd like to have quite a few more cats.
Stupid moles and mice get out of hand.
QUOTE(fbwc)
I agree with this. For example, city folk can just go right ahead and live by those spay/neuter rules. Pets in cities don't need to populate so much. They are usually limited in space, and have to be more carefully controlled. In some city areas, there is a limit on how many pets you can have.
I disagree. Rural areas need to spay and neuter their animals as well as those in urban/suburban areas. Where do you think unaltered animals get dumped when they are no longer wanted? What do you think that farmer’s dog is going to do when a female dog in heat is running loose (or vice versa)? Just because city dwellers dump their unwanted animals in industrial parks that are generally deserted on weekends doesn’t mean the same problem doesn’t exist in rural areas.
QUOTE
The Tulsa city shelter kills over 12,000 unwanted pets every year. They don't want to, but they have to- what else can they do? Consider that other shelters in the metro area, some fifty or more rescue groups and some seventy veterinary clinics in the area put many more to death. Factor in the uncounted animals who die abandoned in rural areas and along roads, as well as those victims of mistreatment, cruelty and neglect, and the number of animals who die at the hands of Tulsans easily exceeds twenty thousand every year. But it doesn't end there. Conservative estimates place the number of feral and free-roaming cats in this country to be equal to the number of house cats- seventy million. Most of these cats are abandoned or allowed to roam by people, and very few are spayed or neutered. Since males die at a higher rate than females, there are more than 35 million reproducing free-roaming cats in the US. What do you suppose happens to the 180 million or more kittens that these cats produce every year? Dr. Connie
QUOTE
Of the 50,000 dogs and cats that end up in animal shelters and pounds in Albuquerque and the surrounding areas, about 25,000 are euthanized every year. And these figures do not include the countless animals that wander homeless on the streets and on the countryside. Pet Rescue
In its position justifying spay/neuter, Missouri’s SNAP program says this:
QUOTE
In 2002, our community's shelters euthanized more than 9,800 dogs and cats. In 2003 and 2004, more than 8,400 were euthanized each year. In 2005, nearly 6,400 were euthanized. These statistics do not include feral cats or strays killed by cars, starvation, disease, wild animals, and farmers protecting livestock.
<snip>
If you live in a rural area, you are less likely to have animals dumped on your property to chase your livestock. SNAP
<snip>
If you live in a rural area, you are less likely to have animals dumped on your property to chase your livestock. SNAP
Even on Native American reservations (and it doesn't get much more rural than that), there has been initial resistance to spaying and neutering. And who suffers? The animals. But that is changing thanks to people who really care about the welfare of animals and work to educate people.
QUOTE
Many people have preconceived notions about the relationship between Native Americans and animals. The concept that their fundamental culture is one of an elevated respect for and symbiotic existence with animals seems in sharp contrast to what many visitors to reservations find: large numbers of cats and dogs who seemingly roam free and uncared for. David Ortiz is a writer and anthropologist based in Flagstaff, Arizona. His work has taken him to the heart of the Navajo population - a patriarchal culture where elders still pass down traditions and customs, and shape the attitudes of younger generations.
"Many older people on reservation lands were brought up with the idea that animals are a resource," says Ortiz. "Dogs guard the hogan or house and herd sheep and goats. A cat's job is to kill mice and other smaller animals. When animal welfare people show up and start talking about altering the animals to control the population, they just can't relate to it. They feel in part that dogs and cats need to reproduce to provide food for coyotes and other predators. They're part of the cycle of life." Best Friends
"Many older people on reservation lands were brought up with the idea that animals are a resource," says Ortiz. "Dogs guard the hogan or house and herd sheep and goats. A cat's job is to kill mice and other smaller animals. When animal welfare people show up and start talking about altering the animals to control the population, they just can't relate to it. They feel in part that dogs and cats need to reproduce to provide food for coyotes and other predators. They're part of the cycle of life." Best Friends
QUOTE
R.U.F.F. is a not-for-profit coalition of teachers, students, volunteers, and pets... (as distinguished from animals), organized for establishing homes for the Reservations Unwanted Four-footed Friends. ( R.U.F.F.). Reservations Unwanted Four-footed Friends
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 27 2007, 12:24 PM)
QUOTE(fbwc)
I agree with this. For example, city folk can just go right ahead and live by those spay/neuter rules. Pets in cities don't need to populate so much. They are usually limited in space, and have to be more carefully controlled. In some city areas, there is a limit on how many pets you can have.
I disagree. Rural areas need to spay and neuter their animals as well as those in urban/suburban areas. Where do you think unaltered animals get dumped when they are no longer wanted? What do you think that farmer’s dog is going to do when a female dog in heat is running loose (or vice versa)? Just because city dwellers dump their unwanted animals in industrial parks that are generally deserted on weekends doesn’t mean the same problem doesn’t exist in rural areas.
Rural people have a different relationship with their animals than city people. My animals are pets, but they also have jobs. How am I supposed to keep up my cat population if everyone is neutered? The fact that uncaring people dump their animals in our area is not really a fair point to what goes on out here. My animals don't run loose, and no one should let their animals run like that. That can be regulated. What can't be regulated is how many animals we have, or whether we can be forced to neuter. Most farmers, if they had a stray on their property, would either shoo it away, or shoot it. Most farmers are good enough shots that it will be a kill shot, and the animal will not suffer. That is infinitely superior to starving to death, or being caught in traps.
And no amount of links will ever convince me a neutered male would be as fierce an attack dog/watchdog as an intact male.
If you think of animals as pets, you should definitely spay and neuter. If they are members of your family or community, there becomes more of a grey area. If you can get my community to agree to spay/neuter laws, I will be very surprised.
A larger body of government, such as state or federal, simply doesn't have the right to legislate such things.
It should be city by city, community by community. Some governance is better on the local level.
QUOTE(fbwc)
Rural people have a different relationship with their animals than city people. My animals are pets, but they also have jobs. How am I supposed to keep up my cat population if everyone is neutered?
Go to the shelter and adopt them.
I see that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything I have to say. And therein lies the reason for our huge population of unwanted animals straining shelters to bursting.
Yes, of course, shoot it. After all, it's "just a dog", right?
You'll never convince ME of the humanity of that.I'm going to stop now, because this is making me angry and sad.
You get another "amen" on the neutering idea from me, Daffy, but I do think fbwc has a point about animals that live and work on farms. Mandating that those animals/pets be spayed/neutered is a really bad idea. Those dogs and especially cats really help keep the vermin population in check and that is an invaluable service for a farmer and hence for the rest of us. Ever heard of the term "mouser" used to describe a cat?
What people sometimes forget is that California isn't all sunshine, beaches and blonde bimbos driving around drunk. It's also the largest agricultural state in the country. We grow more cotton than Dixie, more corn than Iowa, more wheat than Kansas and the list continues. Forcing California farmers to spay/neuter their working dogs and cats as this legislation would do would be a bad thing for all of us. We'd have to use more pesticides that could end up in our food supply and we'd probably be less productive in the amount of food we could supply. That's not a good thing at all. Now I could support some sort of local ordinance concerning spaying/neutering of pets and my city has one, but statewide? I don't think so.
Edited to add a response to Daffy who was posting at the same time I was......
The number of unwanted dogs and cats that are killed every year makes me angry as well and there should be something done about that. Perhaps Victoria's idea makes more sense (as many of Victoria's ideas do). Earlier in this thread she wrote the following......
Perhaps that might be the direction to do with all of this, and there are groups out there doing this kind of thing. Way back when I adopted my second kitty (actually humans don't adopt cats, they adopt humans), she was a little kitty with a broken front leg. At the time I didn't think I could keep her because I already had another cat that had adopted me and he was a pretty jealous fellow. Still, I wanted to help the little kitty so I called Actors and others for Animals for some suggestions about what I could do. They sent me to a vet up in Sylmar who made me a "Don Corleone" kinda offer. If I agreed to take her in and have her spayed, he'd do all the medical work for her for free. Just send a donation to Actors and Others. So, I had her come live with me, named her "Tripoli" because of her broken leg (three pods) and she was with me for nearly 20 years.
Vet bill - $0
Donation to Actors and Others - $500
Tripoli - Priceless.
Maybe that's the best way to deal with this problem.
Aquilla
What people sometimes forget is that California isn't all sunshine, beaches and blonde bimbos driving around drunk. It's also the largest agricultural state in the country. We grow more cotton than Dixie, more corn than Iowa, more wheat than Kansas and the list continues. Forcing California farmers to spay/neuter their working dogs and cats as this legislation would do would be a bad thing for all of us. We'd have to use more pesticides that could end up in our food supply and we'd probably be less productive in the amount of food we could supply. That's not a good thing at all. Now I could support some sort of local ordinance concerning spaying/neutering of pets and my city has one, but statewide? I don't think so.
Edited to add a response to Daffy who was posting at the same time I was......
The number of unwanted dogs and cats that are killed every year makes me angry as well and there should be something done about that. Perhaps Victoria's idea makes more sense (as many of Victoria's ideas do). Earlier in this thread she wrote the following......
QUOTE
It seems to me that it might be better to have a very strong low-cost (or free) spay and neuter service offered by local authorities, than attempt to enforce criminal penalties against those who will not offer this kindness to their animal companions. Perhaps I am not cynical enough about human nature, but my experience has been very few people who live with animals want them to suffer. People being what they are, they usually fail to sterilize their pets because it's "too expensive," or they're "too busy," or some other form of simple carelessness. Let's make it cheap and easy.
Perhaps that might be the direction to do with all of this, and there are groups out there doing this kind of thing. Way back when I adopted my second kitty (actually humans don't adopt cats, they adopt humans), she was a little kitty with a broken front leg. At the time I didn't think I could keep her because I already had another cat that had adopted me and he was a pretty jealous fellow. Still, I wanted to help the little kitty so I called Actors and others for Animals for some suggestions about what I could do. They sent me to a vet up in Sylmar who made me a "Don Corleone" kinda offer. If I agreed to take her in and have her spayed, he'd do all the medical work for her for free. Just send a donation to Actors and Others. So, I had her come live with me, named her "Tripoli" because of her broken leg (three pods) and she was with me for nearly 20 years.
Vet bill - $0
Donation to Actors and Others - $500
Tripoli - Priceless.
Maybe that's the best way to deal with this problem.
Aquilla
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 27 2007, 02:57 PM)
QUOTE(fbwc)
Rural people have a different relationship with their animals than city people. My animals are pets, but they also have jobs. How am I supposed to keep up my cat population if everyone is neutered?
Go to the shelter and adopt them.
I see that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything I have to say. And therein lies the reason for our huge population of unwanted animals straining shelters to bursting.
Yes, of course, shoot it. After all, it's "just a dog", right?
You'll never convince ME of the humanity of that.I'm going to stop now, because this is making me angry and sad.
I have never contributed to our huge population of unwanted animals straining shelters to bursting, and I never will. And no, I don't shoot strays, but farmers around here do. A shelter charges somewhere in the area of $100.00 for dogs and cats. How am I supposed to keep up my cat population on my income? I don't understand why you are angry or sad. I feel like you are calling me inhumane or something. My animals are treated well; in fact, probably better than most. They have more area to run than most city animals. They all have friends to bond with, and they all get plenty of attention from humans. They are properly fed, and health needs attended to. I love my animals dearly, and consider them part of my family.
There are people who abandon animals, or abuse them. I assure you I am not one of them. I am not going to spay/neuter good animals, and stop their line, just because I am not a qualified breeder. I make good responsible decisions on who breeds and who doesn't, and I control the environment my animals live in. Just because some people are inhumane jerks doesn't mean I should be lumped in with them for having different beliefs than you.
I doubt you can make a case that shooting animals up with drugs that kill them is "more humane" than shooting them, either. When a human is killed by lethal injection, that lethal injection contains a drug that manages pain. Ask your vet if their animal lethal injection does that. You won't like the answer.
QUOTE(fbwc @ Jun 27 2007, 12:30 PM)
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 27 2007, 02:57 PM)
QUOTE(fbwc)
Rural people have a different relationship with their animals than city people. My animals are pets, but they also have jobs. How am I supposed to keep up my cat population if everyone is neutered?
Go to the shelter and adopt them.
I see that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything I have to say. And therein lies the reason for our huge population of unwanted animals straining shelters to bursting.
Yes, of course, shoot it. After all, it's "just a dog", right?
You'll never convince ME of the humanity of that.I'm going to stop now, because this is making me angry and sad.
I have never contributed to our huge population of unwanted animals straining shelters to bursting, and I never will. And no, I don't shoot strays, but farmers around here do. A shelter charges somewhere in the area of $100.00 for dogs and cats. How am I supposed to keep up my cat population on my income? I don't understand why you are angry or sad. I feel like you are calling me inhumane or something. My animals are treated well; in fact, probably better than most. They have more area to run than most city animals. They all have friends to bond with, and they all get plenty of attention from humans. They are properly fed, and health needs attended to. I love my animals dearly, and consider them part of my family.
There are people who abandon animals, or abuse them. I assure you I am not one of them. I am not going to spay/neuter good animals, and stop their line, just because I am not a qualified breeder. I make good responsible decisions on who breeds and who doesn't, and I control the environment my animals live in. Just because some people are inhumane jerks doesn't mean I should be lumped in with them for having different beliefs than you.
I doubt you can make a case that shooting animals up with drugs that kill them is "more humane" than shooting them, either. When a human is killed by lethal injection, that lethal injection contains a drug that manages pain. Ask your vet if their animal lethal injection does that. You won't like the answer.
fbwc, Daffy and I don't agree on anything when it comes to politics, but when it comes to animals..... Well, we're pretty much in lockstep most of the time. Trust me on this one, she wasn't making this personal against you, she's just angry about the situation. An anger I share, and I suspect you do as well. There is something wrong with the system when a person like yourself would have to pay $100 to adopt a pet that you can feed, house, love as a member of your family and that can also provide a service to you. That's just not right. I'd prefer the State of California to be putting their efforts into fixing the problem you referenced other than just a blanket mandate.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 27 2007, 04:03 PM)
fbwc, Daffy and I don't agree on anything when it comes to politics, but when it comes to animals..... Well, we're pretty much in lockstep most of the time. Trust me on this one, she wasn't making this personal against you, she's just angry about the situation. An anger I share, and I suspect you do as well. There is something wrong with the system when a person like yourself would have to pay $100 to adopt a pet that you can feed, house, love as a member of your family and that can also provide a service to you. That's just not right. I'd prefer the State of California to be putting their efforts into fixing the problem you referenced other than just a blanket mandate.
Aquilla
Aquilla
Well good, because I read most of her posts and feel she is someone who is on the same page as me, for the most part. I really am trying to convey my sincere love of animals, and at the same time, some of the harsh realities I have had to adjust to since the first time a coyote ate the face off one of my beloved kitties, or when I saw a couple of teenagers who took delight in trying to drive up onto the curb to hit a cat with their car. The natural world, and the world of humans can be very cruel, and my wife and I have had to deal with some nasty realities. I would not want someone to think I ever thought of a dog as "just a dog." My boys love and trust me, and with good reason. They have my life in their hands, just as I have theirs in mine. We are more than "pet and owner," we are companions, friends, family.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.