Forced spay-neuter laws don’t save pet lives or taxpayer money
By Gina Spadafori
July 30, 2008
In one day, one day, the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association sliced and diced any so-called scientific or public health argument for legally forced spay-neuter laws AND the sharp-pencil folks at the California Department of Finance took out the legs out from under the “taxpayer savings” lie.
As noted previously, forced spay-neuter laws have increased shelter kill rates and municipal animal-control costs everywhere they have been tried, even as the veterinary community is questioning whether it’s even medically recommended to spay or neuter all pets.
Why do legally mandated forced spay-neuter laws increase shelter killing? Because they force animal-lovers who need financial help with spaying or neutering to give up pets instead. And because they are pet-lovers, they get more pets, not from the shelter of the animal-control agency who forced them to give up their pets (or any shelter, because now they’re all tarred with the same brush), but from the people around the corner with an “oops” litter who didn’t even license their pet, and can’t afford to spay her, no matter what the law says. Or from a relative or friend in the next county. Or from someone selling puppies illegally from the back of a car in a parking lot — puppies that in Southern California are often smuggled in from Mexico and desperately ill. Or if they have some extra money in a few months, they’ll buy from a retail puppy-mill outlet, otherwise known as a pet store. Or a puppy-mill Web site.
So instead of one pet who would have been spayed or neutered and kept in a home with some assistance, we have two pets: A dead one in the back of the animal-control facility and new one in the pet-lover’s home, and the new one still isn’t spayed or neutered.
And around it goes again.
The previous owners of the pets who die after forced spay-neuter laws are put into place are often people who would likely do the right thing and spay or neuter their cats and dogs if they had access (this includes transportation … you can’t take pets on public transportation!) to spay-neuter services subsidized by animal charities. But when faced with a fine they can’t afford, such people give up their pets … and with no community-wide no-kill structure in place and killing for population control the shelter industry norm, that animal will likely be killed after the adoption period is over at the municipal animal control facility.
That’s the reality of laws that mandate forced spay-neuter of dogs and cats.
That doesn’t matter to the people who are leading the push for these laws. The spittle-spewing leaders of the movement pushing these laws truly do believe all breeders are the same — they’ve said so — and because of this they are happy to wipe out every heritage and working breed, and, if taken to the logical conclusion, every dog and cat. “Until there are none, adopt one” is nothing more than a feel-good slogan to keep the pet-loving foot-soldiers happy while animal-rights extremists laugh over the gullibility of animal-lovers who don’t know about PETA’s shelter kill rate and of law-makers who want nothing more than something fuzzy-good sounding on their resume, whether the law works or not.
Considering that the leaders of the forced spay-neuter movement have been happy in California and in Chicago to give puppy-millers — a/k/a “federally licensed breeders” — a free pass in the name of political expediency, it’s hard to see what they are really trying to accomplish, except punishment of the poor and the expression of hatred against even reputable, ethical breeders. I believe the forced spay-neuter law leadership thought reputable, ethical breeders — the ones who aren’t in it for money, but for the preservation of our historical working and heritage breeds — were isolated enough and powerless enough to overwhelm with the shock and awe of bad legislation that sounds as if it might help.
We’ll get these breeders first, and we’ll get the puppy-millers later. That’s the reasoning of the leaders pushing these laws. Those behind legally forced spay-neuter laws don’t realize or, more likely, don’t care that many people who support the ethical, responsible breeding of healthy, well-socialized purebred dogs and cats — as well as many of these ethical, responsible breeders of heritage and working breeds themselves — would happily side with animal-advocacy groups against puppy-mill scum.
What goes on in puppy mills disgusts and horrifies us, too.
But there’s no common ground offered by those want everything spayed and neutered, and no lie they won’t tell to try to get their way. The leadership pushing legally forced spay-neuter laws has even had the nerve to market their ordinances as tax-saving measures, claiming that shelter populations and the cost to maintain, kill them and dispose of them would fall with forced spay-neuter.
These “savings” have never happened; in fact, animal control costs climb as people dump pets rather than spay-neuter (which they can’t get to or afford) or pay fines (which they also can’t afford).
Enough of the lies.
The California Department of Finance has now issued its analysis of the train wreck that is the new AB 1634, a stealth measure that makes spayed and neutered pets the default status in California, with no appeal, no due process and no protection for people harassed by crazy neighbors or vindictive public employees.
Your right to decide the medical care of your pet is not your business, according to the people behind AB 1634 and all legally forced spay-neuter laws. This, despite peer-reviewed veterinary research that questions the long-promoted belief that spaying and neutering is automatically good for all pets.
And guess what? The California Department of Finance now says AB 1634 is bad news for California taxpayers, too.
But don’t take my word for any of it.
Here’s a link to the PDF (thanks everyone!) with the DOF’s arguments for why it opposes AB 1634. Bottom line, fiscally:
The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because by increasing costs for an existing state mandated local program, it would result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2008-09 Budget Bill.
Here’s the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, having the guts the California Veterinary Medical Association did not, to look at the science and say, “this isn’t the answer.”
And here’s the story of every place forced spay-neuter has been put into place. The end result: More shelter killings, more cost to taxpayers.
This isn’t about “greedy breeders” and “bad pet owners,” no matter what you’ve been told. It’s about legislation that’s a disaster for animals, and that will cost the taxpayers a ton.
If you are a Californian, call and fax your state Senator’s office, now. If you’re a Chicago resident, call your Alderman, now.
And when forced spay-neuter turns up in your community, let’s make a deal and point out that increased shelter killing and increased tax-payer costs are not a prize package, no matter what a retired game-show host says.
Bob Barker, if you really want to do something with your foundation, set up as many mobile spay-neuter clinics as you can afford and get them into the neighborhoods where people love their pets and need help caring for them. If you aren’t willing to do that, you’re nothing more than a pathetic attention-seeker.
You miss the applause, as you told the Chicago Sun-Times? You’d better get used to not hearing it. Your show now is a bad one, and the reviewers are onto you.
***
And again, for those who drop in here and assume that I breed dogs, I don’t. But I support reputable, ethical breeders who are working to preserve our heritage breeds and our working dogs, and I co-own my three flat-coated retrievers with one such person. Two of my dogs are AKC champions, for what it’s worth, and if you think that condemns me, I don’t care. I have never bred a litter in my life (but I won’t rule out that I might someday), and I have run a breed rescue, personally taking in, fostering, altering and placing 30 dogs a year.
I have written about responsible pet-ownership all my professional life, as a syndicated pet-care columnist and as the co-author of pet-care books that have sold hundreds of thousands of copies, been given all manner of awards and been translated into many different languages.
I have chosen to spay or neuter almost every cat or dog I have ever shared my life with, but that’s an informed decision I’ve made after discussing it with my veterinarian — my choice, not the state’s.
I have had enough of animal-lovers being fooled by animal-rights extremists claiming to care about our pets. I have had enough of politicians who don’t even own pets telling us that they will decide the medical decisions for them and damn the consequences, to one pet or all pets. And I have had enough of national advocacy groups that tell us they “aren’t against responsible breeding” but that support legally forced spay-neuter instead of community-wide no-kill solutions that work.
Forced spay-neuter laws increase shelter kill numbers.
To say otherwise is wishful thinking not supported by any evidence at all — or an out and out lie by the people who are leading the drive for such legislation, hoping to get this crap passed before their big lie is exposed and the bodies start piling up.
Right on.
These laws also lead to outbreaks of disease due to failure to vaccinate and reduced licensing revenue. They have a similar effect to BSL.
People figure that they can’t take their dog to the vet because they’ll be ratted out (false) if the pet is intact.
So, they hide.
They don’t licence because usually there’s a requirement for proof of sterilization where these laws are in place.
They don’t get rabies shots or other shots needed in their area.
They don’t seek attention for ailments or injuries.
The extra resources needed for enforcement are diverted from important cases/issues.
So, in the end animals suffer, more lawbreakers are created for no reason and what you point out happens - millers thrive, more animals die, more owners are heartbroken, more money is wasted.
All because of laws that are based on fiction and promoted by groups whose agendae are anything BUT warm and fuzzy.
Dogs just aren’t that big a deal in terms of the problems we face so I really wish they’d back off on all this nonsense.
Comment by Caveat — July 30, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
The Questions to nail Bob with are.
Bob What are the Numbers you are aiming for in this MSN laws you working at passing all over the US?
[Or - Bob, did you know the actual Spay- Neuter for cats and Dogs are for the whole US or even Any one State? Or Bob if we were at 70% to 85% of the dogs and near 90% to 98% of the cats would that be enough?
Another is Bob what are your degrees in animal Science and when are they from(he has none)
We show he has no real numbers and or ideas of the truth and if he get mad at the question does not answer…very bad for him..
CC
Comment by CCorsair — July 30, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Gina,
You’re in CD 3 right? If so, is there anyone in that district I should target specifically? I’m starting to use my ‘I’m moving to your state/district and will support your opponent, etc power’ I accept nothing but clear, concise firm answers ;) Will also send the info to my family in the BA and get them going on their “people”.
OT, but did you see that the HSUS and PETA are lobbying for the Helmsley money?
Comment by straybaby — July 30, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Straybaby … I honestly don’t think state Senators care about people who are not in their district, or at least in the state.
But …
California still doesn’t have a state budget, and the economy is really bad in many parts of the state (thanks to the foreclosure crisis and the falling property values in the less-attractive parts of California, like the Central Valley and the Inland Empire in SoCal.
The Department of Finance report will mean that AB 1634 will have a difficult time getting the governor’s signature, if it gets out of the Legislature.
If you not a California resident, I would call the Governor’s office and let the staff know you will not be visiting here, that you’re passing on that vacation and even that business conference you were considering.
For anyone who IS a California resident, call your State Senator’s office Thursday and Friday and ask for him or her to vote “no” on the rewritten AB 1634 based on the new Department of Finance analysis along with the other arguments made before. And if this crap gets on the Governor’s desk, hit him with the Department of Finance analysis That argument will hold the most sway with him.
We don’t have a state budget and we’re going considering the passage of legislation that will have us paying to kill more pets?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 30, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
I have long said.. Bob Barker.. if you want to DO something.. set up 20 spay/neuter vans.. outfit them with high tech equipment.. hire some good vets and techs and take those vans to WATTS ..SOUTH CENTRAL LA.. BAKERSFIELD.. KERN COUNTY.. PORTERO HILL.. HECK EVEN BEVERLY HILLS.. WHO CARES .. make it free .. make it easy.. When they “come on down’ give them a free bag of dog/cat food (easy to get a donation from a big name company) free collar, microchip and license.. Free rabies shots.. free puppy shots.. whatever it takes.. heck I don’t even care if you put your big mug on the side of the vans saying Bob Barker says “Come On Down” Oh and Bob.. these vans will be subsidized by you .. heck you could even ask for donations.. as long as it stays FREE..
Comment by bestuvall — July 30, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Thanks Gina!
I’ll pass the info on to my family for the budget argument (they recently adopted a rescue beagle, YES!) and I’ll call the Gov’s office. I won’t do business in the state, etc. I may still grab the address of where I’ll be living and pretend I’m already there and write to locals. I’m trying to focus on folks running now in CA to improve my quality of life when I get there next spring :) I certainly don’t want anyone telling me what to do with my future pets (and future pets is more near than far) or many other things. Plus, once one law gets passed, everyone else in other states has to deal with it, as we are seeing. If there’s a pol who’s going to impact my life in a negative way (and it’s not just my life) I’m willing to try and change that now, or if there’s an option, work for the option.
We’re hitting budget crisis here also. Thanks for bringing that up as it’s a good feed into the BSL and No Tethering issues that are being batted around here now. If they could have just enforced the current laws, we wouldn’t even be talkin’ BSL and chaining, Although the “joke” is, the dogs that caused the anti-tethering to come up again were free roaming! Thanks PETA for missing the issue!
Comment by straybaby — July 30, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
And send those vans to my neighborhood. I have two different neighbors who would happily s/n if they had the money. One of them had her dog get out recently and found it at the shelter that night. She had to borrow from a friend to pay the $200+ in fines and fees and almost had to leave the dog behind when the shelter would not work with her at all (and would not accept her proof of vaccination from another county). How would mandatory s/n have helped her save her dog from being pts? Another $100+ to have the dog sterilized, and she would have had to leave him behind, where he would have been deemed unadoptable because he (a min pin) is a biter (except for my friend and her family).
Comment by Debbie — July 30, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Comment by straybaby — July 30, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
“OT, but did you see that the HSUS and PETA are lobbying for the Helmsley money?”
Oh, now THAT comes as a big surprise! The scary thing is that just as the clueless media keeps going to them for sound bytes whenever they’re doing an animal-related story, the executors of the estate may be equally clueless and assume that they’re “the experts who will know how to best put the money to use” just because that’s who they hear about all the time in the news (thanks to the aforementioned clueless media).
I wonder how we educate the executors without alienating them. Since they’re not politicians, writing “Your vote from me is in danger” letters obviously don’t apply. Heck - how do we even find out WHO will be making those ultimate decisions?
Maybe there’s a judge who needs to approve the final disposition who can be appealed to? (Unfortunately, opinions of people who are not directly impacted by a ruling sometimes can’t be taken into account. Oh, this could be a mess . . . . . . . . )
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 31, 2008 @ 5:01 am
Imagine how many mobile death vans and walk-in freezers PETA could purchase with the Helmsley money.
Comment by slt — July 31, 2008 @ 5:24 am
Ugh, this just makes me sick. I’ve learned a lot about responsible, ethical breeders in the past couple of months, and laws like these completely screw them over. I mean, imagine what it would be like for all of our FCR breeder friends on Flickr. My golden Nala, who passed away in January was spayed, but that’s because we could afford it and didn’t want an accidental breeding to occur. With Loki, we decided to show him, so we MADE THE CHOICE not to neuter him. And our vet supports our decision. And we live in New York State. From what I’ve heard, tons of vets try to force spaying and neutering on people. And my breeder told me when she brought a dog in for emergency surgery, the vet basically called her a Nazi because she was a breeder. Nevermind that she takes careful consideration into each breeding and makes sure the dogs go to loving homes and keeps track of them in case something doesn’t work out. Yeah, let’s screw the people that actually give a crap about the betterment of dogs and that don’t breed for money. God, if there’s even an a thought of starting something like that in NYS I’m calling up my Congressman about it (especially since I worked for him in Washington for a couple weeks).
Comment by Alex V — July 31, 2008 @ 9:04 am
>CCorsair Bob what are your degrees in animal Science and when are they from(he has none)<
Bob Barker is far from mainstream. He had vowed to spend his retirement working for animal rights and that is exactly what he is doing involving himself in MSN. He is a vegan, anti fur, anti meat, anti leather, anti circus, you name it. He resigned from the Miss Universe pageant over fur. He would not allow cars to be given away on TPIR with leather seats. He has donated 1 million dollars each to the law schools of Stanford, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, UCLA and Harvard to fund animal rights law courses so I am sure they have given, or will give him an honorary degree proclaiming him an expert on animals. grrrrrrr
Comment by trucorgi — July 31, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Oh, for the record, do not bother calling congress people or senators that are not of your district, because they can’t help you. I interned at Congressman Higgins’ office (NY 27th congressional district) in DC for 2 weeks as a senior project, and we got a lot of phone calls that weren’t from constituents, and there really isn’t anything we could do to help them. If they’re from our district, then yes. Just bear that in mind when contacting politicians. It will save you a lot of time and you can focus your efforts more. Good luck!
Comment by Alex V — July 31, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
“”He has donated 1 million dollars each to the law schools of Stanford, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, UCLA and Harvard to fund animal rights law courses so I am sure they have given, or will give him an honorary degree proclaiming him an expert on animals?”“
It matters Not an “honorary degree” is still seen as a “Fake Degree” If you never taken a real coarse in any real science class and Bob hasn’t.
He got into Animal Right to make his wife happy
Bob need as to wake up and understand he isn’t going to get his way and that were not going to stop till he figures out the Price he wants is too high and he is going to make all the loser’s on this in the long run.
CC
Comment by CCorsair — July 31, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Bestuvall — you’ve got the right idea. Mandates rarely achieve the effect they intended.
But even if Bob foots the bill for all this stuff, who’s going to take the time to connect with and educate folks about the benefits of s/n? Bob actually does offer to pay for s/n services (just apply for a grant at D & T Foundation — there’s a rescue in Los Angeles who just had him pay for a s/n mobile van for them to use in downtown L.A.), it’s the community effort that seems to be lacking in most parts.
Comment by Christine — July 31, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
””#
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 31, 2008 @ 5:01 am
#
Imagine how many mobile death vans and walk-in freezers PETA could purchase with the Helmsley money.”“
I Shudder to think of that but i do for sure that PeTa bought though another name 20 white cargo vans like those that one group got picked up in doing the death van run .
I don’t have the name but they we bought as mobile vet care and are now scatter all over.
It is scary to think they would be that sick to send out 20 death vans to kill dogs and Cats all over and to kidnap dogs and cats away from neighborhood in the middle of the night..
PeTa is learning to hide their tracks but not very and not for long.. HSUS is next…
CC
Comment by CCorsair — July 31, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Christine,
”..educate folks about the benefits of s/n?”
What are the benefits?
Comment by Caveat — July 31, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Caveat - “Right on” right back atcha!
You said “These laws also lead to outbreaks of disease due to failure to vaccinate and reduced licensing revenue. They have a similar effect to BSL.
People figure that they can’t take their dog to the vet because they’ll be ratted out (false) if the pet is intact.”
Actually that is not quite true. In some jurisdictions vets are LEGALLY required to report EVERY Rabies vaccine given, to the local Animal Control, who then follow up and try to get the owner to license the dog. My own vet falls in that category - guess what, he REFUSES to comply. So far, because he does lots of free work for his AC, they have declined to go after him over this, but they could and he is risking his license to protect his clients and their pets.
So yes, legislation like this does mean that some folks quite rightly are afraid that AC will get hold of them so they choose not to give Rabies vaccines, let alone other stuff. The animals then suffer
But worse - way worse is the pool of unvaccinated animals who can pass Rabies on to the human population. This is VERY scary!!
Surely human health concerns should come above and before all else?
Comment by Fiona Bennett — July 31, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Thanks for the info, Fiona. Up here, Public Health keeps track of rabies vaccinations, so yes, they are recorded but not by AC.
The recording is important, actually, and I agree with it. That’s one beef I have with all the people who buy vaccines and administer them themselves - there’s no govt record of those vaccinations.
What I meant was, since vets are medical doctors, they won’t report an intact dog to authorities in a mandated neutering area. Well, they shouldn’t, based on their ethical code which I suppose isn’t quite the same thing.
Comment by Caveat — August 1, 2008 @ 4:32 am
@ Caveat,
This is a different Christine, (I didn’t know there was another, so I’ve added the S to mine, perhaps I’ll come up with something wittier later), but I definitely agree with the first, that education “on the benefits of s/n” (not mandatory s/n, mind you) is important.
The primary benefit being, of course, that dogs that should *not* be breeding will not be breeding.
While I agree that it should not be mandatory, because a law would be misapplied and misused, I really think the average dog owner needs to understand why breeding is best left to the professionals. A lot of the people with intact pets are not the professionals, and I, for one, do not think they would be willing to take necessary measures to prevent a litter, or in some cases, would even want to.
More extremely, short of a medical reason I still do not quite understand why a non-breeder would require an intact dog. On the other hand, I feel the same way about people. So, perhaps that clouds my judgement.
Comment by Christine S — August 1, 2008 @ 6:49 am
Not only do vets have a record of “reporting” on just such things — ratting out their clients — but those who would choose to be CO’s may not have a choice.
If a vet’s records are subpeonaed or confiscated under a warrant, the clients are SOL. And there’s no HIPPA for animals.
I know Albuquerque-area dog owners who found vets outside the city to avoid this risk under “PAWS.” (Aside from the standing risk of simply being in Albuquerque with an animal of any kind.)
This has been a problem not only with forbidden testicles, but with banned breeds and species. So pit bulls and rotties and ferrets, oh my, go without rabies vaccination (BIG public health problem) and any access to health care (Equally big animal welfare problem).
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 1, 2008 @ 7:27 am
Vets here in Ontario won’t report dogs who may be in violation of our noxious, provincewide BSL. They’ve issued that policy statement in a medical journal.
True, a subpoena would force compliance.
Albuquerque is a nightmare and a classic example of what happens when people aren’t hip to the major differences between animal welfare and animal rights/liberation. Politicians are pathetic at differentiating between the two, and even use the terms interchangeably - as do mainstream media outlets.
In a community that has a lot of creative people such as Albuquerque you have the classic scenario for an AR putsch.
Louisville was nice too.
In Ontario right now, they are discussing a Bill at Committee which would give the OSPCA full police powers including warrantless entry into any building that is not a dwelling, just for a look-see (which actually exceeds police powers).
In essence, it would be a private police force dedicated to enforcing an ideology. There was a mass resignation from the Board a couple of years ago - fertile ground for AR/AL infiltration, as happened with the H$U$ some years ago. All of a sudden, there’s a big shift in their ‘humane education’ (hint: show kids pictures of slaughterhouses and battery farms) which is right out of the Peta playbook.
So, these private police officers would be:
- internally appointed
- unvetted by the Attorney General, as happens now
- minimally trained (they’re bragging about 5 days’ training at Committee instead of the previous 2 days)
- have no minimum educational requirements
- immune to inquiries by the Ombudsman (our Sherlock Holmes for citizens)
- immune to Access to Info legislation
- not governed by or reportable to any public body
- mandated to raise most of its operating money using its private charitable status and receiving the rest from public monies
Scary? Yeah. You have to read the Hansard to believe it.
Scarier? I’m the only person in Ontario who is covering this issue right now on my little blog. Even the OSPCA people are visiting me for updates.
The mainsteam media are silent, with the exception of one small piece from Jul 23 about how one of the Conservative Members of Parliament is “Opposed to New Animal Cruelty Law”
I contacted a columnist who could do the job. Her reply was ‘I’m on holiday right now, could you remind me on Aug 11?’
Yeah, sure thing.
My point is that you can’t really blame the public for not protesting in any numbers over these things. They just aren’t getting the information they need to make an informed decision - or in our case up here, any information at all.
Welcome to the Brave New World.
Comment by Caveat — August 1, 2008 @ 8:14 am
More extremely, short of a medical reason I still do not quite understand why a non-breeder would require an intact dog.
Shouldn’t we turn that equation around, and have reasons TO do surgery on our pets rather than reasons NOT to?
There are plenty of potential medical reasons not to spay/neuter individual animals — I’ve written about most of them here.
As someone who has neutered exactly one of her male dogs, ever, I can see no reason to neuter them routinely. It has potential risks, and, in my dogs’ cases, zero benefit. That seems like a pretty good reason not to do it by default to me.
As for bitches, I can argue either way as a general principle, but in my own case, I’ve mostly felt the balance came down in favor of spaying. That decision is not without risk or cost, and neither is the decision not to spay.
The decision whether to remove a substantial portion of your dog’s endocrine system needs to be made on an individual basis by the owner and his or her veterinarian based on a rational risk vs benefit analysis. I do believe that most people’s lives will be easier if their dogs are altered, but I also think that the medical reality is not quite what we’ve been encouraged to believe for lo, these many years, and that information needs to be part of the equation as well, if for no other reason than to find ways to mitigate the effects of whatever decision we make.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 1, 2008 @ 8:43 am
@ Christie Keith-
Shouldn’t we turn that equation around, and have reasons TO do surgery on our pets rather than reasons NOT to?
That makes a lot of sense, actually. I tend to overlook the obvious.
As for the medical reasons, I think that’s another area that the-average-dog-owner can benefit from, on both ends of the spectrum. Joe-who-wants-to-breed-his-dog-because-she’s-so-well-behaved might be more likely to consider spaying if he finds out there are increased health risks, while Mary-who-wants-her-dog-nuetered-asap will be more likely to wait, or if necessary hold off completely if it’s explained that there’s a higher risk of complications than there is benefits.
Comment by Christine S — August 1, 2008 @ 9:37 am
>short of a medical reason I still do not quite understand why a non-breeder would require an intact dog.<
Any dog being shown in AKC conformation must be in tact. Doesn’t necessarily mean they will ever be bred. Aside from show dogs though, I want my dog to mature, growth plates to close etc. before altering. I do not want the state to tell me that I have to do it by a particular age. My vet and I will decide when the optimum time is for my individual animal.
Comment by trucorgi — August 1, 2008 @ 11:40 am
I have refered many people to the so called Low cost spay/neuter places in lake county and when they go, they are told that it can’t be done or they are put on a wait list, or they make to much money (they are just one step from the poverty line) For those of you out there that say, low cost spade/neuter is available, PLEASE get more information out there when and where it is. If it is in the downtown ares, a lot of people can’t get there. They work or do not have transportation. PLEASE try to have it at different spots.
Comment by Judy Warling — August 1, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
I recently talked for several hours with a woman who had just lost her bulldog to old age(12-1/2). She grew up with dogs and has had male, intact dogs her entire adult life.
She does not show or breed, her parents had working dogs, some neutered some not, and she simply prefers the subtle and sometimes not so subtle differences in an intact male dogs temperament and drive. She is a medical doctor as well and is very well informed of the risks and benefits of spay and castration. She has references and a solid track record with her dogs going back 30 years.
My placement agreement and contract states that companion puppies are to be altered. Any rescue we place is of course sterilized prior to placement unless medically dangerous. However, I would consider placing an intact dog with this particular woman on a non-breeding agreement.
Most behavior issues are best addressed and prevented with early socialization and early training. I am seeing an increasing number of dogs coming into our rescue who have already been neutered. The surrendering owners seem surprised that the dog developed aggression towards other dogs or people or is hard to control. They often seem perplexed that neutering them did not prevent or cure these issues. I’m afraid that to some extent the general public has been sold on the idea that neuter will take the place of training and socialization.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 1, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
>short of a medical reason I still do not quite understand why a non-breeder would require an intact dog.<
Really, whose place is it to decide what someone else is permitted to “require?”
I have an acquaintance, not a breeder, who was denied a variance to keep, I believe, five well-trained and inoffensive dogs. She’d had to move suddenly to care for her ailing mother, and found herself, to her great surprise, out of compliance with a local ordinance — so she foolishly outed herself by asking for a variance. No complaints from the neighbors, who were unaware of the dogs. But one person testified against the variance because “Nobody needs five dogs!”
So random strangers get to decide what we “need” when it comes to our animals. Nobody needs a pitbull or Rottweiler. Nobody needs a dog with testicles or ovaries. Nobody needs a dog over 25 pounds. Nobody needs more than three pets total.
Right?
In my opinion, my neighbor does not need his ridiculous racing car, my doctor does not need to vacation in the Caribbean, no one needs a McMansion, a sailboat, a private airplane, a Wii, a leather sofa, premium cable service, a Big Mac.
Yet strangely, nobody seems to feel they have to justify those things they have to me. I don’t get to decide.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 1, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Just to clarify my above statement, when I said I would place an intact dog with this woman, I meant a dog that I personally bred, NOT a rescue. We alter all rescues. If they are not able to be altered for medical reasons, they are placed on long term foster care, sometimes lifetime, but rescue maintains legal ownership.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 1, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
@HH
I didn’t say need, though, I said require, which is really semantics, but I did intentionally try to avoid saying “need” for the reason you pointed out. I’ll roll with it though.
Of course I don’t need a Wii, but if my Wii slips out of its leash, or something and becomes lost, I’d rather make sure there’s not going to be a litter of Wiis that may end up homeless or worse. Except, you know, my Wii isn’t alive, so let’s pretend it’s a much-loved intact dog, that just spawned a litter of puppies. Not only would I have lost my dog, which I can’t even imagine, but I’d have also just contributed to homeless puppies.
Worst case scenario, yes, but it is possible, and it’s not a risk I’d be willing to take. But, I suppose you’re right too, if you want to leave your dog intact, that’s your choice.
But, I also think such a scenario (or even a more person-at-fault-scenario with the same outcome of puppies) is more likely for the ordinary person rather than a frequenter of this blog. And, that’s where low-cost s/n and education come in.
Comment by Christine S — August 1, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
Caveat - why don’t get your facts straight before you start spreading false information. Your remarks about warrantless entry are totally inaccurate. If you were to bother to read the proposed legislation thoroughly, you would see that the warrantless entry does NOT apply to dwellings, which basically means backyards and fields - and it has nothing to do with just wanting a “look-see”. Do a little research before you shoot your mouth off.
Comment by Linda — August 11, 2008 @ 9:39 am
You might want to read more carefully, Linda, before you shoot YOUR mouth off.
Caveat writes, “… warrantless entry into any building that is not a dwelling, just for a look-see …”
What part of “is not a dwelling” are you unable to comprehend?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 11, 2008 @ 9:50 am