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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.