# PETA and Bob Barker Calling for Mandatory Spay& Neuter Law!



## CelticGlory (Jan 19, 2006)

**Note: I asked permission to post this, I hope for this is to stay PETA related and how this law can be either a good thing or a bad thing, and any additional concerns you would like for PETA to address. I asked some questions below and some concerns. I was made aware of this issue on another board.*

US: ‘PETA and Bob Barker call for spay/neuter law to fight animal overpopulation’

http://worldnewsforlife.wordpress.co...verpopulation/

 They have the required number of signatures 5,000. Any thoughts on how this will turn out? I mean what about all of the recent research that was done that shows that early spaying and neutering is actually harmful for animals? Also, I figure they would have to spay and neuter all of the tiny animals like pet rats, ferrets, and birds too. Also, this is especially bad for short nosed breeds because of their mushed in face, I would rather wait to neuter or spay those types of animals.

The only way I see this working is if they work with all of the parent clubs and the AKC so that COE breeder's and their puppy buyers aren't getting the short end of the stick. Not only that, but they would have to look at the reasons of why breeding is so important (which I doubt PETA will do, but one can hope). 

In which ways could this be good for COE breeders and the responsible pet owners who buy from COE/Reputable breeders? What steps would you like to see that can address the issues with COE breeding and ownership for responsible owners?

I'm not saying that strays and shelter pets shouldn't be address too, but they are already required in some states to be neutered/spayed before leaving the shelter/rescue. This issue could really hurt future breeding and ownership. Addition Question: If AKC and parent clubs can get a say in this, should a requirement of competing in events be required to own an intact animal?

What would you like for PETA to address in this law?


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

Hurray! Just what we need... More government telling people what to do! Huzzah for big gov!



It'll happen about the same time that PETA gets eating meat banned...


----------



## CelticGlory (Jan 19, 2006)

The issue is with PETA. By the way this is not about government, but PETA telling people what to do. This is also to stay unpolitical related. But, comments addressing the questions and PETA are okay.


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

CelticGlory said:


> The issue is with PETA. By the way this is not about government, but PETA telling people what to do.


Maybe I forgot how to read English in the last 15 minutes, but I pretty sure it said PETA is petitioning the Obama administration to pass a mandatory spay _*LAW*_... That is most definitely about government.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova (Apr 16, 2011)

I think that PETA does have a reason to be concerned but I also think that a dog should not be neutered before 2 years old. I think that PETA needs to go after non reputable breeders. Reputable breeders will take their dog back anytime so they have nothing to do with the surplus population because their dogs don't end up in shelters.

PETA's heart is in the right place, but they are going about this the wrong way.


----------



## CelticGlory (Jan 19, 2006)

I think that if a common ground can't be found with PETA, we will be fighting the issues for years to come. I think this law would be a good one if PETA would actually sit down and think about it more, a lot of people will be unhappy with them. BR870, I agree that PETA will start pushing for banning on eating meat if they win this one.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> What would you like for PETA to address in this law?


Not a thing.




> PETA's heart is in the right place, but they are going about this the wrong way.


I think PETA needs to keep their noses out of pet ownership. 




> I think that if a common ground can't be found with PETA,


I don't see that happening for many of us.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

Germanshepherdlova said:


> PETA's heart is in the right place, but they are going about this the wrong way.


Their hearts? Maaaybe, in members that have nothing to do with forming policies or running the business.

Their minds? Not a chance.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova (Apr 16, 2011)

PETA is concern with all the animals that are being killed because they are unwanted. This is a concern for people who care about animals. I felt awful when I was at the dog pound earlier today and saw all those dogs, many that I am certain would make wonderful pets locked behind those cages awaiting a savior and if one doesn't arrive then death. 

I think PETA goes about seeking to regulate things the wrong way. They don't see a middle ground and that is a big problem, and probably why they are hated by many.


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

I know we are supposed to avoid politcs, but PETA is a political organization and their agenda and methods are fundamentally political. So I don't think a meaningful conversation about PETA can be had without politics...

...With that said, PETA thinks you and I are the enemy. Here are some nice quotes

*(Pets) are slaves, even if well-kept slaves." --PeTa's Statement on Companion Animals.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

In a perfect world, all other-than-human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme, as they were before humans domesticated them and as they remain in some parts of the undeveloped world.---PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?*

PETA ultimately wants to ban ownership of pets through regulation. They want to make the barriers to breeding and ownership so onerous that its not worth it to most people. And from there its on to using the precedent set there to attack farmers and ranchers.

Make no mistake, their agenda is deeply political...


----------



## CelticGlory (Jan 19, 2006)

I'm not sure if it was last year or in 2009, but PETA was doing some underhanded things, they only had a 2% adoption rate, but took in tons of animals...that is what gets me worried. Not everyone wants to own pets. I read an article last year that stated that if everyone in America would take in an animal, our overpopulation rate would lessen. That won't happen. No one can afford to take care of certain types of animals like special needs animals. I hate saying that, but its true. 

Also, another thing that needs to be factored into pet ownership is that people by law cannot own x number of animals without a breeder's license. That makes no sense to me at all. What about those who can give a ton of animals a proper home (say they want to own up to 7 animals at a time), are they to get this license even if the animals aren't breeding animals? I know a lot of apartments/townhouses, etc only allow 1-2 pets total, if that was increased by at least 1-2 more, I really wouldn't see a problem with that. 

Also, if home insurance wasn't hard to get because of the breed of dog a person owned, we could cut back on dogs in shelters that may only be there because of lack of home insurance coverage. These are issues I would like for them to address/focus on. They need to talk more about home insurance issues, limited number of animals allowed, etc. A law that just says spay/neuter won't get anyone anywhere, we already have that. 

Coming onto someone's property and taking them because they don't have them fixed and than charge a fine is stupid and morally wrong. But, we are talking about PETA.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Yes, PETA has murdered more animals, than even puppy mills do. They are worse than a puppy mill. 

Other rescues and pounds put their dogs on pet finder and at least try to get them adopted out. 

When PETA manages to do more for the dogs that they bring in than murder them, then maybe I will give them a hearing. 

Obama cannot make a law. Sorry, that is the executive branch of the government. Laws are made by congress. Obama can go to congress and ask them to make a law. 

Our country is in trouble. People are out of work. They are talking recession. I do not want the government wasting their time or spending the people's money on controversial pet legislation. 

What are COE breeders? -- too late and too angry to understand acronyms tonight.


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

_*A Modest Proposal for Utilizing Unwanted Animals and Preventing the Poor in this Country From Being a Burden on the Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick:

*_Since there is a surplus of unwanted dogs and cats, and there are poor and hungry people who have no way of feeding themselves without depending on the Public Dole, I suggest we petition the current administration to enact a law requiring the use of shelter animals to feed the poor in place of welfare, and employ the poor in the breeding of such animals...












(for the less well read amongst us who don't get the joke, I suggest you start with Jonathan Swift)


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

PETA is just a bunch of crazies. For someone is all for adopting/rescuing, I am actually against this law going into effect.


----------



## CookieTN (Sep 14, 2008)

I don't believe that mandatory speutering is the way to go period.
1. While licenses may be available for breeders, how would they decide who gets it and who doesn't? People's opinions on what makes a reputable breeder may vary by quite a bit.
2. Saying as little about this as possible: the government has no business getting involved in this area.


----------



## CelticGlory (Jan 19, 2006)

Selzer, COE means Code of Ethics aka Reputable Breeders at least the ones who practical COE. The only thing I will say that is non-PETA related is that the other people aren't pushing for this per se (*Trying to keep with board rules and rules for this thread--This thread can get locked if it goes the other route, nuff said.*). PETA are the people that need to be stopped, they IMHO have too much say on what goes on with our animals,yes its okay to have Animal Rights, but once you take it too far than we don't need you, JMHO.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Yes, let's just continue to legislate morality why don't we.
After all, we are too stoooooopid to take care of things without
the LAW standing on our shoulders.


----------



## SaberCt (Sep 15, 2011)

On the political side, I don't see it happening. If it ever gets to the point to where it's introduced in congress, I think the support that would be provided by responsible breeders, purebred organizations, and the like, would far outweight PeTA and it's fringe-group views in terms of lobbying.

If, in a very bleak scenario it DOES pass, I would expect spay/neutering to either be free, or extremely dirt cheap. If not, I see a lot more pets being abandoned/dumped in shelters by the "irresponsible" owner demographic, who are able to provide for an animal just enough, but don't want to spay/neuter for financial reasons, and don't want to get in legal trouble by owning an "illegal" dog. (I have met some cheap pet owners who just don't care to drop money for that.)

I like Bob Barker, but I liked it better when he did things on his own, or through his own foundation to support shelters and neutering programs. Now that he's been teaming up with PeTA in recent years, I can't say I am liking him as much as I have been. 

---

As far as concerns I would like PeTA to address? I could go on and on with the same arguments many others have presented about this organization before. But the biggest one...

*How about you stop trying to legislate your morality and shove it down the throats of others? *Present your opinions and viewpoints in a reasonable manner like the rest of the world, and let people choose for themselves.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think it's a fantastic idea for PETA members to be spayed and neutered. They could throw in free lobotomies as a twofer as well.


----------



## gsdraven (Jul 8, 2009)




----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I don't think this law would ever pass, and if it did, who cares? How exactly are they going to enforce this? Are cops going to pull over every time they see a dog walking to check if they are spayed/neutered? Are we going to invest millions more in dollars to hire more pet police that would go around checking every pet?

The government should under no circumstances get involved in breeding. All of these COE breeders would be put out of business. There was a thread earlier in the year about what the government thinks is a good breeding program. It involved outdoor kennels, with certain space requirements per dog, ect ect, and under no circumstances a litter that gets raised "inside the home."

Half the time the problem isn't the law...its the regulation of the law, and in this case it would be impossible!


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)




----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I am re-opening this thread for discussion.

Politics as they relate *specifically* to dog related concerns such as mandatory S/N, BSL, breeder licensing, and similar topics are allowed. Certainly they are political in nature at times as they tend to center around legislation, however this is a dog board and these sort of topics are ones of which we all need to be aware and educated as they potentially affect all of us. 

Please keep the discussion strictly to the dog related side of things. No reason to bring presidents and economics and political parties and foreign policy or any of those other clearly unrelated and taboo topics into it.

-Admin


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Thanks Chris. I think the president comment was because of the news article saying that if they get enough signatures, the president will give some sort of statement.



martemchik said:


> *I don't think this law would ever pass, and if it did, who cares? How exactly are they going to enforce this? Are cops going to pull over every time they see a dog walking to check if they are spayed/neutered? Are we going to invest millions more in dollars to hire more pet police that would go around checking every pet?*
> 
> The government should under no circumstances get involved in breeding. All of these COE breeders would be put out of business. There was a thread earlier in the year about what the government thinks is a good breeding program. It involved outdoor kennels, with certain space requirements per dog, ect ect, and under no circumstances a litter that gets raised "inside the home."
> 
> Half the time the problem isn't the law...its the regulation of the law, and in this case it would be impossible!


I think that the AKC, the NRA, and some smaller organizations like the Ohio or Tenessee Valley dog owners can help us ensure that this will not become a law, but I think that the we should not just sit back confident that others will not let it happen. Those who are loud and organized can make things happen even if they do not have a majority. And, people who love animals, are often drawn to and support such organizations due to their outward appearance -- helping dogs and cats. 

I care if they pass laws like that, even if everyone knows they cannot enforce it. Firstly because some of us do not want to operate outside of the law. We do not license our dogs because the stupid little tags are pretty dangling from the dog's collar. We license our dogs because it is the law. Rabies tags can get your dog home faster than a license, and most of us have our dogs tatoo'd or chipped, so we are not counting on the license to get our dog back if it is lost or if we need to prove ownership. The ONLY reason to license your dog is because it is the law. And you can make a good argument for it being a bad law, so you choose to practice civil disobedience. That is difficult if you are a breeder and have paperwork, etc. 

I can see ways laws that are never expected to be enforced to be used in situations and abused in situations.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I guess thats a good point that many laws aren't meant to be enforced, but in this situation wouldn't it have to be? I mean I get what you're saying about the licensing thing. Its kind of a defense for if the dog gets out and then is found (if its not chipped). That way they can charge you with a fine, but they can get the dog back to its rightful owner and not have another dog in a pound. But if this particular law would only be used when your dog "gets in trouble" whats the point? Your dog gets out, it is found, oh no its not speutered!, owner gets a bigger fine and has to speuter, owner doensn't have the money to speuter, does the state/federal government pay for the speuter?

I do support where this law is trying to go. I am never one for the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (like this situtation in my opinion), but if more people speutered it wouldn't really hurt the current situation. Problem is, when laws are made it sometimes has the opposite effect, like a haha to the government that I'm not listening to their stupid law. Might cause people to not speuter just because they HAVE to. Take away the option, you get rebels.


----------



## GSDkid (Apr 19, 2011)

BR870 said:


> Hurray! Just what we need... More government telling people what to do! Huzzah for big gov!
> 
> 
> 
> It'll happen about the same time that PETA gets eating meat banned...


LOL!!! I love this comment.


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

The Government does not need to be deciding what animals should be speutered. Period.

If a dog is well cared for and owned and not a menace to the community at large, the .gov has absolutely no right or authority to tell you if you can breed it. It does not matter what their reason or justification is. To me this is no different than the Government calling for mandatory sterilization of people for population reasons or welfare reasons or whatever. Its grossly inappropriate use of Federal power. Tenth Amendment anyone?

It is as bad as BSL, and in fact can be used as and end run around BSL. Who needs BSL if no more "vicious breeds" are allowed to breed anymore?

Come on people!


----------



## CelticGlory (Jan 19, 2006)

Selzer, you and Martemchik are so correct. I admit I don't think that certain species of domesticated animals should ever be fixed; for example, rabbits, other small furry animals, birds, and horses. Some of these animals do bad when they are put under and I see a lot of cat breeders warning about spay/neutering certain breeds like Persians. They rather they get laser surgery when it comes to them getting fixed.


----------

