# Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Proposed



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

Chicago has proposed an ordinance that will require mandatory sterilization by 6 months old of dogs and cats. There are exceptions for show and competition dogs, service dogs and K-9s. All breeders must obtain breeding permits ($100 annually per dog)and be subject to a criminal background investigation. Breeders will be limited to a total of one litter per year and must provide name, address and phone to the city of everyone they sell or adopt to. Dogs and cats who are picked up and end up in a shelter cannot be released to their owner until they are sterilized and microchipped. No exception for dogs who don't live in the city so it appears to apply to dogs visiting or just passing through, although show and competition exemptions apply. This is just a summary, I have the entire ordinance if anyone wants it. It appears similar to the draconian legislation passed in Louisville, which is going through a long court battle.

Here's info on the status:

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: PERRY <[email protected]>
To: karen perry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:15:22 PM
Subject: [Medallionrottweilerclub] CHICAGO STERILIZATION ORDINANCE information URGENT



Permission to crosspost given. 

I am sending you the newly revised ordinance (Alderman Burke sponsor and Alderwoman Rugai as co sponsor) which will also can be manipulated somewhat up until the joint committee hearing on Tuesday...at least that is what the aide I have been talking to in Alderman Burke's office said. 

He was also the one who told me that they were looking at the LA ordinance for polishing this up. (I tried not to scream on the fone).

We are to be at The City Hall Building 121 North La Salle Street, Chicago on Tuesday the 29th of July at 10 am for the the Joint Committee hearing (Alderman Burke's Finance Committee and Alderman Schulter's Committee on License and Consumer Protection ). It is on the second floor and supposed to be in the City Council Chamber. I would strongly suggest if people can get there at least by 9 am if not earlier we might have a little chance to get organized. Not sure now but would expect 2 minutes each to talk, and also that people would have to be signed up ahead of time. Business casual or business attire, and respectful statements. 

The gang problem is not going to be solved by mand. spay and neutering ordinances, and the bites will not be solved by that, and the euthanizing of animals in the shelters is not going to be solved by that. Only responsible ownership of animals and better police enforcement of leash laws and dangerous dog laws that the state has in place. Animal Cruelty laws are also in place already when those problems arise. Creating an ordinance that puts a burden on the law abiding citizen is not what Chicago should want to do. 

Any questions... please email me . 

Attatched is the pdf...notice the number of breedings allowed in one year , the annual permits, the information in the beginning about dog fighting, dog cruelty, dogs not being controlled.. .we have all of that as ordinances and laws ALREADY. And also that this included dogs AND cats. 


thanks

Karen 
Karen Perry RN,MSHHA
[email protected] l.net
CorBen Rottweilers
American Rottweiler Club Legislative Liaison for Illinois
AKC Legislative Liaison/ Illinois 
Medallion Rottweiler Club BSL ARC Liaison for Illinois
Member PAIDO (Parents Against Irresponsible Dog Owners)
MRC Representative Illinois Dog Breeders Club of America 
Member in good standing of ARC/MRC/CRC( Colonial Rottweiler Club)and CRRC(Columbia River Rottweiler Club)


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The more I read of these things the more I start to feel that we should simply not obey bad laws. 

Part of me wants to say that if you allowed your dog to get picked up by a dog warden then your dog SHOULD be speutered without delay regardless of how accomplished he or she is. 

However, after the incident where they waited for the guy to go to a dog show with some of his dogs, and then kicked in his door to steal his bitch and pups (the authorities did this, not ordinary thieves), these dogs too would probably not be released to him without a speuter -- even though he fought and won his dogs back. 

As I get older, I no longer like the idea of declaring myself to anyone. The yayhoo down the road with a dozen or so mongrels is not bothering to register them. But when our local legislatures get a bug up the behind that two people in the county in the past twenty years were found to be hoarding animals and needed to have them rescued, so now they will determine a limit of two or three or four animals. Who exactly ARE they going to call??? Not the feller with all the mutts on chains in his back yard, No, they will call all the people who paid an excruciating fee to do it all legally. 

And even if they CHOOSE to grandfather in existing animals (because they do not HAVE to), I am in dire need of a puppy and have plans for a puppy. Why should they arbitrarily say that I have too many animals??? I take better care of my eight than many people take of 1 or 2. 

Nobody who has not broken any law should be forced to 1. rehome a dog because a limit law changed to now put them over the limit; 2. spay or neuter an animal that they own; and 3. submit their finger prints for a background check like a criminal. 

Why are people begging to have their rights removed??? 

I just do not get it. 

When you hear about hoarders, puppy mills, and dog fighting rings being arrested and having their animals confiscated, it means there are laws already on the books to handle these things. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE NEED MORE LAWS TO PREVENT THEM.

ok, I need a breather.


----------



## justde (Oct 4, 2000)

We all need to actively fight this. We're seeing it more & more throughout the country, and in this remote northwoods county I live in there was a proposed ridiculous 6' leash law that thankfully didn't pass as originally written. Bad thing is no one knew about the proposal except the county board until it was in the paper, not even our animal control officer. I wrote my email, asked for the ordinance so I knew it, never got it. 
Politics...grrr! How do you police the government???
Sue


----------



## untsmurf (Jul 23, 2008)

Dallas just passed a version of this and I think it's wonderful. I don't see why you need to keep a dog intact if you aren't planning on breeding him. And any non-byb should understand and be willing to be for a breeder's license. I think it'll cut down on shelter dogs and unnecessary breeding. I believe that there are enough pups to go around. Pure bred pups should be available, but there's nothing wrong with getting a mutt. And this law will cut down on both. I think it's in the best interest of everyone, dogs and people alike. There was also a no tethering law as part of ours and I think that is wonderful. Driving through Dallas neighborhoods, you see so many poor pups tethered to their yards and they're so vicious you can tell they aren't socialized and are solely used as guard dogs. I've also seen too many dogs hung to death because their owners left them tethered outside and never watched them. I don't mean to diminish or insult any of your opinions, but this is simply what I believe.


Edit: There are also too many dumb people with animals they shouldn't have because they got it for the idea or because it's cute and not because they intend on raising it properly. The shelter we adopted Brutus from screened the applicants, and if they didn't think you were fit, you weren't allowed to take home the animal. I think there should be MORE screening. Animals don't deserve to be mistreated so that you can have a pretty cuddly thing for the day. And if you are going to care for them properly, you'll have no problem passing the screening and I for one appreciated it for the animals' sakes.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: untsmurfDallas just passed a version of this and I think it's wonderful. I don't see why you need to keep a dog intact if you aren't planning on breeding him. And any non-byb should understand and be willing to be for a breeder's license. I think it'll cut down on shelter dogs and unnecessary breeding. I believe that there are enough pups to go around. Pure bred pups should be available, but there's nothing wrong with getting a mutt. And this law will cut down on both. I think it's in the best interest of everyone, dogs and people alike.
> ...


I don't support mandatory spay/neuter laws and think it's a terrible idea. It upsets me that anyone could legally mandate that I would have to have major surgery performed on any of my animals, especially surgery that may adversely affect their health in the future. I don't want you, the governement, or anyone else telling me what to do with my dogs as long as I don't abuse them and provide them with food, water, shelter, and medical care when needed.

I keep reading about some shelters "importing" animals for adoption from other areas and even bringing them in from out of the country. IMHO, this practice should be outlawed before anyone even considers forceing me, or any dog owner, to endanger a dog's health and well being with mandatory spay/neuter.


----------



## untsmurf (Jul 23, 2008)

The surgery isn't major though. It happens everyday. And as far as the health risks go, this is what I was able to find

These are the most commonly mentioned benefits, by veterinarians, of castration in dogs: 

Decreased aggression (supported by studies)

Decreased urine marking (supported by studies)

Decreased roaming (neither supported nor refuted by studies)

Reduction in benign prostrate hypertrophy (supported by studies)

Reduction in prostatic infections (could not find supportive studies)

Elimination of testicular cancer (no studies -- obvious conclusion)

These are the most common worries among pet owners:

Personality changes such as decrease in "maleness" or courage (not
supported or refuted)

Weight gain (studies show that a percentage of castrated males gain weight - the exact percentage and rate of weight gain vary from study to study)

These are two concerns that dog breeders have that rarely are mentioned by pet owners:

Increased risk of prostate cancer (no conclusive studies -- but it is
clear that there is no protective effect associated with castration)

Increased risk of orthopedic disorders / conformation problems (no studies directly relating castration and orthopedic disorders but studies do show that increased weight gain during growth can cause problems with hip dypslasia, so by combining weight gain and orthopedic studies some risk is likely) 


Now I'm not a vet, but it seems to me that the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't understand, outside of breeding purposes why a dog has to be intact his/her entire life. In fact, I think it makes owning the dog easier because it cuts down on certain bad behaviors. And I think that if it was THAT bad it wouldn't be such a widely used practice. And vets wouldn't DEMAND it before allowing you to adopt an animal. I think that s/n a dog that isn't going to be used as a breeding dog or in some working area that requires a more aggressive dog (K-9 etc) is a good thing. If your dog got out, it could impregnate another dog, therefore making unwanted pups. And I know everyone thinks their yard/house is secure, but things happen. That's why so many dogs are microchipped now. And if you're scared enough for your dog's sake to microchip him/her for the off chance they get loose, you should also s/n for that same off chance.

Just out of curiosity, do you want your dog intact its entire life, or do you just not like the gov't telling you you HAVE to s/n him? If you do want him intact, would you mind telling me why? I've never known anyone that didn't use their dog for breeding/working that didn't have them neutered. This concept is new to me.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

There is only one reason that there are dogs dying in shelters: there are irresoponsible owners of dogs dropping them off. 

It has nothing to do with people having puppies. And for law-abiding people to speuter their pets, it will not keep irresponsible owners from dropping their dogs off in shelters. 

I know that people die, become ill, become unemployed and lose their homes, and some of these own dogs that end up in shelters -- not all of them do. When my brother in law died I kept his dog for two years until my brother could take care of her. But some of them do. This is why we have shelters. 

The reason we have an overage of dogs dying in shelters is because people move without considering the dog, they can drop him at a shelter; people didn't bother to train the dog or ante up for classes and now the dog is "no good" or "stupid"; people remoddeled their home or yard, and sparky doesn't fit any more; people don't think it is a good idea to have a dog with a new baby. Frankly, I haven't seen anything in any law that is going to force people to be responsible. 

Spaying and neutering your dog does not make you responsible.

It is not "the responsible thing to do" to spay or neuter your dog.

It is the convenient thing to do. 

There are way too many health reasons why spaying and neutering dogs is not a good idea, that it should not be mandatory for anyone. 

The responsible thing to do is to contain your dog and protect your bitch so that unwanted pregnancies do not happen. Some people are irresponsible. They do let accidents happen. Some people are irresponsible about driving and drive under the influence of alcohol. Should we ban cars or ban alcohol because some people misuse and abuse? 

It is so frustrating to hear people say that they think it is a great idea. Look you speutered your dog. Hooray for you!!! Pat yourself on the back and throw yourself a party!!! Suddenly because you did it everyone should??? I told the cable company I had no desire for cable TV. They did not run cable down my road. Throw a party!!! I do not have TV!!! Yippee!!! Why don't we make a law putting an end to cable? Let's charge the people that buy cable an extra tax because they have it. Let's charge them, $100 per year per television in their home to be able to use it. Let's make everyone register their TVs, that way when we decide to ban them altogether, we will know where they are located. 

It sounds silly, I know. But that is what people are doing. They are begging the government to force their beliefs on others and take away freedoms that we currently have.


----------



## untsmurf (Jul 23, 2008)

Irresponsible people do own animals and do drop them off for the wrong reasons. Which is why I believe there should be tougher screening during the adoption process. Because lets face it, some people are dumb and shouldn't have animals. But the gov't tries to regulate our stupidity. Which is why it's ILLEGAL to drink and drive. They don't ban drinking because most do it responsibly and the same for driving. The law is there for those people that are irresponsible. Just like this law. If you are a responsible breeder, you should have no problem proving it. If you're not, why keep the dog intact and risk the possible outcome? I just don't understand that mentality. It doesn't hurt them to be fixed. If it did, it wouldn't be such a common practice. I just don't understand why you NEED your dog intact if it isn't breeding/working. It seems to me that it's a personal choice to have it. And because there is no way to only make the irresponsible people do things, we have to make broad laws that effect everyone. Like a speeding limit, not everyone will drive 120 in a 35 if the sign isn't there. But some well. So we regulate EVERYONE to stop the FEW. Which is what I believe this law is trying to accomplish. S/N a non-breeding/working dog will not have a massive ill-effect. All breeds of dogs will still be available, there's just the possibility that less will be running wild and living in the streets. Which is better for the dog, IMO. If we can do ANYTHING to reduce the amount of Shelter dogs, I say do it! If there was a way to get rid of the "Urgent Section" on this forum by putting a s/n law into place, I say do it! Because if ONE less dog gets put down everyday because of this law, I say it works!

I'm very sorry if I've offended anyone, this is just something I'm passionate about. I love ALL animals and want to protect them all. Unfortunately, my yard is big enough and my DH won't let me.


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

Update.....Not surprising that HSUS is behind this. Another attempt at their goal of eliminating pets:

FYI . . . .

begin forwarded message . . . . 

PLEASE LISTEN TONIGHT SUNDAY 7/27 . Tuesday is the city council Joint Committee meeting on this ordinance!!! This is when we most need people to PHONE their Aldermen - from the PAWS alert sent out and from other sources, PAWS and HSUS will contend we are a vocal minority - solely breeders who do not want this....Steve' s point will be - no, lots of people don't want this - the MAJORITY of pet owners who responsibly now s/n and even non-pet owners do not want this.... WE NEED TO BE VOCAL NOW... See below and also call ALL the CHICAGO Alderman on MONDAY if you can... or just call one office but DO IT. 

Call MAYOR DALEYS office : (312) 744-5000 They will take a message and relay it to him... SAY NO TO THE ANIMAL ORDINANCE ON MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTERING. 

Below is the info on the Radio show tonight You can all listen via computer see info below. It is CST 8pm to 10.... 
Karen 
Karen Perry 
[email protected] l.net


Tonight on Pet Central on WGN Radio, Dr. Sheldon Rubin, incoming president Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association; and Dr. Shannon Greeley, president of the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association announce publicly for the first time their strong opposition to mandatory spay/neuter for Chicago. Lou Auslander, president of the International Kennel Club of Chicago will talk about the ad he took out to attempt to communicate with all dog owners. 


Also, representatives of the Companion Animal Parasite Council are talking fleas, ticks, heartworm, roundworm - and all that fun stuff.


After 8 p.m. cst - you can listen in Chicago on WGN Radio (720 AM) as well as http://www.wgnradio. com. We may take some call on the issue as well. Call-In Line: 312-591-7200 



Steve Dale
(please cross post)


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

International Kennel Club of Chicago position:

http://www.ikcdogshow.com/


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

Sorry, your rationale for mandatory spay/neuter just doesn't make it with me.

No surgery is minor - just because it's common doesn't mean it's without risk. And I repeat, I don't want anyone telling me to have major surgery performed on one of my animals.

As far as the so called reasons you state for spay/neuter, even if the reasons you give are true (which I personally feel are unfounded), it should be up to the owner to consider spay/neuter to avoid the problem, not some fool with his head up his butt on the local city council. 

IMHO these so called benefits do NOT outweigh the risks. What you may consider a "benefit" is not what I consider a benefit. I've been around dogs all my life. I got the first dog of my own (versus family pet) when I was 12 and have always had at least one since then - over 50 years. During this time, I have NEVER had a dog with aggression, unwanted urine marking, roaming problems, prostatic infection, or the very rare testicular cancer. I've had one dog with benign prostrate hypertrophy which was corrected with neutering (my decision, not some moron in city hall forcing me to have the surgery).

Just because you can't understand why someone would want an intact dog who doesn't want to breed shouldn't be cause for supporting a mandetory spay/neuter law that infringes upon my rights as a dog owner.

IMHO it's stupid to equate having a dog chipped to knocking up some bitch in heat in the neighborhood. 

To answer your question: 1. I don't want you or anyone else telling me to have major surgery performed on my dogs. 2. I don't want you or anyone else telling me to have a surgical procedure done that may affect the health of my dogs sometime in the future. 3. I prefer vasectomies. But that's my option and it should not be up to you or anyone else if I have the procedure done or not. 4. Just because you don't know anyone with intact dogs not used for breeding, doesn't mean I should have to get my dogs spayed/neutered. 5. Slider is intact and will be neutered when he's about 8 or 9 - my decision - not yours or anybody elses. The other Hooligans have been fixed - again - my decision - not yours or anybody elses.

I agree with Selzer, who said it so much better than I could. Leave the law abiding, good dog owners alone, and go after the bad ones. 

Go after those irresponsible owners who dump their dogs in the shelters. If irresponsilbe people didn't buy dogs and dump them in shelters, then the irresponsbile breeders would stop breeding when the market dries up. Don't punish me, and those like me, because someone else is irresponsible.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: untsmurfIrresponsible people do own animals and do drop them off for the wrong reasons. Which is why I believe there should be tougher screening during the adoption process. Because lets face it, some people are dumb and shouldn't have animals. But the gov't tries to regulate our stupidity. Which is why it's ILLEGAL to drink and drive. They don't ban drinking because most do it responsibly and the same for driving. The law is there for those people that are irresponsible. Just like this law. If you are a responsible breeder, you should have no problem proving it. If you're not, why keep the dog intact and risk the possible outcome? I just don't understand that mentality. It doesn't hurt them to be fixed. If it did, it wouldn't be such a common practice. I just don't understand why you NEED your dog intact if it isn't breeding/working. It seems to me that it's a personal choice to have it. And because there is no way to only make the irresponsible people do things, we have to make broad laws that effect everyone. Like a speeding limit, not everyone will drive 120 in a 35 if the sign isn't there. But some well. So we regulate EVERYONE to stop the FEW. Which is what I believe this law is trying to accomplish. S/N a non-breeding/working dog will not have a massive ill-effect. All breeds of dogs will still be available, there's just the possibility that less will be running wild and living in the streets. Which is better for the dog, IMO. If we can do ANYTHING to reduce the amount of Shelter dogs, I say do it! If there was a way to get rid of the "Urgent Section" on this forum by putting a s/n law into place, I say do it! Because if ONE less dog gets put down everyday because of this law, I say it works!
> 
> I'm very sorry if I've offended anyone, this is just something I'm passionate about. I love ALL animals and want to protect them all. Unfortunately, my yard is big enough and my DH won't let me.


You don't offend me, however, IMHO your logic leaves a lot to be desired. Equating laws that are for the safety of the citizens - drunk drives kill - speeding kills - to mandatory spay/neuter is, with all due respect, ridiculous. 

And contrary to what you say, YES, it can hurt them to be spayed/neutered. There are certain cancers neutered males are more prone to. Spayed bitches often have incontinence problems. There are growth issues involved in early neutering. Some dogs die on the operating table. Yes, that does hurt them. So PLEASE don't tell me what's best for my dog!!!

I really don't care if you understand or not. If I want intact dogs or not, that's my business, not yours, not the governments. And yes, I think it's sad to read about dogs in shelters, but I didn't put them there. Neither did the majority of the responsible dog owners in the United States.

The HSUS and PETA's agenda are to eliminiate ALL COMPANION ANIMALS. They're doing it bit by bit. Spay/neuter here, spay/neuter there, then spay/neuter ALL animals, no breeders allowed, like the current proposed bill in CA.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Today it is mandatory spay/neuter
Today it is breed banning
Today it is dog limit laws
Today it is mandatory heartworm preventative for breeding dogs
Today it is no docking, no cropping, no dewclaws without a vet
Today no tethering

Today you may have one GSD that is neutered, on heartworm preventative and did not have to be docked or cropped or have its dewclaws removed, and you never tether.

The law does not affect you today. Good for you. 

It affects the person who has three dogs, now they have to put one in the shelter because the limit suddenly became 2 and no grandfather clause. Can I get a hooray for stupid legislation!

It affects the locality in CA or PA that will not now host a dog show that would bring in tons of business because the AKC refuses to support such stupid laws by having their show there.

It does affect the owner of the Mastiff that suddenly found himself on the wrong side of a breed ban and now must get rid of his dog or move. 

And what will it be tomorrow:

GSDs only legal for law enforcement officials?
Rottys and Dobermans banned
Old English Sheepdogs banned 
Vaccinations required yearly for all dogs, even though it is proven that it is not healthy to over vaccinate. Well if it saves one dog from getting parvo, but causes hundreds of others to develop immune problems, tough the law is working. 
Mandatory temperament testing, dogs not passing shall be euthanized. 

Why not give more of our freedoms to the yayhoos in the government? How about people working all their lives, some of them fighting and some of them dying for freedoms.

Some of these laws they are proposing state that they can take people off the street, deputized them, and have them inspect your kennel for no reason at all. No probable cause. If you are a breeder, you are likely to be a criminal and must be fingerprinted and background checked. No one with nothing to hide will mind this... 

Ok, I am done. I think Arycrest said it better than me.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

It all boils down to this - BAD people do not follow laws, no matter how many you pass.


----------



## untsmurf (Jul 23, 2008)

I'm going to keep my opinions to myself from now on. I feel it's getting a little too heated. Normally, I don't mind ruffling feathers, but not on a discussion board. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm going to stop before it reaches an inappropriate level.


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

FORWARDING PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED
LET'S GET THE WORD OUT!!!

Hello Everyone,

Well, tomorrow, July 29 2008, is THE DAY down at City Hall, where the 
proposed Chicago MSN is scheduled to go before two very important 
committees, the Finance Committee (chaired by Alderman Burke) and the 
License and Consumer Protection Committee (chaired by Alderman 
Shulter). 

Just to repeat, here's where we will be:

We will be meeting together one hour before the actual time, at 9:00 
am in City Hall (121 North La Salle Street, Chicago , second floor 
Council Chamber) on the 29th Tuesday.

If you wish to take public transportation into the City (always a 
good idea), here the RTA "Plan Your Trip" page which will help you do 
this:

http://tripsweb. rtachicago. com/

Although the meeting does not start until 10:00, Michele Smith wants 
me to remind you to please get there EARLY - before 9:00 am - to 
guarantee yourself a seat and possible opportunity to speak should 
you wish to do so. (We're still a bit unclear as to the speaking 
arrangements, but most likely some of us will get to give a two-
minute statement. If you wish to speak, may I suggest that you 
prepare and rehearse your speech this evening.) I have printed up 
sticky paper name tags for tomorrow (your name plus "NO TO MANDATORY 
SPAY NEUTER" at the bottom), so when you come tomorrow, please see 
one of us to get a name tag so you can be visibly identified as "one 
of us". Since people opposed to our cause will also be there it is 
important that we can be identified as a group in opposition to 
Chicago MSN! 

Joan Miller, Legislative Coordinator of the powerful Cat Fanciers' 
Association (CFA), just informed me that she is working to get cat 
breeders out as well, so there will be more than just dog people 
there in opposition! (And, I'll repeat my praise for the CFA as being 
the best and the brightest of all purebred registries in the US in 
the fight against MSN and other draconian anti-pet laws.)

We have information that at least two opposing groups, which advocate 
for MSN throughout the United States, are actively encouraging people 
from all over the Midwest to attend tomorrow. Therefore, again, no 
matter what happens or is said, please act professionally and speak 
courteously at all time. Our professional demeanor will reflect well 
on our cause. And, as I've said, get there early (BY 9:00) to make 
sure you get a seat.

Perhaps some of you were able to listen to Steve Dale's "Pet Central" 
last night (Sunday). He had representatives of both the Chicago 
Veterinary Medical Association (Dr Shannon Greeley, President) and 
the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (Dr. Sheldon Rubin, 
incoming President) there on his show. Both groups are strongly 
opposed to the proposed Chicago MSN ordinance. Both organizations 
have prepared and distributed white papers for all of the 
aldermen/women on this subject, including journal citations, in 
support of their position against the ordinance. Here are just some 
of the many reasons that CVMA and ISVMA gave in stating their 
opposition to Chicago MSN on Dale's show last night:

MSN would interfere with the practice of medicine by veterinarians, 
since spay/neuter is a surgical procedure and a veterinarian should 
be the one (not the City!) who makes a decision as to what is best 
for each animal.
MSN would put aside all of the important decision making process that 
takes place between the veterinarian and the pet's owner in deciding 
what is best for that individual pet in the spay/neuter decision.
Recent studies have thrown into serious doubt the believe that 
spay/neuter reduces aggression in dogs; in fact, one large recent 
study has shown that spay/neuter may actually increase aggression in 
many cases.
People choose not to spay or neuter their pets for a variety of 
reasons, and many feel quite strongly about this issue. Most of these 
people are still highly responsible owners, have their animals 
vaccinated for rabies, and seek other appropriate veterinary care as 
needed for their pets. If MSN is passed, many of these people would 
be afraid to take their pets into the veterinarian for fear that they 
would be reported to authorities for owning an intact animal. 
Therefore, vaccination compliance would decrease and many pets would 
not get adequate veterinary care should this ordinance pass.
There are many studies that show that spay/neuter is not the 
universally benign and beneficial procedure that it was once made out 
to be for dogs. Studies have clearly demonstrated an increase in 
hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, hypothyroidism, urinary incontinence 
in bitches, and prostate cancer in males, among the many examples of 
health risks. Some of these associations may be breed related, others 
related to the age of the spay/neuter. But in any case, mandating a 
fixed six month age for spay/neuter for all pets is definitely not in 
the best interest of our pets.
In addition, Lou Auslander of the International Kennel Club (IKC) 
came on Dale's program (via telephone from Florida) and spoke 
against the proposed Chicago MSN ordinance. He is taking out a large 
advertisement in today's Chicago Tribune, so buy a Tribune and look 
for it. Many of you know that Mr. Auslander has many decades of 
dedicated and knowledgeable service to the purebred dog fancy, not 
just the IKC but previously the AKC as well, as well as various 
humane organizations in the state where he now resides (Florida). His 
stated opposition to Chicago MSN is vital to our success, and very 
much appreciated by us. 

IKC has their own Alert for the Chicago MSN issue on their website, 
and I encourage you to look at it - it is very good and gives 
example of letters to write and where they should be faxed or mailed:

http://www.ikcdogsh ow.com/html/ alert.html

I have faxed Aldermen Burke and Shulter, and Alderwoman Rugai letters 
of opposition to this ordinance. Please take a few minutes to write 
and fax your own letter to them. It doesn't have to be extensive; 
just a few short lines stating your opposition and reason why will 
suffice. There's an example on the IKC alert for you to use.

Thanks again, everyone. And thanks to those of you who have emailed 
me support and encouragement in all of this!

I'm hoping for a big turnout tomorrow for OUR SIDE to show our 
opposition to the passage of MSN in Chicago. Please come and join us. 
Always remember, numbers do count so we need you there tomorrow!

Margo Milde
AKC Legislative Liaison - Rand Park Dog Training Club Inc
AKC Legislative Liaison - Agility Ability Club of Illinois
Health Education Chair - Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

No action taken yesterday, although I did get tired of the news coverage of Bob Barker's appearance.

From the AKC site:

Yesterday, a vote by the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set. 

AKC's Government Relations Department continues to actively monitor developments regarding the Chicago ordinance proposal, and continues to work with responsible dog breeders and owners in the Chicago area in opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable proposal. 

For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail [email protected].


----------



## Timber1 (May 19, 2007)

I agree completely. The two most recent studies I have read conclude that neutering a young male can be very harmful, and aside from not allowing the dog to fully develop, neutering causes more health problems then it alleviates. 

My son's lab qualified for the Dock Diving World Championships which were held last week, yet he continues to regret the day he decided to neuter his lab. The dog is darn good, but the males that are a tad better have almost not been neutered. Of course there are other factors involved, but in the Championship round, the results spoke for themselve. 

I could elaborate, but you and Selzer have contributed many positive comments to this post.


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

Chicago Tribune poll going on. So far it's 70% Against the ordinance







:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-petsfix-vote,0,4683247,post.poll


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Health issues related to speutering.....

DOG NEWS – "Veterinary Topics" by Connie Vanacor
Nov. 2, 2007
It is on the AKC Canine Health Foundation National Parent Club Health Conference. Page 90
"Some of the other speakers were Dr. Peggy Root Kustritz, who spoke on
canine reproduction:"
"Dr. Kustritz talked about diseases related to reproduction. Although
spaying and neutering have advantages, there are also dangers.
Advantages include the elimination of testicular cancer and of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
On the negative side, males have a strong correlation to obesity after castration, though there is no definite cause and effect. Castrated dogs have twice the risk of developing prostatic adenocarcinoma as they age. They also run a higher risk of developing osteosarcoma as the age. There is a
predisposition in large and giant breeds of this occurring. Neutered
Rottweilers have a definite genetic predisposition to osteosarcoma. Acute Cranial Ligament injury is seen in greater numbers with castrated dogs."
In bitches, spaying reduces or eliminates the risk of mammary cancer and pyometra. However, it also increases the risk of osteosarcoma and transitional cell carcinoma. It also causes incontinence in up to 20 percent of females. Spaying before three months of age increases the risk of incontinence.....There is a strong hormonal relationship between spaying/neutering and the
diseases specific to each."


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

A few articles so far. This has been in the pipelone for so long, at least people are now aware of it:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/1081177,CST-NWS-brown30.article

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1080939,CST-EDT-edit30a.article


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Timber1, Unrelated but my buddy's dalmation took sevent place in that dock diving contest. Kind of interesting to run into someone else who knows a dog that went to it. I guess it was by invitation only and there were only 25 dogs?


----------



## umzilla (Nov 2, 2007)

Does anyone know where the presidential candidates stand on this type legislation? 

Has anyone read the premier issue (summer 2008) of Chicago Dog??

Glad to hear 70% are AGAINST this. 

Christine


----------



## Timber1 (May 19, 2007)

Selzer,

actually 24 dogs in each of four categories out of over 8,600 registered dogs.

What is your friend's name and the name of his dog. We met people from as far west as Washington State and from a few foreign countries.

For your friend, my son's dog is named "Jumpin George" and in the extreme vertical he almost made the finals.

I do remember one dalmation, and that is unusual. Frankly, to be invited is an honor, and finishing in seventh place is a wonderful accomplishment.


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

Forwarded with permission from another list. Very telling comments about an 
important issue that we should all be involved in....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Greg Roe
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: [dualbrittanys] Chicago Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law

I attended the hearing today and thought I'd give everyone a synopsis.

I will start by saying that by my quick count there were well over 100 
people attending the hearing in support of the spay/neuter legislation 
while, less than 50 of us who were opposed. I quickly realized how organized 
our opponents are as they had signs, hand outs, stickers, and buttons. 52 
people signed up speaking in favor of the legislation while only 32 signed 
up to speak against it. As far as I could tell I was the only person 
representing a pointing breed club in Illinois- and the Chicago area has 
several large ones.

Several speakers spoke from around the country including Bob Barker, who had 
some terribly insulting things to say about purebred dog owners, 
veterinarians, and anyone else who might not want to alter their dogs.;

also Judy Mancuso (not sure on the spelling) from California, one of the 
strongest supporters of AB 1634. and several reps from local advocacy groups 
including the IL chapter of HSUS and a couple of veterinarians.

The speakers mainly focused on dog attacks, dog fighting, and overpopulation 
of pets for the reasoning behind the impending legislation.

Several people spoke out against the legislation, but unfortunately they 
were not as well prepared, and certainly not as "sexy" as the opponents. 
They raised some good points, but had a tough time answering the tough 
questions the alderman asked them during questioning. However I was 
impressed with Steve Dale (past Brittany owner) from WGN radio he was the 
best speaker of the day by far.

The hearing lasted for 4 hours with the matter being tabled until a future 
date when public comment will be allowed. I hope during this time we can 
mobilize more people to attend.

The good news was that during questioning several alderman spoke out against 
the ordinance, and it appears there is some opposition mounting for this. If 
you know anyone in Chicago who is involved with purebred dogs of any breed 
please urge them to write their alderman or attend the next hearing. This is 
the only way we will have a chance.

It is clear what the HSUS's and other groups strategies are here. They are 
pushing this legislation in cities where they have a chance of passing and 
where they can mobilize their large network of animal rights activists. They 
will then move on to states and other jurisdictions. I think we all need to 
take a step back and think how we can help protect our own rights as dog 
owners in our communities and states and really start collaborating with 
different clubs to be proactive in this fight or every year we will continue 
to be backed against the ropes.

This is scary stuff to think about. A $100 yearly breeders fee to own an 
unaltered dog, submit your home to a "kennel inspection" a criminal 
background check of every member of your household. Even, if like me, you 
own only one unaltered dog. It is only a matter of time before these 
ordinances are popping up in other places, putting increasing pressure on 
dog owners across the country. I guarantee if this becomes law in Chicago, 
the anti's will be pushing it at the state level very soon.

Thank you to John Yates from the American Sporting Dog Alliance for 
providing excellent talking points. He will be happy to note his talking 
points were being passed around among those of us in attendance opposed to 
the ordinance.

If you would like more information, please feel free to contact me and I can 
give you more details.

Greg Roe


----------



## umzilla (Nov 2, 2007)

Pick up Chicago Dog magazine (look at the huge, full color ads before you buy it).

Summer 2008 was the premier issue. Guess what groups were overtly behind it??

The fact that this Chicago legislation is not far behind publishing is scary. Talk about well organized............


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

Here's a way all clubs can help......

FORWARDING PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED
LET'S GET THE WORD OUT!!!

We are currently putting together a list of all training and kennel
clubs and rescue groups which are in formal opposition to the
proposed Chicago Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance, along with the key
contact person for each club.

These groups do not have to be Chicago based, but can be any club or
organization in the United States, or even in the world, for that
matter. Actually, having national and even international attention
placed on the Chicago situation would give our Chicago aldermen/women
even more cause for concern about the negative effects that Mandatory
Spay/Neuter legislation, if enacted into law, might have on
Chicago's "pet friendly" tourism image.

At this time, we do not need formal letters of opposition, just the
names of such groups/clubs opposed, and a contact person and their
email whom we could contact should we need such a letter in the
future.

Please consider asking your clubs if they'd be willing to take a
stand on this issue, and agree to oppose the Chicago Mandatory
Spay/Neuter ordinance, in its current version, and any possible re-
writings of this ordinance in which Mandatory Spay/Neuter would be
mentioned or implied in some form. Usually, it is the Board of
Directors of a club that have this authority, and the Legislative
Liaison (if appointed) or an Officer who would act as the contact.

To date, we have the following groups formally on record stating that
they oppose the Chicago Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance:

Illinois Doberman Rescue Plus
Norfolk and Norwich Terrier Club
Fanciers Cocker Spaniel Club of So. Wisconsin
Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America
Irish Terrier Club of Chicago
Kerry Blue Terrier Club of Chicago
Great Lakes All Terrier Association
Rand Park Dog Training Club
Agility Ability Club of Illinois
Chicago Miniature Schnauzer Club
Little Fort Kennel Club
Illinois Cocker Rescue
Scottish Terrier Club of Chicago
Fox Terrier Club of Chicago
Chicago Miniature Schnauzer Club Rescue
Moraine Tracking Club

We'd like to see your club's name added to this list! When you have
your club's permission, please contact us so your club can be added!
You can contact me with this information:

Margo Milde
[email protected] com

or contact Michele Smith
[email protected]

Thanks!

Margo Milde
AKC Legislative Liaison - Rand Park Dog Training Club Inc
AKC Legislative Liaison - Agility Ability Club of Illinois
Health Education Chair - Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The GangIt all boils down to this - BAD people do not follow laws, no matter how many you pass.


I tend to agree with this statement, although it's the best system we have so far, generally speaking, to maintain order in our society. 

But if mandatory sterilization is NOT the solution, then what IS the solution? Have any of the clubs offered alternative proposals?

I will say that although we don't have mandatory spay in the northeast, our overpopulation issue appears to be less of an issue than other areas of the country (although still very much an issue). Just an observation, nothing scientific about this, but at the dogparks I frequent, it's frowned upon to get a dog from a breeder or especially, a petstore. People will often surrender that information in an apologetic way (not just to me). And I can't tell you the last time I ran across a dog that was intact. 

Here, rescue/shelter dogs are the 'in' thing, which I'm sure has a lot to do with education and attitude adjustments. So that's something that DOES work, at least here.

The only certain thing is that our current system in most parts of the country are NOT working, and SOMETHING does have to change, whether the government is involved, or not. There is far too much suffering and killing going on and the problem belongs to ALL of us to try and solve. But I have to add that I do agree that how I handle my dog's medical care should be a PRIVATE matter, along the same lines as parenting a child.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

Personally I don't want my animals being put at risk because of irresponsible pet owners. 

If it's a choice between the well being of my dogs and the lives of those animals put in shelters by irresponsbile owners, as far as I'm concerned, my dogs health, safety and well being will always come first. I don't want anyone telling me to have mandatory surgery performed on any of my animals, surgery that may jeopardize their lives or their future health, just to resolve a problem.

IMHO mandatory S/N makes as much sense as banning the sale of Ford automobiles because a small percentage of people who drive Fords are irresponsible drivers and present a hazard to others. The "let's punish everyone because of a few idoits" philosphy of resolving problems isn't my idea of the way a democratic society should be run.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: ArycrestPersonally I don't want my animals being put at risk because of irresponsible pet owners.....IMHO mandatory S/N makes as much sense as banning the sale of Ford automobiles because a small percentage of people who drive Fords are irresponsible drivers...


I think of it along the lines of human overpopulation, and the urge some of society has to sterilize people who obviously shouldn't be breeding. As tempting as that is to help solve homelessness, it's really a personal matter and one that the government doesn't belong in, and as I said, I agree with you on that point.

BUT, the problem is NOT a small percentage, in fact, the numbers are staggering! And the problem is not someone else's, it's everybody's. And these are not cars, 'those animals put in shelters by irresponsbile owners' are living breathing beings, who deserve the same right to life and the same level of concern that your own dogs have. They are voiceless and helpless, suffering and dying, and I commend ANYONE who is making any sort of an effort in regards to overbreeding and its ugly aftermath. 

Obviously, it's a widespread problem that has caught up to every one of us now, on some level. So I'm left to wonder, if mandatory spay/neuter is not the answer, then what is? I'm all for a better solution to this incredible problem.


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

_But if mandatory sterilization is NOT the solution, then what IS the solution?_

Read *Redemption* and you shall know. 
Seriously, I found it very enlightening.


_"Mandatory spay/neuter laws are NOT about saving pets!" _according to the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services.
Learn why


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Maedchen
> 
> Read *Redemption* and you shall know.
> Seriously, I found it very enlightening.
> ...


I've started on the website link you left. I can honestly say, I don't know much about the other side to this debate. And my impression from living in the northeast in comparison to what goes on in the rest of the country in terms of the enormous numbers and lax attitudes by so many in regards to their pets, I'm sure my opinions are biased. I've been lead (or molded?) to believe that spay/neuter DOES work, and so does education, and some of the new laws we have here in MA seem to be helping with the problem. 

At the very least, I've got an open mind about all of it. Leaving things as they are, though, definitely not the solution. A need for change is the only certainty here.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: MatsiRed
> I've been lead (or molded?) to believe that spay/neuter DOES work


 Brainwashed would be a better word... What about other countries, not the US? How do they deal with the overpopulation and what are their solutions?


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: GSD07
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: MatsiRed
> ...


Naw, brainwashed is a little too strong and negative. Lead, from early childhood, is much more realistic. Lead, educated, and molded as a child to believe that pets are family members, and sterilization is a means to keep other pets from going hungry. Same thing I'll teach my 6yo niece, until someone gives me some better answers. 

Yes, I grew up with the MSPCA and Animal Rescue Leagues here in Boston all my life. I'm almost 50yo, and as long as I can remember, dogs and cats in my communities were always spayed and neutered. It's uncommon to have loose dogs roaming the streets here. These days, the majority of puppies seen in my community are those transported by the truckloads every week from the south, where they don't believe in spaying and neutering their pets, so we are part of the solution, a win win situation I guess, for those lucky enough to make it up here. Of course, ALL these newest arrivals will be sterilized, which is a good thing, given the staggering numbers of homeless puppies that are sure to follow, because there is no one to stop the wreckless breeding.

And in terms of other countries, I don't have that kind of knowledge or experience to share here, although I'm all ears.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Donna - I just noticed this thread but very much agree with your posts! 

As far as Winograd's stuff - I think he has some good points. Yes, more can be done with networking, volunteerism etc, however in many areas, especially in the south pet overpopulation is extremely real and yes, that has EVERYTHING to do with people not spaying and neutering their pets. Anybody that doesn't think so is welcome to come here and I'll give you a tour. The shelter I work with most closely has handled something like 2000 animals so far this year. Of all those animals I believe a whopping three were altered when they came in. Twenty three have been adopted so far _this year_. Twenty five puppies came in _today_. The shelter is in a small town with few people and a massive pet overpopulation problem. The only vet clinic is astronomically expensive and few people there can afford it. Low cost/Free S/N is the only thing that is going to make a difference. We bust our butts on the rescue side of things and have lowered the euth rate from 98% to 40% but as wonderful as that is, that does nothing to address the problem. If we weren't rescuing those animals, they'd die, so either way they aren't contributing to the population. Saving them is great for them but it doesn't stem the tide. The only thing that is going to stem the tide is spay/neuter. 

Should that be mandatory? Maybe, maybe not. In this case, making it mandatory is probably unnecessary. The few S/N clinics that have been offered have plenty of takers. It's more a question of lack of historical availability than lack of willingness. 

Of course S/N helps control pet overpopulation. That's not brainwashing - that's just common sense! Go to any community. Look at the percentage of altered animals and compare that with shelter intake. There's a very clear relationship. Areas where S/N is part of the culture and most dogs are, are not dealing with the problems of the community described above. 

Whether or not mandatory S/N helps more than just freely available S/N or is appropropriate even if it does, is a very different issue and the two shouldn't be confused.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

"It's more a question of lack of historical availability than lack of willingness."

Hannah, thanks for the insight.

Are you saying that most people (in your area/down south) WANT to sterilize their pets but don't because they don't have the means to? No money or facility available rather than a lack of desire/willingness to have it done to their pets? I'm unclear about that.

MANDATORY spay/neuter has not been necessary here, because the culture dictates it, but we still have a long way to go, too. Our shelters are full to capacity because of the no kill trend. I'm not really sure how they manage to keep one dog to a kennel, except that I do know that here in my own city, dogs are prescreened in their homes before being accepted into our shelter to be sure they are adoptable, and often there is a waiting list, and most DO wait. And then of course, dogs and cats rarely leave a shelter here without being sterilized, it's just not acceptable. But most come in that way, anyway. Those that don't are an exception to the rule.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:Are you saying that most people (in your area/down south) WANT to sterilize their pets but don't because they don't have the means to? No money or facility available rather than a lack of desire/willingness to have it done to their pets? I'm unclear about that.


I don't know if I could use the word "most" because I just don't have the statistics either way but certainly a lot of people are in that boat. And my thinking is that until we can provide affordable S/N to the people that want it, any mandatory measures aren't relevant yet. The only "mandatory" thing we've pushed for is sterilization of animals when they're adopted from the shelter. That might seem like a no brainer to some people but it's not done in plenty of places down here. When it's not we see plenty of revolving door customers - adopt a dog, then a few months later, here are her puppies! And after a few too many litters, here comes mom again.









Also often puppy millers and BYBs will use the shelter as a source for breeding stock, so this cuts down on that. 

My thinking is first make sure that everyone who wants their pet altered has the ability to get that done, then work on education to expand the pool of people who want it done, and then when you've done all that, you might move onto other measures. 

I do wholeheartedly support differential licensing and heavy impound fees for animals caught running at large - especially repeat offenders - as well as the mandatory altering of all animals adopted from a shelter or housed at a shelter and then reclaimed after a certain period of time. 

When I look at Chicago's laws and of course Louisville's, which is nearby, I try to figure out - okay, what is the real agenda with this? What are they hoping to accomplish. In both cases I think they want some legal means to crack down on Pit Bull and other stray dog issues. I vehemently opposed Louisville's law because it contained BSL which I have a huge problem with. However, I do support stricter loose dog prohibitions and the stuff I mentioned above. I also think anti-tethering ordinances can help communities with dog fighting problems in a way that doesn't require BSL. Often times there really is common ground to be found, unless the attitude is that any and all dog laws are bad.









ETA: Clearly dogs in our country _are_ in trouble. I appreciate your attitude of "okay, if not this, then what _will _work?" Until people who care about dogs - not just their own dogs, but dogs - come together and try to find solutions we'll be stuck with bad laws and too many dying animals.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

Great explanation. I hadn't understood that cost was an issue for so many. I thought most of the problem had to do with culture.

I'm not sure how much it costs to house a dog in a shelter and then to pay someone to kill it in the end, but are there any studies comparing the cost of that compared to the cost of s/n in the community, such as s/n vans offered to citizens?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

It's an excellent question. I think there have been a few although I can't lay my hands on them. My recollection was that done properly, it's actually more expensive to house and dispose of a dog than subsidize the altering or at least it's pretty close. On the other hand a lot of places that have the worst overpopulation problem aren't spending a lot on either housing or euthanasia.









And then there's the time delay thing. You can dump a bunch of money into S/N but it takes a few years to start seeing a difference (such is the nature of population demographics and lifetables), so in the meantime the county is having to pay for immediate shelter needs and S/N. It's a longterm investment but one that many communties lack the $ to make. In KY they did a license plate program where the S/N tag generated funds that allowed people receiving public assistance to get a pet altered for $10. It was HUGELY popular but quickly ran out of funds.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq ETA: Clearly dogs in our country _are_ in trouble. I appreciate your attitude of "okay, if not this, then what _will _work?" Until people who care about dogs - not just their own dogs, but dogs - come together and try to find solutions we'll be stuck with bad laws and too many dying animals.


I don't think people are going to be able to look the other way anymore, because the problem is too big and widespread, and we are experiencing an attitude adjustment toward our pets in our society, so it's bound to infiltrate the lives of people who would otherwise feel immune to it. I think the best way to escape the mandatory sterilization proposals is to propose something BETTER. I AM trying to understand both sides of the debate. Hard to see the other side though when s/n seems to have worked for years in my own backyard, although I do understand that's different than mandating it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Why does everyone believe that it is impossible to keep an intact dog or bitch without having puppies?

If people are too poor to get an animal speutered when they want to do so, I suppose they are also too poor to keep the bitch in the house when it is in season and to go out with it when it needs to eliminate. 

It sounds like the situation is an attitude of "oh well" when it comes to letting the animals pro-create. With this attitude ingrained in people, there is no reason these people will suddenly go rushing to the vet to speuter their animal just because someone offers to pay for it. It is highly unlikely that these people license their animals, and would bother to obey a mandatory speuter law any way. 

MatsiRed: As for the "adopt a dog from a shelter" being a superior attitude, and getting a dog from a breeder being a source of embarrassment, I say Haach Tu Eeey!!!! I hear it all the time too -- people saying, "We always adopt from the pound" or "we only get rescues" always in the most superior tones they can muster. 

Personally, I believe that continuing to breed GSDs in the present atmosphere is somewhat heroic. We breeders all know one thing: if we do not breed good dogs that have much to offer, and raise good litters properly, all that will be left are the animals put out by puppy mills. That means leaving the future of our breed to the most dispicable specimens of humans, who are certain to cut every corner they can find to cut. 

So we open our homes to the scrutiny of others, and listen to their scornful accusations, and defend our dogs and our choices. We spend an enormous amount of time and money for the privledge of being branded BYB, or Puppy Mill, or Greedy, Immoral, etc. 

If fifty years from now there are still good GSDs out there, thank a breeder for fighting for their breed and for the right to breed their dogs.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

The fact that it is certainly possible to keep an intact dog without having it reproduce doesn't mean that that's what people are doing. 

What this comes down to is facts, not rhetoric. There are people here who want to have their pets altered, they can't afford it, and their pets are having babies. We could debate all day long about why they can't or don't prevent that but the fact is that they don't. So, we deal with the hand we've been given. When we offer to pay for it, people DO come rushing in to get their pets altered. If we alter the pets of the people who want them altered, they will no longer reproduce. This is all just reality. Like it, don't like it, it is what it is. 

I have a lot of respect for responsible breeders. I have in the past purchased dogs from responsible breeders. I also see that responsible breeders are by far the minority of people out there breeding. And even people intentionally breeding purebred dogs (be they good breeders or other) are by far the minority of people producing litters. Most of the dogs in our shelters came from people who have unaltered animals that are reproducing randomly. Some of those are themselves mixes, some of those are purebred dogs, some of them purchased from "responsible breeders." Clearly, none of them are altered. 

If people want to be proud they rescued a dog and saved a life, why is that a problem? There will always be people who want something really specific and care enough to do the research and pay the price for a carefully bred puppy. It's not a competition with shelters. These animals are dying for goodness sakes. How can we, as dog lovers, not applaud a decrease in the number of animals euthanized when people get excited about shelter dogs not as second best but as first class pets? 

If they have misperceptions and it bothers you, congratulate them on not supporting a puppy mill or byb and talk to them about what you do and why it's important. 

Again - dog lovers need to come together on this for the good of all dogs, not just our own.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

Just for the record, I am not against breeding, in fact, my 8yo Matsi was purchased from a breeder, which should tell you something about me. I realize it has its place and purpose in our society, and if handled properly, won't add to the overpopulation problem. What I am against is IRRESPONSIBLE breeding. For every good breeder (and I assume you are one of them), there are many more, TOO MANY, wretched ones.

For instance, most of the dogs I 'do' meet that came from breeders are the newer designer dogs. Or some are from other parts of the country, with very little research done by the new dog parents, and no on-site visit. Or some have been from the ever dwindling pet stores in my area, purchased on a whim. We all know that there's a very GOOD possibility that that new dog parent just enabled a GREEDY yes, BYB, and THAT is where the 'superior' attitude plays into the conversation. And this attitude is something the TRULY reputable breeders should be GRATEFUL for, because it's called peer pressure, and it's part of the culture that keeps the puppy mill specimens OUT, and the top notch specimens IN!

And btw, I, too, open myself up to scrutiny, when I defend the throw away dogs of our society, that are oftentimes not up to snuff with the puritans, who wonder why anyone would want to save damaged goods, or 'the despicable specimens of humans', as you call them. Personally, I believe that continuing to SAVE GSDs in our present atmosphere is also somewhat heroic, so there you see, we do have something in common, we can both be heros.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: MatsiRed...
> Our shelters are full to capacity because of the no kill trend.
> ...


Perhaps part of the solution would be to abolish the no kill shelters. How about putting an end to importing dogs when shelters run low. We can stop allowing dogs to be pulled from one shelter and transported to an area where the shelters are already full. Stop allowing pregnant shelter bitches to be pulled so they can give birth would also be a step in the right direction. We could even put down owner turn-ins immediately to help resolve lots of over population problems. Distasteful suggestions? You betcha. But they're no more distasteful than mandating that responsible owners like me, have a surgical procedure preformed on our dogs that may affect their health because of irresponsible pet owners. They're no more distasteful than putting a breeder out of business because of irresponsible pet owners. Shelters are full because of irresponsible owners. Without irresponsible owners, there wouldn't be a pet overpopulation problem. Go after them. Shoot, maybe we could spay/neuter irresponsible owners!!!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Um, regardless of how distasteful they are, aside from not allowing pregnant dogs to have their babies, I don't see how the rest of those things would help with pet overpopulation on more than a small regional scale - at least as long as all animals adopted are altered and not adding to the population themselves. 

Shelter transfers and having a variety of pets available for adoption actually should reduce pet overpopulation by providing potential adopters with what they want (and it's altered), thus discouraging them from supporting puppy mills and bybs.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Arycrest ...They're no more distasteful than putting a breeder out of business because of irresponsible pet owners.


I'm confused about this statement. Will the mandatory sterilization law somehow put breeders out of business? Are there no exceptions for qualified breeders?


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: MatsiRed
> I'm confused about this statement. Will the mandatory sterilization law somehow put breeders out of business? Are there no exceptions for qualified breeders?


It's very difficult for a breeder to breed a dog that's been sterilized. And like it or not, that's how some of the newer s/n laws are being written, no breeder exceptions. Have they been modified? Don't know! Will they pass if they're not modified? Who knows? Keep in mind, the purpose of PETA and HSUS is to eradicate animal breeding and animals owned by man. These laws being pushed by their supporters are getting more and more radical.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Arycrest
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: MatsiRed...
> ...


Actually, a lot of this is already going on. MOST dogs never make it out of shelters, and owner turn-ins are the first to be killed. Many of the shelters that attempted to be no kill have had to revert to euthanizing in some areas. We are talking about innocuous numbers here, but try looking into the pleading eyes of all these dogs, day after day after day. 

In fact, try looking into the eyes of YOUR dogs someday and imagine a sword piercing her pregnant body, or your litter of puppies struggling to escape the gas chamber, from the bottom of a pile of 25 other dogs, or your noble senior hanging from the end of a choke pole. You may say it will never happen to YOUR dogs, and God willing, it won't. But, if you can forget the irresponsible human, and just think about THE DOGS, who are very much like your own, you may be able to understand a little bit better why so many are so desperate for some sort of solution to overpopulation, even if it's not mandatory sterilization. If people can get beyond themselves and their own personal consequences, and as Hannah said, think more about THE DOGS that are suffering and dying en masse, then you may feel the impact on a different level. Who knows, maybe you, the breeder, with an open mind to the other side of the debate, may even have a great solution that hasn't been suggested yet.


----------



## shepherdbydesign (Mar 7, 2007)

How about people that turn in their dogs or cat shouldn't they loose their right to have another one for a certain amount of time, like the life expectency of the dog/cat they give up would be fine with me. Give up your pet and give up your right to own one for years to come may detour pet owners to do it in the first place. Don't attack us responsible breeders, go after the ones that cause this in the first place


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: chuckHow about people that turn in their dogs or cat shouldn't they loose their right to have another one for a certain amount of time, like the life expectency of the dog/cat they give up would be fine with me. Give up your pet and give up your right to own one for years to come may detour pet owners to do it in the first place. Don't attack us responsible breeders, go after the ones that cause this in the first place


Chuck, I tend to agree with this, that wreckless pet ownership should be have major consequences, such as you describe.

I also believe that for those breeders who are deemed irresponsible, who breed for greed and then adamantly refuse to take dogs back when things go bad, should also feel the consequences. There are many dogs sitting on death row because a breeder had no clue who her puppy was going to, or learned and then didn't give a ****.

There are great breeders and great owners, but there are far more irresponsible breeders who meet up with irresponsible owners, and so no group is immune here.


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

_MANDATORY spay/neuter has not been necessary here, because the culture dictates it, but we still have a long way to go, too. Our shelters are full to capacity because of the no kill trend. I'm not really sure how they manage to keep one dog to a kennel, except that I do know that here in my own city, dogs are prescreened in their homes before being accepted into our shelter to be sure they are adoptable, and often there is a waiting list, and most DO wait_

No Kill should not be seen as a "trend", but the only humane way to shelter any animal in need of a new home. I wouldn't call it "full capacity" if there's only one dog in a kennel. 
No kill shelters are all about reaching out to the community and bring a shelter into positive light. So many people learned to fear shelters as a bad place (rightfully so) where pets are sitting in their own waste, all crowded with no human contact, subject to disease until they are finally killed. Is it any wonder people rather buy from a BYB etc then going to their dirty and depressing high kill shelter- who is rarely open anyway.
It takes a lot of effort to change the mindset of people so they reach out to shelters again when considering adding a new pet. But unless shelter change their way of operating, nothing is going to change. It's the shelter's fault that so many pets are killed, not the publics'.

No kill shelters also try to avoid taking in pets by helping/assisting the owner (who wants to surrender their pet) with any trouble they have- be it behavioral or medical- and find a solution that the pet can stay with the owner.

Providing affordable S/N is absolutely crucial as well as reaching out to the media and other outlets for support. 



_And then there's the time delay thing. You can dump a bunch of money into S/N but it takes a few years to start seeing a difference (such is the nature of population demographics and lifetables), so in the meantime the county is having to pay for immediate shelter needs and S/N. It's a longterm investment but one that many communties lack the $ to make. In KY they did a license plate program where the S/N tag generated funds that allowed people receiving public assistance to get a pet altered for $10. It was HUGELY popular but quickly ran out of funds. _

Considering dogs can throw puppies twice a year and cats basically year round, it shouldn't take that many years to see improvement/ decrease of pets. I'm sad the program was cancelled- they were on the right track.


----------



## GunnerJones (Jul 30, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: agilegsdsChicago has proposed an ordinance that will require mandatory sterilization by 6 months old of dogs and cats. ......


What did you expect from the "People's Republic of Illinois" best part about the Chicago area was seeing it in my rear view mirror


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: selzer I hear it all the time too -- people saying, "We always adopt from the pound" or "we only get rescues" always in the most superior tones they can muster.


 Gosh, it's so true and ridiculous. My neighbor went even further. When I got my second dog from a breeder and my neighbor discovered that the pup is pure German bloodlines she told me that I am not a patriot since I don't adopt true American dogs from the pound. This type of patriots I do call brainwashed, sorry. Now she stopped talking to me and badmouthes my dogs behind my back.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

And there are just as many people who will tell you in snooty tones "Oh, is that a rescue? MY dogs are 100% German bloodlines. I like 'high end' GSDs". I paid ___ (fill in large sum here)." 

Sure - that attitude annoys me. It annoys me more that people don't realize that rescue is full of 'high end' GSDs and that many more are dying in the shelters, but at the end of the day snooty attitudes versus dogs lives isn't much of a contest.







I keep on with what I do, which is try to save dogs. Not because I enjoy it so much (I'd like to go do more other things with _my _dogs too!) but because it's important. 

It would be so wonderful if more breeders would step in and help generate some solutions! I can certainly understand why people don't like mandatory S/N without exceptions. So, what can we do? Because the dogs are dying now and tomorrow and the day after that. In fact, I've never seen so many wonderful GSDs in need as here lately. Not to mention GSDs are increasingly under the gun of BSL as communities try to deal with dog fighters and aggressive dog problems. No, it isn't GSDs that are the problem but they get caught in the net of "aggressive breeds." 








If we don't like what's offered, let's try and offer something better! And a real and comprehensive plan - not just "well, owners should be more responsible."


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I found the basis for this no-kill idea in one of Madchaen's links.









I would like it better if I could separate it in my mind from the idea of a no kill shelter that many of us might have (dogs and even more so, cats, warehoused for years) and also if I could convince myself that they are not so naive to think that if the music stopped today, we could absorb every available animal into GOOD homes without about 5 million falling off the last chair. 

I do like that it is a multi-faceted systems approach. 
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Equation.pdf

However, I have been to Ithaca NY and I realize he's been around the country, but to say that you could replicate things from there to say Podunk, KY easily is, to me, setting those people up for failure. Does Podunk have a veterinary school to do their speuters? A liberal, somewhat affluent, spend money on pets and shelters population of people? The capability of mobilizing coalitions of people for pets when their people are also going hungry and losing their homes? Access to an animal behavior clinic? 

I look at these things and think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and think-in places where people are unable to take care of people (and I am not saying this in a blaming way-I think life is hard and harder now than I ever remember), it is going to take funding and hands on support to make it happen. 

I like his system far better than mandatory anything and would certainly work on it locally, and would like to see more places using these methods, but you have to find effective people to do so, and they can't always be the same people who are already saving dogs from death now-there isn't time to do both, truly, if we are to be reasonable.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

No, you are exactly right! Podunk KY not only does not have a vet school, they may not even have a vet. But there is that guy who lives up on the hill who can do neuters with a rubber band, maybe we can go to him...









I think Winograd's ideas have their place but they are extremely naive when it comes to taking them to rural areas. I can send out 1000 pleas on certain kinds of dogs and offer to chauffer them all over the country and no one is going to step up. Even if we get the occasional Pit Bull or adult male hound out, there are SOOOOO many of them compared to the number of people looking, that most will never be saved, no matter how long we hold them or how hard we try. 

I worked at a shelter in NC and even the difference between that shelter and the ones I work with now was night and day. It makes an enormous difference who lives in the county with your shelter. If it's people who can't feed themselves, generating "positive feelings" about the shelter isn't going to make much difference. 

So I have mixed feelings about him - I LIKE that he's opening the debate and reframing a lot of assumputions but I dislike that he's proclaiming things that simply aren't true in all areas, and which gives people looking for an excuse (blame the shelter) a ready avenue.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Ok, my solution is 'penalize not responsible owners', not the responsible ones and their innocent animals that have to be spayed and neutered and then put down anyway because speutered dogs are returned to shelters as often as intact. 

I don't look down at rescues but I admit I do like German lines better, and this is my right to get an animal I want. I do not do rescues, and I do not adopt children. I value wellbeing of my dogs more then those in rescue and I value wellbeing of my children more than those in Africa. Does it make me a bad person? Do I have to be forced to adopt animals and children? Do I have to be forced to perform surgeries on my dogs because John Doe from across the street feels I should? Do you think it's so wonderful to live in a police state?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:they can't always be the same people who are already saving dogs from death now-there isn't time to do both, truly, if we are to be reasonable.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!! We've got a little tiny group of people absolutely driving themselves into the ground trying to foster, adopt, rescue, transport, plan S/N events, .... We need help! We need $! And we need more creative solutions!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

The point is that plenty of rescues _are_ German lines - the dogs in shelters are no different from the GSDs everywhere else, they are a cross section of the GSDs out there from BYB am pet lines to working German lines and everything in between, but leaving that for the moment. 

How do you suggest (specifically) that irresponsible owners should be penalized?


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

I understand the point but it also proves my point that it's the irresponsible owners' fault that they ended up there. I don't adopt from rescue because I don't want to fix somebody else's mess, I have enough of my own.

I suggest that IO will be issued a ticket by the police and have to pay a considerable fine (like $1500) and have the right to appear in court and prove their innocence. They have to be required to sponsor their litters from accidental breedings if they cannot place them in good homes, not just dump them in the shelters. That's how shelters will get their funds.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't think anyone is debating that IO are the problem. It's how to deal with them. 

What behavior would warrant the large fine? How will irresponsible owners be defined? Do you mean if they have a litter? How will the sponsorship be mandated?


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

If they bring a litter to a shelter than they have to pay for supporting the litter until all pups get adopted. If people avoid taking responsibility for a litter or an animal then they are irresponsible. If they dump an animal in a shelter because they are moving then they are irresponsible and have to sponsor the animal in a shelter until it gets adopted. It will be mandated thru the collection agency.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

What happens when they dump the litter in the parking lot because they don't want to pay the fee?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=772472&page=1&gonew=1#UNREAD 
I think that might then become the default solution.









That would be great to be able to have a collection agency.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

What happens if somebody does hit and run? Should we stop enforcing traffic laws? What happens if a murderer dumps a body in a river? Should we stop investigating homocides? The same applies to dumping the litter in a parking lot.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Originally Posted By: GSD07 I don't adopt from rescue because I don't want to fix somebody else's mess, I have enough of my own.


Another part of the solution to the problem is education. A majority of the dogs that end up in shelters/rescue are not "somebody's mess." They are wonderful dogs who need a home. 

And I will never buy from a breeder because of all of those wonderful dogs in shelters needing homes. 

And the point about dumping the pups in a parking lot is that fining the breeder who dumps their pups at a shelter is not a feasible plan. Lots of pups never even make it to the shelter. Some end up in dumpsters, on the side of the road, etc. 

As long as it is easy for people to buy and breed dogs and as long as people think that the only way to get a "good" dog is to buy one then we will have a pet overpopulation problem.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:What happens if somebody does hit and run? Should we stop enforcing traffic laws? What happens if a murderer dumps a body in a river? Should we stop investigating homocides? The same applies to dumping the litter in a parking lot.


Those aren't really analogous. If we had a law that resulted in people doing a hit and run in the same place every day, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that law wasn't in the best interests of anyone. 

Here's the thing - plenty of shelters have tried drop off fees. This isn't a new idea. The problem? Most people who care so little about their dogs that they are dumping them at a shelter don't care enough to pay a fee. 

I'm glad you're trying to come up with solutions but that one doesn't work and it's horrible for the dogs. Not only do you encourage people to dispose of their own problem in all manner of horrible ways (the dogs should BE so lucky as to be shot), you also have people lobbing bags of puppies over the shelter fence after hours, puppies and kittens released in the parking lot where they are hit by people driving in and out, and let us not forget the fun that we had just this week at one shelter - a taped up box of puppies left outside the shelter in the broiling sun. Most of the puppies had died of heat stroke before they were discovered (imagine how nice that was for them) so no reproducing there







but they were able to save two. Whether they are brain damaged or not remains to be seen. 

So anyway, mandatory fees penalize the people who are trying (if belatedly) to be responsible, meanwhile all the irresponsible people who don't want to pay, won't! Wasn't that what we were trying to avoid?


----------



## khurley (Sep 25, 2004)

> Quote:I don't look down at rescues but I admit I do like German lines better, and this is my right to get an animal I want.


For the sake of clarification....it's not only American line GSDs that end up in rescues. That said, you are correct in that it is your right to choose to go with a breeder. My GSDs are rescues. One day, I may decided to get a dog from a reputable breeder, either way, rescue or breeder, as long as you aren't supporting puppy mills or disreputable breeders, you shouldn't have to feel bad about your choice.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Definitely! This should not be about rescues versus responsible breeders as a source for dogs. It should be about what to do to reduce the number of dogs currently dying as a result of pet overpopulation - dogs that, as you say, vary in background quite a bit. I've got two German working lines fosters right now. Both shelter dogs. Both facing immediate euthanasia. 

ETA: I know you just replied to the last post but I wanted to clarify for others reading - I didn't say the quote on the above post, even though I'm in the reply line.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq So anyway, mandatory fees penalize the people who are trying (if belatedly) to be responsible, meanwhile all the irresponsible people who don't want to pay, won't! Wasn't that what we were trying to avoid?


 When the people are trying to be belatedly responsible then they were irresponsible in the first place and have to pay for it so I don't feel that it's unfair. Those who don't regard any laws and don't want to pay and won't won't spay or neuter either so what is the point of mandatory S/N in this case? It's as pointless as anything else except that really responsible owners are penalized with forcing them to alter their animals.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Originally Posted By: BowWowMeow
> As long as it is easy for people to buy and breed dogs and as long as people think that the only way to get a "good" dog is to buy one then we will have a pet overpopulation problem.


 I disagree with the above statement because it's not really easy to buy and breed a good dog, not 'good' but good. It's not easy and it's expensive. I would say, as long as people don't feel they have to take responsibility for their actions like adopting an animal we will have a pet overpopulation problem. Remember Antoine de Saint-Exupery? 'You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose...' The problem is in human heads not in animals reproductive organs.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Originally Posted By: GSD07
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: BowWowMeow
> ...


People are buying irresponsibly bred dogs and it is very easy to do so. That was my point. If you want a puppy and you have a couple hundred dollars you can get one, same day, no questions asked. 

In the years I've worked in rescue we have taken in many working line dogs who were too much for their owners. Many have gone on to do police work, SAR, etc. Well bred dogs end up in rescue for a variety of reasons. And most rescue dogs do not have major problems.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Quote:When the people are trying to be belatedly responsible then they were irresponsible in the first place and have to pay for it so I don't feel that it's unfair.


I know it's not unfair for them to have to pay, I'm saying that it's unfair for all the other people who won't pay. And the point is that very very few people will pay, many many more dogs and cats will suffer because of the measures people take to avoid paying, and for these two reasons, it's not a workable solution. 



> Quote: Those who don't regard any laws and don't want to pay and won't won't spay or neuter either so what is the point of mandatory S/N in this case?


Ah, but here's the thing - if you provide affordable or free S/N they _will _quite often do it! And if you make the penalties for reclaiming unaltered dogs higher than the cost of having them altered, they will often do it then too. 

So it's a complicated picture. Again, I'm not arguing that we should have mandatory S/N legislation, I'm just saying there IS a problem, and anyone who cares about more than just their own pets, should care about trying to find workable solutions to address it. 



> Quote: as long as people don't feel they have to take responsibility for their actions like adopting an animal we will have a pet overpopulation problem. Remember Antoine de Saint-Exupery? 'You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. '


I think that's pretty much the exact argument of the animal welfare groups who are pushing this kind of legislation


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*

Well, I guess I don't see altering a dog as a sign of a responsible ownership then. I see it as hurting a helpless animal that was unfortunate enough to end up in our care, hurting it for a $1K or $10. Also I think if everybody would really care for at least their own pets it would be a big chunk of a solution right there.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*

Yes, if everyone would really care about their pets, that would be wonderful. The problem is that lots of them don't. The shelters are full and more animals are coming in every day. And contrary to what a lot of people think, most of those animals aren't coming in because they have problems, they are coming in because they are surplus. 

So... where do we go from there? 

We can say "well, if everyone would just do the right thing the problem would be solved!" all day long but it doesn't save a single dog or cat.







Wishing everyone would care more isn't a solution. Neither is telling them that they should. Praying for more homes and more wonderful adopters also isn't effective (trust me - tried it!) Mandated drop off fees also don't work. 

Shelters and rescues across the country are pouring energy and $ into finding innovative solutions but still the litters keep coming. Does anyone have some practical and specific ideas that we can push for to reduce the number of unwanted litters?


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

_However, I have been to Ithaca NY and I realize he's been around the country, but to say that you could replicate things from there to say Podunk, KY easily is, to me, setting those people up for failure._

Winograd talkes about this too. When the SPCA in San Francisco became successfully no kill (before Winograd), people (shelters around the nation) claimed the success on it being a city and even touted that gays were more animal friendly. Then Winograd took a high kill rural shelter in upstate NY and turned it no kill, and the same was done in a very bad (poor & high crime) area in Philadelphia and others. 
People will not look for solutions as long as they always have the mindset that it's not going to work anyway. What do you have to lose by trying? Even if an area can not become 100% no kill, they can atleast substantially reduce the animals they kill. 

*Read the book - I promise, you will not be disappointed. *


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I have read his ideas and we're trying every one of them we can - honestly! But it's not enough.









We're doing our best to offer low cost S/N, we transport animals out of area, we do positive promotion of the shelter in the community. I've worked my way right down his list. Believe me! I have far from a not trying attitude!







I will try anything that might work and am always on the lookout for new ideas. 

The difference between a rural shelter in NY or an inner city shelter in Phili is still quite stark, especially as both have the advantage of proximity to areas that are NOT facing the same problems. Has he ever worked with a shelter in the rural south? I can't find any evidence that he has but that doesn't mean he hasn't. I'd be interested to hear his experiences and how he overcame some of the problems we haven't been able to solve.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have to reply before I read the rest of these. I meant "despicable specimens of humans" as the humans are despicable specimens. I do not want the future of our breed being left up to the hard core puppy millers. I never meant that the puppies they produce are despicable. 

However, when the puppy millers cut their corners and breed indiscriminately, the breed will suffer.


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

_Has he ever worked with a shelter in the rural south? _

I don't know. 
Maybe you can get some ideas by reading the success stories or contact him.

Success stories 

and Reform Animal Control etc


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I just looked through the material and I'm not wowed. Not that the ideas are bad, just that they're not new or all that earth shattering. We were doing pretty much all of the things he recommends before he appeared on the scene with his "revolution." 

I think he's got some good things to say but I have a real problem with the way he communicates it. Heaping blame on the shelters accomplishes nothing but to cause them to retreat still further and close their doors to rescues and new ideas. It also provides a convenient scapegoat for people who don't want to examine their own role in the problem. The other issue for me is that some of the suggestions simply aren't feasible in the areas we work in but if we point that out then suddenly we're "not trying" or "being part of the problem." 

However, I will say that I really like what he's got to say about temp tests. I've felt this way for a long time and I'm very glad to see that he's not hiding behind the myth of unadoptability to artificially drive up success percentages - which an increasing number of supposed No Kill and Low Kill shelters do.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*

He directed a shelter in ITHACA, NY. That is where Cornell University is so very, very different from the rural south! 

In fact, I visited the shelter there last year. I did not find it perfect. I was giving behavioral advice to several workers who actually caused a fight between two dogs they stuck together temporarily in the same kennel.









I think his ideas are interesting but naive in many ways and they do not fully take into account vast discrepancies between locales, regional differences and economic resources.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I agree with one thing that I read here in particular and that is the ideas on what to do about pet over-population need to come from breeders, shelter workers, rescuers, and dog fanciers. 

We need to come up with something. 

I do not believe that mandatory speuter will work, even if they do enact it. 

I do not like the demonization of the people producing puppies. 

I think we need to change people's attitudes about their dogs, try to instill the belief that a dog is not a throw-away item. And frankly, I do not have any wonderful suggestions on how to do that. 

I think that maybe instead of mandatory speuter, they should have mandatory training classes. If you had to take each of your dogs to a training class 1 day per week for the first year of dog-ownership, than you may have a bond with the **** dog that will not lend itself to be dropped at a shelter. People with multiple dogs would be in constant training classes and would think twice about purchasing yet another puppy. (I know I am planning on keeping a pup right now.) Even if the dog does lose its home, it would have had a year's training and socialization which would make it more adoptable. But there is really no way to enforce it. I do not believe in making laws we cannot enforce. And I do not like mandatory anything. 

I think though that if we had low-cost training available, that would be geared to train both dog and owner, then it would be just as affective as low-cost speuter. 

I think that low-cost speuter and free speuter will just not work. We have it here and recently our shelter had to turn kill. The problem is that the responsible financially challenged people with dogs will use the low-cost speuter, but they also would have kept their bitches inside and monitored when in heat. 

It is the individuals who simply do not care whether their dog has puppies, that are not going to be covered under any program at all, and they produce enough animals that they can easily fill shelters with unwanted litters, and dogs. These people will not make use of low-cost training either. They are simply ignorant and they will stay that way. 

The problem is the attitude of these people. The answer is NOT to leave theirs to be the only puppies born. Sorry, that doesn't work for me.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm just happy if folks from different general viewpoints can come together and try to brainstorm some potential solutions. And I think if responsible breeders would partner with open minded rescue people and shelter workers, that's the best chance of success. When everyone clams up and refuses to talk, then you just get both sides butting heads and a huge amount of energy that COULD be used to help the dogs we supposedly all care about gets spent blasting each other instead.









I'm not convinced mandatory S/N would work either. I'm not convinced it wouldn't, but I definitely agree it's not an obvious slam dunk and aspects of it are a lot like BSL - penalizing the law abiding people leaving only the exact people we don't want. 

So - I'm all for finding alternatives! I am just tired of watching so many wonderful animals die. 



> Quote: It is the individuals who simply do not care whether their dog has puppies, that are not going to be covered under any program at all, and they produce enough animals that they can easily fill shelters with unwanted litters, and dogs.


Well... yes and no. I agree that there will always be problem people but there's ample evidence that when you offer low cost S/N people DO respond, so even if that alone won't fix the problem, that's still thousands of puppies and kittens that would have been born that aren't. 

I can see why you think if the owner cares enough to participate in the program that they also care enough to keep their pet in, but it turns out not to be true. There are lots of stats to back that up - nearly every female we see at these clinics who is over a year old has already had a litter. So clearly these are animals who are reproducing but whose owners are willing to alter, given that it's accessible. And this is where promoting pediatric S/N really does have it's place, regardless of how you feel about doing it on your own pets. If we provide accessible S/N for people as soon as they get a pet, we can eliminate all the litters that are happening between the time they acquire the pet and make it to the clinic. 

So - all that helps. 

What to do about the people who don't care enough to alter even if it's free and easy? They are tougher but there are still some pretty creative incentive programs that do seem to help. And, let's face it, even if you don't care about your pets, having litters all the time is a nuisance. If someone offers to take care of that nuisance for you, plenty of people will (and do) jump at that chance.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

But people remember having a litter as a kid, where the bitch was out back or in a barn and it wasn't any trouble. It isn't until after that first litter when they realize that it isn't a piece of cake. Then "yeah, get this bitch spayed or outta here!" And if it is cheaper to speuter than to drop it off at the shelter, then maybe we'll speuter.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:And if it is cheaper to speuter than to drop it off at the shelter, then maybe we'll speuter.


Exactly! Not so much cheaper because, as I've said, shelter drop off fees are a nightmare for the dogs, but if it's no trouble to get them altered, many many many of them really will get it done. We get people begging every week for affordable altering - they're tired of the dog having babies every 6 months. If they can get her altered, they're more than happy to keep her. 

Another thing to remember as far as people keeping unaltered dogs from reproducing is that a lot of these dogs live outside either on tethers or just loose. Keeping them away from male dogs is WAAAYYYY more difficult than people are going to bother with. She's not coming inside and they're not building a fence, so she just keeps breeding. But if she's spayed - she doesn't!


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

Winograd never claimed that he was the first one who turned a shelter no kill. There were people before him and he talkes about them in his book too.

Of course you cannot generalize that all shelters are bad. Many of them are trying hard, doing everything they can and have (and continue to) improved greatly (without him) from conditions many years ago- my local shelter included.

But there are also shelters who are totally to blame for being part of the problem, if they cause sickness in pets through unsanitary conditions, don't vaccinate & S/N, have shelter stuff/directors who simply don't give a hoot, have no opening hours the public can use, don't work with rescue orgs., kill dogs despite rescue being on it's way, etc, etc. One of those coming to mind would be MAS in Tennessee. Wouldn't it be great to challenge Winograd to turn this shelter around.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

He may not claim to the first to turn a shelter no kill but he goes on an on about his new thinking, unconventional wisdom, and revolution. 

He uses a lot of rhetoric that seems to generalize that any shelter who isn't doing x,y, and z is to blame for the problem. To me this is rather simplistic. A better question is _why_ the shelter isn't doing x,y, and z? Is it because they could but just don't care? Okay, fine, absolutely hold them accountable for being part of the problem! But more likely it's because they can't perform magic and create money where there isn't any. Vaccines, medical care, food, supplies, heck even bleach, all cost MONEY. It's not the shelter staff's fault they don't have it. And it's not really the community's fault either in a lot of cases. As Jean said, we're talking about communities that can't take care of their people, it's simply not fair to berate them for not doing all these different things for their animals. 

Winograd says that the cornerstone of moving towards no-kill is a low cost S/N program. I COULD NOT agree with him more. But what do you do when there's no vet? Or the only vet in the area refuses to offer discounted services or participate in any kind of program? What do you do when the closest mobile S/N clinic says your community is still much too far away? You do what we've done - you bust your butt trying to find vets from outside to come in once a month, to raise money to pay for supplies and subsidize the surgeries, you try. You try really really hard, but you don't always get there and if you fall short, I don't find it helpful to have someone jumping around basically saying it's the shelter's fault that you aren't where you should be. 

Another issue I have is that his adoption stats are way off. They may work on a national scale and they may work for big cities but the dog/cat to human ratio in a lot of these small towns simply does not allow for the replacement rates he offers. I went to a S/N conference last fall and in one of the workshops we were to estimate how many dogs and cats there were per human resident based on their mathmatical model, shelter intake figures, and census data. The figures for the counties I work with were orders of magnitude higher than the larger city people were dealing with. The guy running the workshop actually came over to check my math because he couldn't believe what we were up against. Here is a guy who specializes in this topic and _he_ didn't realize just how bad it could be. 

Then there's the issue where he says increasing local adoptions doesn't mean sacrificing on the quality of homes. Really? That's great if you have a large population base from which to select appropriate homes. However, if 99% of your population base keeps their dogs outside and can't afford hw preventative or other routine care, then maybe local adoptions aren't where you want to focus your efforts.

My point is not to bash Winograd, it's only to say that many of these ideas are not realistic for some areas and I wish his approach were a little different. There are some terrific people working in shelters who would like nothing better than to see more animals saved. They are discouraged and beaten down by a public that demonizes them and their own inability to help the animals they care about, not because they don't want to but because they lack the resources. I believe strongly in offering shelters tools and support and meeting them where they are, not where I wish they could be. 

I suspect that I actually agree with his ideas more than not, I just wish his approach were more collaborative and inclusive of the diversity of situations the animal welfare community is facing.


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

I agree, Hannah. I have to admit I did not make it all the way through the book. But one of the things that struck me about his San Francisco example was the huge base of volunteers they have to work with. That means not only foster homes for animals that don't do well in the shelter but also a lot of donations, be it "in kind" or cash, which means you have shelter with huge resources.

Many rural areas just do not have - and can never build - those kinds of resources. I have seen posts on sites where people were donating to needy animals and berated by others for not giving to a better cause than "stupid animals". Thise attitudes are very, very hard to change and in communities where that is the majority attitude, making inroads will be close to impossible.


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

Makes sense, pupresq. I didn't know your situation was that bad. You are faced with a lot of obstacles and challenges. 
What I don't undertand is, how those people who can't even feed themselves, can house animals. If I can barely feed my family, I wouldn't have pets to begin with. 

Keep up the good work!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

THAT is an excellent root cause question. 

GAH! Would I love a grant and a job doing this with a group of everyone here.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks! And thanks for posting the info. At least it's all a place to start!









I think the deal with the animals is that a lot of them aren't exactly pets, they're just kind of _there_, if that makes sense. Sometimes people feed them, sometimes they don't. Rarely do they get any vetting and they're not altered so they just reproduce willy nilly.









One of the reasons I get so impassioned is that so many of the shelters in the regions our rescue group services are little more than shacks or pens and they're filled with animals, more and more coming in all the time. They are often staffed by extremely caring people but people who are just kind of overwhelmed and defeated and run down. 

Our entire group mission is to work with rural shelters and help them help animals. But when we start partnering them with rescues and putting their animals on Petfinder they frequently get slammed with a huge backlash from the rescue community and people outside talking about how inhumane the conditions are and what horrible people they must be not to be doing better - and this is tragic. Here they are TRYING to get their pets out there, trying to get some of them saved, and they're getting lambasted for things outside their control. It's so much better when people reach out and try to HELP them instead. This is why often our participating shelters don't have posted phone numbers. This way we can run interference and the shelter staff can focus on caring for the animals without being interrupted every 10 minutes by someone screaming at them from another state. 

But don't get me wrong - some people do help and that's wonderful! We have worked with some wonderful people who now send vaccines so the puppies can be protected from parvo, or who have made Kuranda style beds to keep the dogs from freezing to the floor in the winter - yes, that happens. And of course the wonderful people across the country who have adopted the dogs.


----------



## CLF (Dec 23, 2007)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*

I'm sure the people who care so little about their dogs care a lot about themselves. Why would they care if the dog they have abused/neglected gets seized and killed as long as they don't have to shoulder any of the burden? Think about how many irresponsible owner/breeders could have served time for the amount of $ spent on prosecuting Martha Stewart.

Why can't the AKC enforce a policy that will only register dogs from a responsible breeder? If Mr. Puppy Mill breeder can't register his "purebred" dogs with the AKC than how is he going to sell them?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Quote:I'm sure the people who care so little about their dogs care a lot about themselves. Why would they care if the dog they have abused/neglected gets seized and killed as long as they don't have to shoulder any of the burden?


What are you talking about?







1. I have never said I am in favor of mandatory S/N. 2. If you're "sure" that these people are only neglecting their dogs because they're selfish, then you need to take a field trip. It's a LOT more complicated than that. 



> Quote: Think about how many irresponsible owner/breeders could have served time for the amount of $ spent on prosecuting Martha Stewart.
> Why can't the AKC enforce a policy that will only register dogs from a responsible breeder?


And who defines what makes up a "responsible breeder"? Every time someone tries to legislate that many of the same people who oppose M.S/N put up the exact same fight. Who is the government to tell them what they can and can't do? Breeding exists along a continuum it's not just two factions - good versus bad.



> Quote:If Mr. Puppy Mill breeder can't register his "purebred" dogs with the AKC than how is he going to sell them?












Good one. Um, probably by registering them with any one of the various junk registries (for example the CKC) or selling to people who either don't care or don't know about breed registry. Trust me - they don't have any problem finding buyers in that category.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> And who defines what makes up a "responsible breeder"? Every time someone tries to legislate that many of the same people who oppose M.S/N put up the exact same fight. Who is the government to tell them what they can and can't do?


IMHO the laws are a problem because they try to include commercial breeders.

For example, a law could state that a litter of puppies must be kept in an area that can be hosed down every day. That might be a good thing to make a commercial kennel do but how am I supposed to do that when the litter is in my livingroom?



> Quote:Breeding exists along a continuum it's not just two factions - good versus bad.


I disagree. There are only TWO types of breeders - Responsible and Irresponsible. It doesn't matter how many dogs you own or litters you breed - you either do it responsibly or not.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*

Where is that sharp dividing line between irresponsible and responsible? What defines each? 

Personally, I have a pretty high standard for what I'd consider a "responsible" breeder and there are plenty who don't meet it. But many of those are still above what I'd consider BYBs and even BYBs come in many shapes and sizes. Then there are large commercial operations. What defines a puppy mill and what's just a large breeding enterprise? 

IMO all of these terms are at least somewhat subjective and that's a big part of the problem.


----------



## MaineLady (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Originally Posted By: MatsiRed And then of course, dogs and cats rarely leave a shelter here without being sterilized, it's just not acceptable. But most come in that way, anyway. Those that don't are an exception to the rule.


I agree with everything you've posted so far, Donna. I do believe that spaying and neutering pets will significantly decrease dogs in shelters. 

I don't know if I agree with your statement that most dogs come into shelters spayed and neutered. I think that depends on where you live in New England and also how rural the area is. Even with my local shelter in Portland (the largest city in Maine), there are plenty of dogs that come in not neutered. They are, however, neutered before they leave.

Chris


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

*Re: Chicago: Mandatory Sterilization and More Prop*



> Originally Posted By: MaineLady
> 
> I agree with everything you've posted so far, Donna. I do believe that spaying and neutering pets will significantly decrease dogs in shelters.
> 
> ...


Chris, just to clarify, I was speaking about my own town, see the ENTIRE quote below. Sorry for the confusion. 

_"MANDATORY spay/neuter has not been necessary here, because the culture dictates it, but we still have a long way to go, too. Our shelters are full to capacity because of the no kill trend. I'm not really sure how they manage to keep one dog to a kennel, except that I do know that *here in my own city*, dogs are prescreened in their homes before being accepted into our shelter to be sure they are adoptable, and often there is a waiting list, and most DO wait. And then of course, dogs and cats rarely leave a shelter *here* without being sterilized, it's just not acceptable. But most come in that way, anyway. Those that don't are an exception to the rule." _


----------



## agilegsds (Dec 31, 2003)

*Chicago Mandatory Sterilization Bill Is Back*

This ordinance was tabled last year, but it has suddenly reappeared:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-councilmar10,0,1013012.story


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

*Re: Chicago Mandatory Sterilization Bill Is Back*

So confused, so they are bringing it up again?


----------

