# Mandatory speuter?



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

Has anyone seen this? Instead of BSL, mandatory spay and neuter. 
All Laval cats and dogs must be sterilized by Jan. 1 - Montreal - CBC News


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

cloudpump said:


> Has anyone seen this? Instead of BSL, mandatory spay and neuter.
> All Laval cats and dogs must be sterilized by Jan. 1 - Montreal - CBC News


Yes, I did. I hope people sign the petition mentioned within opposing this excessive measure. I am not sure how spaying or neutering all cats and dogs is supposed to mitigate incidents such as the one that befell Christiane Vadnais which was the catalyst for the original bylaw.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Well... when you look at statistics regarding fatalities from dog attacks... the next glaring number besides what breeds are involved is that the overwhelming majority of dogs that kill are intact males. 

I am not at all surprised that law makers would go in this direction after the backlash of BSL legislation. The general public wants SOMETHING to be done, and those opposed to BSL are a very squeaky wheel with many experts that tout that BSL just doesn't work. 

We live in a society that has largely been brain-washed that spaying and neutering is what responsible owners do, and that breed matters less than how the dog is raised/treated. 

Personally, I find both BSL and mandatory speuter laws to be ineffective and that they only really hurt responsible dog owners. Seems to a more effective way to prevent dog maulings and even bites would be funneling more money into Animal Control programs so they can better enforce the dogs-at-large and dangerous-dog laws already on the books, as well as implement programs especially targeted at low income neighborhoods. 

Considering the long term health ramifications of spay and neutering (especially at the 6 months this type of legislation cites) it's important that we dog owners who believe that keeping our dogs intact become just as vocal as those who fight for their right to whatever breed they desire. 

Be armed with the knowledge of the health benefits of staying intact to educate others. Vote with your dollar and support veterinarians that promote keeping pets intact. Donate to institutions that are conducting research on the effects of spay/neuter. Keep informed on what your local legislature is doing in regards to dog laws and speak your mind at town meeting type events.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Oh, I thought it said _Larval_ cats and dogs. As in larva. 

Larva - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva

A larva (plural larvae /ˈlɑːrviː/) is a distinct juvenile form many animals undergo before metamorphosis into adults. Animals with indirect development such as insects, amphibians, or cnidarians typically have a larval phase of their life cycle.

Six months is way to young and will mess up Laval puppies when they 'metamorphose' into adults. I would move away from a city like that. Who do they think they are? Why did they not just stick to the original no (unmentionable) breed law?


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Six months is way to young and will mess up Laval puppies when they 'metamorphose' into adults. I would move away from a city like that. Who do they think they are? Why did they not just stick to the original no (unmentionable) breed law?


This law isn't JUST about preventing dog bites and fatalities though. They are also trying to address overpopulation. 



> "We kill about 3,000 cats a year and about 1,500 dogs a year so this has to stop," said Laval Mayor Marc Demers.
> 
> "This has to go down and we must take care of our animals. Basically, that is our goal."


Besides... literally millions of people own breeds that are often cited in BSL and they like their dogs. They want to keep them. They've organized and fight against that type of legislation. Often successfully.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

It seems like the residents of Larva could easily ask their vet to write them an exemption.

One time my Russian Wolfhound was captured by the pound and they would not give him back unless I had him neutered. This was a dog so soft natured and timid he needed every single bit of testosterone he could make. So my vet gave him a vasectomy and wrote "sterilized" on the official papers.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Nurse Bishop said:


> It seems like the residents of Larva could easily ask their vet to write them an exemption.
> 
> One time my Russian Wolfhound was captured by the pound and they would not give him back unless I had him neutered. This was a dog so soft natured and timid he needed every single bit of testosterone he could make. So my vet gave him a vasectomy and wrote "sterilized" on the official papers.


Unfortunately it is NOT always that easy... Did you catch the bottom part of the article?



> Mohr said she has called all the veterinarians in the Laval region asking for an exemption. None will grant her one.
> 
> "One of my veterinarians said they cannot do it because the only time they can issue an exemption is if there is a medical condition prohibiting the procedure," Mohr said.
> 
> She says she'll go to a Montreal veterinarian or even out of province if she has to in order to get an exemption.


That's why I said in my OP on this thread how important it is to support veterinarians that are more open minded about keeping pets intact. They are our last line of defense and unfortunately are a rare breed themselves.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

voodoolamb said:


> The general public wants SOMETHING to be done, and those opposed to BSL are a very squeaky wheel with many experts that tout that BSL just doesn't work.


Hmmm.. I just read some stats put out by various cities stating that BSL even reduced dog bites by targeted breeds even though that is not the intention of BSL. All of the experts I have seen commenting on BSL have all commented on the success of BSL.

Could you please PM me any studies or reports by experts demonstrating failed BSL in the US? Thanks!


----------



## Kyrielle (Jun 28, 2016)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Six months is way to young and will mess up Laval puppies when they 'metamorphose' into adults. I would move away from a city like that. Who do they think they are? Why did they not just stick to the original no (unmentionable) breed law?


Who do they think they are?

Why, they're your benevolent government-parents who think they know what's best better than you do. That's who.

Governing bodies who hold this view--that they are a parental figure looking after child-citizens--have absolutely no problem forcing the populace to enter into stupid, ineffective, mandatory programs like this. It makes them look good on paper, so whether or not it works doesn't matter. Whether or not the people actually want it doesn't matter. It makes them look good and that's ALL that matters. These kinds of governing bodies are a worldwide problem at the moment.


And I'll stop right there because I could easily create the largest rant-filled post in history on the topic. And now we return to your regularly scheduled program "Larva Puppies":


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

It does look like a larval puppy.  

I'm glad we live way out in the country and can do whatever we want.


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

PST - it's LAVAL, not Larval! 

Quebec is the puppy mill capital of Canada. That's another reason they have a problem. But I really can't see this being very easy to enforce. I think a lot of dog owners will just ignore it!

Oh, and GOOD LUCK ensuring cats are neutered! :rolleyes2:

And of course 6 months is WAY too young, but there are SO many idiots out there who don't know dogs and cats are capable of breeding around 6-7 months.  That's why they are setting the age so young.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Hmmm.. I just read some stats put out by various cities stating that BSL even reduced dog bites by targeted breeds even though that is not the intention of BSL. All of the experts I have seen commenting on BSL have all commented on the success of BSL.
> 
> Could you please PM me any studies or reports by experts demonstrating failed BSL in the US? Thanks!


Define expert I guess? 

The American Veterinary Medical Association, The Center for Disease Control, and American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior all have official positions against BSL. Not to mention organizations like the HSUS. 

the 2014 report by the AVSAB has a lengthy bibliography section with the relevant studies. They are not all US based though. Off the top of my head I know they cited the Dutch study that lead to the repeal of their country wide BSL. 

Regardless of the merits of individual studies though, the fact of the matter is that nationally recognized and well regarded professional institutions have official positions against BSL. 

That is POWERFUL ammunition for those who oppose BSL. Legislators listen to their recommendations. That's why we are seeing these alternative laws and changes to BSL that have been on the books. 

And I don't see these organizations reversing their positions anytime in the near future.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

So if they want to leave their animals in tact they should have vasectomies and partial spayings. This program will not reach the ones it was meant for. I would move if I could. The article sounded like an April's Fool joke at first. I still cannot believe this.
What about the breeders? No more pups in Montreal, just imported basket cases from the US? Grrr......this makes me so mad.
I am sure the vets don't mind; business!


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

wolfy dog said:


> So if they want to leave their animals in tact they should have vasectomies and partial spayings. This program will not reach the ones it was meant for. I would move if I could. The article sounded like an April's Fool joke at first. I still cannot believe this.
> What about the breeders? No more pups in Montreal, just imported basket cases from the US? Grrr......this makes me so mad.
> I am sure the vets don't mind; business!


I don't see any mention made to exempt dogs used for conformation which requires intact animals and the CKC does not consider dogs that have had OOS or vasectomies to be intact. So no more owning show dogs in Laval.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

For anyone interested here is Laval's animal by laws:

https://www.laval.ca/Pages/En/Citizens/animals-bylaw.aspx

Some highlights other than the mandatory spay/neuter- No more than 2 dogs (or 4 with a special permit). No more than 2 dogs with you in public. No IPO/Bite sports. Dogs not allowed at sports grounds, play grounds or school yards. No feeding of strays. No leashes over 6 feet...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

voodoolamb said:


> Define expert I guess?
> 
> The American Veterinary Medical Association, The Center for Disease Control, and American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior all have official positions against BSL. Not to mention organizations like the HSUS.
> 
> ...


Interesting, the last I saw the AVMA's stance, they agreed that the evidence showed a breed specific problem when it came to "severe injuries or fatalities" but they went on to dismiss the evidence with opinions. 

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/L...of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

The CDC basically found the same thing: "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (XXX), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Again, evidence followed by speculation. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10997153

Regardless, I have seen many studies outside the US which state BSL is ineffective. However, I have yet to find one in the US and that is what I was looking for, but thanks anyway for your time and input. 

I do agree with your latter comments. You won't get any arguments from me on that.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

From voodoo's link:

"
*Visit to the premises and identification*

*Anyone in charge of enforcing the bylaw on animals is authorized to visit and inspect—at any reasonable hour of the day—any unit of occupancy or any grounds whatsoever to ensure compliance with the bylaw. *If there are reasons to believe that a person has committed an offence, that person must identify himself/herself and show proof.

The person in authority may also enter any place or vehicle where an animal is or may seize any animal whose safety or well-being is at risk."

The **** I'd allow someone to come in and inspect my property without a warrant!


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

In this thread I have seen one post by a Canadian. LAVAL is a city in the province of Quebec. Quebec is the puppy mill capital of Canada, there are any number of issues with trying to promote responsible pet ownership there. The BSL that is now being repealed was a desperate attempt to force people in a very crowded metropolis to step up and take responsibility. This is the same thing. They are the only province where large numbers of dogs are still destroyed due to lack of space, the licensing numbers last time I checked were dismal, and improper care and control is rampant.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Who are these people? The testicle police?


----------



## DaBai (Aug 13, 2017)

I thought there was research being done that proved spaying female GSDs too early can actually make them MORE aggressive? Anyhow, how about responsible breeders and sport dog competitors in the city, it doesn't say anywhere if those people are allowed to keep their dogs intact.

I would agree to a law that forces all untitled dogs (dogs without any agility/IPO/even CGC/etc.) to be spayed/neutered after they are 2 years old, but the one they are proposing is way too much IMO.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Who are these people? The testicle police?


Much better to just keep killing them.



DaBai said:


> I thought there was research being done that proved spaying female GSDs too early can actually make them MORE aggressive? Anyhow, how about responsible breeders and sport dog competitors in the city, it doesn't say anywhere if those people are allowed to keep their dogs intact.
> 
> I would agree to a law that forces all untitled dogs (dogs without any agility/IPO/even CGC/etc.) to be spayed/neutered after they are 2 years old, but the one they are proposing is way too much IMO.


I am pretty sure that a thorough search would find an exemption for breeders. However, again we are talking about a crowded urban environment. Not sure a breeder should be operating there. Since the CKC now allows altered dogs to compete I don't think titles are an issue. If the population was being responsible enough to control their dogs in the first place this would not be happening. 
I don't much like the age but hey beats a bunch of dead dogs doesn't it?


----------



## Shooter (Nov 19, 2016)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Who are these people? The testicle police?


Funny! Oh, I could go on and on but I already have one strike and I love this forum so I will refrain from stupid jokes


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

I was flippant about this subject until I viewed Dogsbite.org statistics of dog fatalities in the US 2016. I apologize. It is quite horrific. Yes I believe some breeds should not be allowed. It is mostly by far the 'unmentionable'. See for yourself. But these must neuter laws are affecting all breeds, even harmless Pugs. That is wrong. I don't think this would fly in the United States.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Does it beat dead dogs? No. I don't think that is a valid, ends justify the means excuse for forcing law-abiding citizens to perform mutilation on their dogs. 

I don't believe the Canadian government is going to go door to door examining dogs and bitches for compliance to the law. So once again, law-abiding individuals will be forced to do something to remain law-abiding, while irresponsible owners will continue to do exactly what they want to do. 

Someone mentioned that most of the fatalities involving dogs are intact dogs. There is a reason for this. Spaying and Neutering your canines does not make you a responsible owner, but very few irresponsible owners will bother to spend money getting their animal neutered. The irresponsible owners, who don't bother to raise their dog properly, don't bother to contain their dog properly, don't bother to train their dog, aren't rushing off to the vet to nick their nads. And these are the animals that end up doing thinks that communities frown upon. Unfortunately, this element of society likes the idea of a "bad" dog, and certain breeds appeal to them because of the overall character of the breeds. And I am not just mentioning wargs. GSDs and Rotties, and pretty much any dog that Hagrid would consider "interesting" because of the size of their fangs, or their level of gameness, intelligence, nerve, etc., are on the list of dogs that irresponsible people are drawn to. Responsible people are also drawn to many of the same characteristics. But no one is worried about Tiger, the beagle/dachsund mix, even though he was fixed from a pup and has given more than one child bloody cuts on their faces, and I think even went after the mail man. No, he is not going to kill anyone, so his lack of testicles are not going to show up in any lists. 

Lots of irresponsible people spay bitches, because living with a bitch in heat is messy and can be annoying, and unless you don't mind having puppies, you will take measures to prevent that. So I am talking about only dogs. Irresponsible people do not neuter their dogs. Responsible people may or may not neuter their dogs. Dogs raised by irresponsible people are probably 100 times more likely to be in a situation that can go sour, and are then probably 100 times more likely to actually do the bad thing. But drawing the line at neuter isn't reasonable. There has to be a better way to separate responsible from irresponsible. 

Knowing that dogs are not children. Ohio has nearly 50,000 incarcerated people, and only something like 3,500 of them are females. Thus, approximately 46,500 prison (93%) dwellers have testicles. Applying the reasoning of this law to that, one would suggest all boys be given vasectomies by the age of 4 years, to prevent the prison population from growing. It doesn't matter that there are 11.6 million people in Ohio, probably roughly half of them men. Do we sterilize 5.5 million men because 46 thousand men belong in a cage? I know, I know dogs are not people. But I would not be surprised if the numbers of dogs making the problems out there are 1/100 of the population, or even 1/1000 of the population.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nurse Bishop said:


> I was flippant about this subject until I viewed Dogsbite.org statistics of dog fatalities in the US 2016. I apologize. It is quite horrific. Yes I believe some breeds should not be allowed. It is mostly by far the 'unmentionable'. See for yourself. But these must neuter laws are affecting all breeds, even harmless Pugs. That is wrong.* I don't think this would fly in the United States*.


Thank goodness. 

But, unfortunately, there are places in the US that are requiring mandatory spay/neuter. 

I get a lot of flack about my position on oops litters, and my position on people letting their dogs roam around getting smooshed by cars, chasing the neighbors, getting shot, running amok. 

But these flippant acts of irresponsibility DO bring down the government on the law-abiding people, the responsible people. While people throw up their hands and whine, "accidents happen", well, what's the government to do? People cannot (will not) control their dogs, and so we must make them sterilize their dogs to prevent too many uncontrolled dogs. We must control the population of dogs, by removing their ability to reproduce. Because we cannot force people to be responsible. 

And, of course, only the responsible people will follow such a stupid law, so it isn't going to help even a little bit. But it will look like they are doing SOMETHING. 

And so I blow my top when I hear of blatant neglect of responsibility. If you want to own a warg, a GSD, a Rotty, a dobe, a cane corso, a presa canario, a wolf-dog hybrid, well then, you have to be responsible with it. You can't fall back on, whoops, it got to my bitch of the same species who has papers, and we are now going to have puppies. You can't fall back on, whoops, it squeezed out the door and knocked down an old lady walking down the street and bit her several times. 

Nope. If you want to own a formidable animal, you cannot have the attitude that accidents happen. Accidents are rarely a single occuring problem. They are usually a series of events that happen to collide: the latch on the front storm door has been broken for months, the six year old has been letting SPIKE out of his crate on his own, the bitch down the street is in heat and has been paraded past the house for a week, SPIKE has never been trained to only go out the back door. SPIKE loves to chase everything that rolls or runs. Eventually SPIKE will get out and make babies, or he will go out and chase down a jogger. It is a series of irresponsible events or over-looked conditions that cause accidents, and we can be a whole lot better and keeping our animals and the general public safe.

When people are not, the government starts making rules and regulations, and no, we are not all going to like them, when they do.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

From the statistics of 2016- 77% of deaths, (I'm talking deaths, not maulings,) 24 caused by the unmentionable breeds, 2 by Rots, 2 by Mals, 2 by Dobermins, 3 by Labradors, (the most popular large breed in the United States) and 2 by GSDs, (the second most popular breed in the United States). Most victims were children. See Dogsbite.org 2016 statistics for the story of each person's death. You can also see that many of the owners were irresponsible, but as you say, they are not usually law abiding citizens. Its still a public safety problem.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Sabis mom said:


> I don't much like the age but hey beats a bunch of dead dogs doesn't it?


Not when it risks the health and life of MY dog.


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

I believe that spay and neuter should be easily accessible (mobile clinics) and FREE to anyone that needs it in the southern states in the US that are producing such an excess of puppies and dogs. When I look at Petfinder for my area, the first 25 (plus) dogs listed closest to me are all bully breeds, every single one is a southern-state import. I'd happily donate to any organization that provided free, mobile, spay-neuter for areas that could benefit. 

I am against BSL and mandatory spay neuter. 

There was an article I read online recently, about the market for southern shelter dogs in the northeast, that incorrectly said the reason that New England and parts of the Pacific-northwest/northern midwest do not have any dog overpopulation is because of mandatory spay-neuter. That is completely untrue, as I have never heard of any laws of this kind in these areas. But the idea of spay-neuter as the "solution" is so common in the adopt-don't-shop types. Hence, these types of laws going on the books.

I don't see it as being an Animal Control issue, alone. I think it's something of a cultural shift in the way dogs and cats are managed and contained. 

I do think counties or areas where the pounds are full and animals are euthanized at high rates should offer free spay-neuter and possibly some sort of incentive program to get dog owners in the door. This would be cheaper than the euthanasia drugs and shelter personnel, if done on a donation/volunteer basis. And even it if wasn't, if this led to there being no stray and unwanted dogs in the long-term, well worth it.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

$5 sez....the same people that bitch about regulations when it adversely affects a certain part of their life have cheered when it benefits a certain part of their lives......isn't it just easier when "someone" else just tells ya what to do and runs your life for you?

Tough to have it both ways.


SuperG


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

31 deaths in 2016? When an average of 3500 deaths per year are due to drowning. Major health concern. A reason, you should come into our homes, on a search and destroy mission for testicles. 

I agree it is horrific. But if you look at the context, it really isn't a lot of deaths due to dogs. And if you remove the wargs from the equation... 24 out of 31? What 7 deaths across the country due to dogs for an entire year? And people wonder why everyone is not against BSL??? Ok, if you remove the wargs, a number of warg-owners will move to other breeds, and their dogs will cause some of the havoc that those animals do. But when you add up the attributes -- not every dog has the power and courage to take on a bull with the stick-to-itiveness of a terrier. So if these folks could not get them, there very well may be fewer deaths due to dogs. 

On the other hand, are we going to ban swimming, swimming pools, beaches? Fewer people will die if we do that, than messing with even the wargs. 

Death by dog doesn't sound like a good way to go. In fact, it is horrific. So is drowing. So are car accidents, really. But a lot of this is sensationalism. We have fewer dog deaths per year than there are states. A dog in Cleveland killed a baby. Horrible 1. Several babies were killed in the past year by drive-by shootings Sometimes there are multiple deaths in a day. And few days go by that do not include someone being shot to death in the city. I think we should take it in context. It is extremely rare for anyone to be killed by a dog. Extremely. Your chances of dying by lightning are higher. 

About 20 people die each year riding horses. In 2015, 818 people died on bicycles.


----------



## DaBai (Aug 13, 2017)

Sabis mom said:


> I am pretty sure that a thorough search would find an exemption for breeders. However, again we are talking about a crowded urban environment. Not sure a breeder should be operating there. Since the CKC now allows altered dogs to compete I don't think titles are an issue. If the population was being responsible enough to control their dogs in the first place this would not be happening.
> I don't much like the age but hey beats a bunch of dead dogs doesn't it?


I think people with titled dogs have displayed their dog ownership commitment and should be allowed to decide whether they want their dogs intact or not, those dogs aren't the ones being bred irresponsibly and causing problems anyway. 

IDK, but maybe they should make a law that punishes people who breed irresponsibly directly instead of this law which punishes people like me with large breed bitches who shouldn't be spayed at 6 months? Maybe a law that says puppies must get health checked/vaccinated at a vet by the breeder before getting sold and when vet gives pups their first vaccinations/health check, they have to check that the parents are titled (at least a CGC please) and health checked, if not the vets are required by law to report the breeder who will then get charged a 5k fine? And if an owner gets a pup without health check, when the owner brings the pup to vet for its first check up, the vet will help owner to report breeder to police. 

To sum up, my point is that they should make laws that target irresponsible breeding instead of ones that target owning intact dogs as there are reasons people choose to have their dogs intact and unless the action of owning an intact dog itself is causing troubles for anyone, we shouldn't rob people out of this freedom of choice.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

voodoolamb said:


> Not when it risks the health and life of MY dog.


This isn't YOUR city.

Everyone always says target the bad apples. How? How do they do this? 
Again people, this is one densely populated city in a MASSIVE province. As a province they have been unable to prevent earning the title puppy mill capital of Canada. 
In Montreal they struggle to get licensing in line, to enforce leash laws, to find the owners responsible for the multitudes of dogs that are left to die in city shelters. If there is no way to identify the dogs, how do they go after the owners? If anyone can have an intact dog, how do they stop the irresponsible breeding?
I'm not saying it's perfect, but at least they are trying.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

According to city officials, *only 14 per cent* of the estimated 150,000 dogs in Montreal are properly registered.

The above is from a 2016 news article done by Global news in Montreal. Below are stats from 2013. Look at the numbers! Better then 2/3's in ONE province!

At least 600,000* dogs in Canada are euthanized every year *(500,000 in Quebec alone*)…..There are thousands of dogs waiting to enter rescues in every province and sadly, many Canadians seem blissfully unaware of our homeless dog overpopulation. Most Canadians are uninformed about the methods by which dogs are ‘euthanized’ in our own country - lethal injection (the most ‘humane’), gas chambers, heart sticking and gun shot. Half a million unwanted pets euthanized in Quebec in 2013 | Anima911


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

This is so very backwards. The best solution would be consumer education. How many people get romantic ideas about dogs and then buy or adopt when they have no idea what they are getting into...The majority would be my guess. 

Educated consumers are the best way to solve most of these problems....but people don't pay attention to anything other than what they want.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Spaying/neutering and microchipping dogs will be compulsory on December 31, 2019. 
Although the by-law does not currently require this, Montréal encourages this responsible behaviour; guardians who spay/neuter and/or microchip their pet get a discount when registering their pet. 
*If your pet can't be spayed/neutered or microchipped, you must provide the city with a letter from your veterinarian explaining why it is contraindicated. This information will be recorded in your file. 

*
And THIS is from the cities own Faqs page.
Note the last two sentences. Sometimes if you are armed with actual facts it helps.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Sabis mom said:


> This isn't YOUR city.
> 
> Everyone always says target the bad apples. How? How do they do this?
> Again people, this is one densely populated city in a MASSIVE province. As a province they have been unable to prevent earning the title puppy mill capital of Canada.
> ...


These same problems exist in cities all around North America. It may not be my city today - but it very well could be my city tomorrow. 

Every time legislation like this pops up - it makes it easier for local governments to implement it in other areas.

It isn't just a local issue. It is an issue for EVERY dog owner. 

History has proven again and again you CAN NOT legislate morality, and much of this "problem" is a moral issue. Who determines what is and is not responsible breeding? How do you legislate the REAL issue of the pet over population crisis - the attitude that dogs are disposable? 

If there are issues enforcing leash laws and licensing requirement already - adding NEW laws isn't going to fix a thing. New laws don't fix budget and staffing issues in AC. And really... are the people who are already saying "screw the law" in regards to leashes and tags going to suddenly go "Oh jeepers! I better get in line right away and get my dog neutered!" Doubtful. The only ones this legislation are going to hurt are the responsible dog owners who already follow the laws. And they aren't the ones that are contributing to pet over population. 

At the end of the day, I care about my own dog FAR FAR FAAAAAAAAR more than all the nameless strays out there. I am NOT OK with legislation that puts my dog at risk. Dogs DIE during spaying and neutering. There is ample research about long term health and behavioral effects. 

I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just take a look at the articles posted about this. People who ARE residents of Laval are worried about the same things.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Sabis mom said:


> [/B]
> And THIS is from the cities own Faqs page.
> Note the last two sentences. Sometimes if you are armed with actual facts it helps.


Ummm... I posted Laval's animal by-laws back on post 15. From the city's official site. It had similar verbiage regarding veterinary exceptions... 

"Exceptions may apply, with written proof from a veterinarian."

However... I don't think that is any consolation to the Laval resident Marta Mohr, who was quoted in the article the OP posted, as having trouble finding a vet who would grant such an exemption.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

voodoolamb said:


> Ummm... I posted Laval's animal by-laws back on post 15. From the city's official site. It had similar verbiage regarding veterinary exceptions...
> 
> "Exceptions may apply, with written proof from a veterinarian."
> 
> However... I don't think that is any consolation to the Laval resident Marta Mohr, who was quoted in the article the OP posted, as having trouble finding a vet who would grant such an exemption.


Why does she not have a vet if she has a dog? Perhaps the reason she has an issue is that she has not provided proof that she is responsible. Voodo I really don't think you understand the scope of this issue. 
Shadow cannot be spayed and cannot be vaccinated. She has FOUR vets! So what exactly is the real issue?
And Laval is part of Montreal


----------



## DaBai (Aug 13, 2017)

car2ner said:


> This is so very backwards. The best solution would be consumer education. How many people get romantic ideas about dogs and then buy or adopt when they have no idea what they are getting into...The majority would be my guess. 6
> 
> Educated consumers are the best way to solve most of these problems....but people don't pay attention to anything other than what they want.


Sadly this is hard, I have a hard time convincing my own friend to spend 1.5k more to buy from a responsible breeder. After all, many of my friends bought dogs from online ads and ended up just fine, and it was hard to convince them to spend 1.5k dollars more for the grand idea of combating dog overpopulation by irresponsible breeders.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

Sabis mom said:


> So what exactly is the real issue?
> And Laval is part of Montreal


The real issue is that vets are refusing to write the exemptions unless there is a MEDICAL issue. 

And I wouldn't trust city officials to be intelligent. In January of 2013 I couldn't get a license for my 13 year old dog because my rabies vax certificate said she was last vaccinated in October of 2011. Did you know that that's over two years difference according to the math drop outs that work for the city? Somewhere back then two years apparently didn't equal 24 months. Ended up just leaving and when they sent the reminder I just told them she was dead.

I also live with a bylaw officer who's a female dog in her own right. Yeah, I want some dog idiot like her deciding how I take care of my dog. She's not even a decent pet person, never might a dog person.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Really, folks, do people really want the government telling them to alter their pet? I'm sorry, but I don't want to pay government officials to seek out testicles and I do not want the government forcing veterinarians to turn folks in if they do not have their dogs nuts removed, and their bitches pieces parts removed, which effects their health and longevity? Stop the merry go round, I don't want to live in a world where decisions about our pets are not up to the owners. The idea that people might be ok with this blows my mind.

And people wonder why some of us might want to go off the grid.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

angelas said:


> The real issue is that vets are refusing to write the exemptions unless there is a MEDICAL issue.
> 
> And I wouldn't trust city officials to be intelligent. In January of 2013 I couldn't get a license for my 13 year old dog because my rabies vax certificate said she was last vaccinated in October of 2011. Did you know that that's over two years difference according to the math drop outs that work for the city? Somewhere back then two years apparently didn't equal 24 months. Ended up just leaving and when they sent the reminder I just told them she was dead.
> 
> I also live with a bylaw officer who's a female dog in her own right. Yeah, I want some dog idiot like her deciding how I take care of my dog. She's not even a decent pet person, never might a dog person.


You are in a totally different area. An area I am familiar with, I lived there. The issue in your area is completely different. And if a vet won't back a client then maybe just maybe the client is the problem. Because a MEDICAL issue is anything the vet deems is potentially detrimental to the dog. 
My vets don't KNOW vaccinating could harm Shadow, but there is enough evidence to SUPPOSE it could. They can't say with certainty that spaying would stop her heart, but her history says it MAY. 
Since evidence says spaying/neutering early can cause harm, I would think that a reasonable vet would support a trusted client.

Why does human nature dictate that we believe the worst? Why is it so instinctive for us to fight any attempt to solve a problem? I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Sabis mom said:


> You are in a totally different area. An area I am familiar with, I lived there. The issue in your area is completely different. And if a vet won't back a client then maybe just maybe the client is the problem. Because a MEDICAL issue is anything the vet deems is potentially detrimental to the dog.
> My vets don't KNOW vaccinating could harm Shadow, but there is enough evidence to SUPPOSE it could. They can't say with certainty that spaying would stop her heart, but her history says it MAY.
> Since evidence says spaying/neutering early can cause harm, I would think that a reasonable vet would support a trusted client.
> 
> Why does human nature dictate that we believe the worst? Why is it so instinctive for us to fight any attempt to solve a problem? I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.


Because it is obvious it won't solve the problem. Only 14% of dogs are licensed. Where I expect 100% are supposed to be. This means that only the few responsible folks whose dogs are not the issue will be getting them spayed/neutered. The dogs that are currently causing issues, will continue to cause issues. They make laws they never intend to enforce. If they pick your dog up, maybe the will fine you if the dog isn't altered or licensed or whatever. But it will probably be a slap on the hand. They may require the speuter before returning the dog, or not. But they are not going to go door to door to make sure every dog is neutered and every bitch is spayed. 

If they require the spay/neuter documentation to license your dog, maybe next year only 12 or 10% of the dogs will be licensed. 

It isn't going to work.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

selzer said:


> Because it is obvious it won't solve the problem. Only 14% of dogs are licensed. Where I expect 100% are supposed to be. This means that only the few responsible folks whose dogs are not the issue will be getting them spayed/neutered. The dogs that are currently causing issues, will continue to cause issues. They make laws they never intend to enforce. If they pick your dog up, maybe the will fine you if the dog isn't altered or licensed or whatever. But it will probably be a slap on the hand. They may require the speuter before returning the dog, or not. But they are not going to go door to door to make sure every dog is neutered and every bitch is spayed.
> 
> If they require the spay/neuter documentation to license your dog, maybe next year only 12 or 10% of the dogs will be licensed.
> 
> It isn't going to work.


I give up! The city has a plan and with the rampant disregard for the welfare of their pets these particular people should lose the rights they have. I really wish that you all would read ALL the facts, instead of jumping on the "Oh poor me" bandwagon.
One lady told a reporter that she rescued her dogs and gave them a home so she shouldn't have to license them.
One man played the testicles make a man a man card.
A mother told a reporter that it was her right to decide if her dogs reproduced
Do these sound like at all responsible people? Bylaw officers have in the past gone door to door, as well as patrolled where dogs are being walked. They have tried warnings, education and coaxing.
One province is euthanizing over 2/3's of this countries total euth'ed dogs, that's appalling! Especially when you consider half the province is basically uninhabited.
If all pets had to be chipped, licensed and altered then they would have the information needed to go after these people who refuse to control their dogs! These are not strays people, they are pets who are picked up and the owners simply never claim them.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Sabis mom said:


> I give up! The city has a plan and with the rampant disregard for the welfare of their pets these particular people should lose the rights they have. I really wish that you all would read ALL the facts, instead of jumping on the "Oh poor me" bandwagon.
> One lady told a reporter that she rescued her dogs and gave them a home so she shouldn't have to license them.
> One man played the testicles make a man a man card.
> *A mother told a reporter that it was her right to decide if her dogs reproduced*
> ...


Bolded: not sure what is wrong with this statement. 

[REMOVED - POLITICS]

Shoo, they cannot go door to door here and ask to see licenses. They can only ask if they are called for some sort of complaint. I'll stay here thank you.


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

We are responsible people debating this with other responsible people. The people who need to be in this discussion may never be part of the debate. The "good" people will take the authorities word and do what they are told. The "bad" people will say screw you and ignore all the rules. Neither side really looks into the long term outcome, what is best for both the dogs and their owners.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

car2ner said:


> We are responsible people debating this with other responsible people. The people who need to be in this discussion may never be part of the debate. * The "good" people will take the authorities word and do what they are told*. The "bad" people will say screw you and ignore all the rules. Neither side really looks into the long term outcome, what is best for both the dogs and their owners.


To a point. At some point, and that point will be different for all people, but at some point, good people will resist bad legislation in a number of ways. Some will make petitions and try to change the law. Some will refuse to obey the law, and take their chances, if worst comes to worst, they will take it to court. (Not sure how that works in Canada, but here the lower courts will rule and if necessary things will go to higher courts.)

Of course this is toughest on those who have the least money. They cannot simply move out of the area where the law is enacted. They cannot fight for their animal in court. Some may not be able to "shop" around for a vet who will give them some type of paperwork that suggests their animal should remain intact. And a lot of time the least in society have a harder time convincing those that have the power to do things they want. 

Why should a veterinarian be able to make that determination for someone's pet? The law simply wants every healthy animal fixed. It does not expect for veterinarians to be the judges of people's responsibility, but of the dog's physical condition and ability to undergo the surgery. Veterinarians, by and large, believe they are doing no damage when altering animals early. I think they have done so many of them that defenses within them block the very thought that this might be detrimental to the healthy dogs they have worked on. 

I can envision poor, but well-meaning owners, wanting to keep their animals intact, but having no choice but to comply. Because of their circumstances they feel pressured to use low-cost spay and neuter, which may have doctors that are well-versed in the actual operation, but other corners are cut, like pre-surgery bloodwork, where they will find bleeding disorders if present. 

Of course, out of the 10 percent or so of people that comply, and then take away those whose dogs are already spayed or neutered, the number of dogs that may be afflicted with an unapparent reason that surgery should not be done, or done far more carefully, is probably not worth considering. Unless you are the owner of a dog that has such an issue. 

I am not a fan of protesting in any way. And petitions, though I have signed my share of them, I have never seen any results from. But civil disobedience is something that I can understand if the law is unreasonable.


----------



## WIBackpacker (Jan 9, 2014)

I don't support policy like this. 

Among other things, it'll just drive non-conformists underground. You can't look at a bitch and know whether she's intact or not... males are obviously a different story. If someone doesn't want their intact male to be discovered (regardless of _why_) that dog is not going to be walked or taken to parks or stores or training or classes, etc. Having a city full of deliberately hidden, underexercised and undersocialized and untrained/poorly trained intact males sounds absolutely _lovely_. 

The underground/banned pet network is full of weirdness and concealment already.... 

You can buy stealthy chicken coops that look like trash cans, for people who live where poultry is banned.

About ten years ago, I ended up taking on a pig from a girl who was hiding it in a high rise apartment complex in downtown Milwaukee. Not a cute little teacup potbelly.... a plain, big, pig. Because she was so obsessed with hiding the pig, it never left her apartment. No fresh air, no exposure to the outdoors, nada. She had no way to take it to a vet or exercise it properly. Then of course it was discovered and things hit the fan....

Back when I was more active within the wildlife volunteer network, I'd get at least one phone call every year from someone who'd trapped and kept (illegally) birds of some sort. A woman who caught ducklings and raised them in her bathtub until they got too big and messy and clogged the drain. She called me in tears, and wanted to find them a home where they would be kept inside and not outside because they were her babies and hadn't been outside all summer. I had to turn her over to someone far higher up the ladder.... 

And then you get into exotics. Don't get me started on that.

All the bans/prohibitions in the world won't stop people from breaking them.

People who don't want to follow the rules won't follow the rules. And the ones who suffer tend to be the animals. 

My opinion remains the same. Increase penalties (both monetary and criminal) for owners whose animals interfere with someone else's property or person. Drastically.

If you don't interfere with others? Take care of your property and your animals. Carry on.


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

Here's an example of how poorly some Quebecers understand dogs.

I rescued a dog from a neighbour of my mother's. He'd gotten the dog as a watchdog for his property. He kept the dog tied to a doghouse by an 8 foot chain. It was only allowed inside if the weather was very extreme, say around -30 C. and then he would tie it to a door in the kitchen. 

He expected it to bark at everyone, even people it knew, like the couple who came to feed it when he was away, or his daughter and her boyfriend, who had looked after it when it was a small pup. How this dog was supposed to protect the house when he was tied up 30 feet away from it is something I've never really understood.

The dog didn't bark at people he knew. After this guy's other dog was euthanized (with a rifle bullet to the brain) due to extreme old age/arthritis, the dog became very lonely, and let everyone know his feelings by barking and howling. 

The owner decided to get rid of him. He said if no one wanted him as a pet, he was going to shoot him.

My mom told me about the situation, and I decided to adopt him. As i was loading him into my car to take him home, his former owner gave me some parting advice: "If he gives you any trouble, just show him a shovel."

Yeah. I think some education is needed in the province of Quebec. :rolleyes2:


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

(Removed by ADMIN)

This type of legislation is such a slippery slope and people do not even realize it. Them SMACK it paves the way for more and more freedom robbing "for your own good" laws that will ONLY affect those who will actually follow the law, and who were never part of the problem anyway. This is template.

I had my boyfriend's friend over from England. He was amazed I was taking pictures of my kid in a parade. The city he lives in (and others in UK..might be UK wide, not sure) has made it illegal to photograph groups of children in public places or events. Because you MIGHT be a pedophile.

Keep letting the government keep us uber safe through draconian legislation. Then eventually there will be nobody to keep us safe from the government. 

A dog needs testosterone to maximize proper growth through to his adulthood. This is irrefutable. It is awful the way people are brainwashed into believing the opposite. 

Want to stop the puppy mills? Inspect them and shut them down. Rather than making laws and enforcing them against the perpetrators, just make a sweeping blanket law you could not possibly effectively enforce, then fold your arms arms and say " there we did something" 

I'm sure a puppy mill task force would cost way less than creating a Tactical Nutter Squad that goes all over inspecting pets.


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

Before and after pics of my Quebec rescue - I forgot to mention he was a very handsome male GSD!


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

The fur-baby and pet- parent mentality leads people to want a de-sexed child-stuffed-animal, that has low intelligence, low energy, and is good for hanging around the couch, mostly. Bans on breeds, mandatory speutering, bans on certain training tools, and the "force free" "pure positive" "adopt don't shop" people are all behind it. 

Someone somewhere needs to speak up, for our dog's sake. It's very important that people like those on this board, make their voices heard.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

I'm in awe of how much in common Quebec and Louisiana do in how poorly they care for dogs. Is it a French colonial thing? I don't know, but it's like a cold and warm mirror image. 

I totally understand your point, Sabismom, and while I've never been to Canada, I fully understand get the desperation that brings about measures like this, and I honestly appreciate that they're trying to _do something_ -- presently, I live in the anti-regulation side of that mirror, so our community creates trash barrels full of dead puppies to be euthanized in Parish animal control facilities every spring, and collectively shrugs its shoulders. I can't even get them to create mandatory speuter requirement for the "frequently flyers" that are picked up stray and returned to owners multiple times--the "at large" dogs most likely to be creating unwanted litters. Even a "three strikes" law for being found running at large would upset people and their right to let their dogs exercise nature's urges.

In peak season, my city's animal control facility kills several litters a day -- young puppies! If you've never seen what a trash truck filled with dead dogs looks like, you're lucky. Most people haven't, so they don't see the urgency. It's not_ their dog _so why care about any of those other dogs. Not their problem.

In addition to medical exemptions from a licensed vet (and most orthopedists would write one to delay in a dog from a dysplasia-prone breed), some US cities allow licensed breeders of purebred dogs to buy per-dog exemptions for breeding stock. People who show and trial can buy them too. "Seeing my dog's balls swinging makes me feel like a man," though, isn't grounds for one -- and that's the #1 reason I hear for wanting an intact dog where I live.


----------



## DaBai (Aug 13, 2017)

This is sad, I hope people who disagree with this sign the petition there, there are not even 600 people signed. I am worried about this policy spreading over North America and to my city! Maybe they should design laws that fine irresponsible breeders instead. Yes it is hard to determine what is correct responsible breeding, but breeding dogs without health checks or without any single qualification title (without even a CGC or BH or etc.) is definitely irresponsible IMO.


----------



## GandalfTheShepherd (May 1, 2017)

It's sick and crazy really. I want to keep my dog in tact for as long as possible for his health, risks of certain cancers like hemangioma sarcoma go up with early neutering. So many organizations push early neutering too by telling owners it'll make their crazy dog "calm down" and it's all the testosterone that's the problem when really it's a lack of training. We just had a 1 1/2 year old male neutered doodle get kicked out of our CGC class because he was completely out of control meanwhile my 11 month old unalterated male shep is as calm and collected as can be. I remember this doodle from our last class, the lady neutered it to try to calm it down... obviously that didn't work. As long as you are responsible and don't let your pet breed I don't see what the issue is. My unaltered male is never left alone in the yard, he has a solid recall and obedience he is at no risk of over populating the problem. This is just another case of a bad apple ruins the bunch.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Sabis mom said:


> Why does she not have a vet if she has a dog?


Who says she doesn't? Not being able to get an exemption doesn't mean she doesn't give regular vet care.



> Perhaps the reason she has an issue is that she has not provided proof that she is responsible.


Or perhaps she just has a healthy dog that she'd rather not neuter but the vets she contacted do not see a medical reason for an exemption.



> Voodo I really don't think you understand the scope of this issue.


I've lived in both rural PA and in the SE US. I've worked in shelters and rescues in these places. I have seen full freezers of dead puppies. I have taken many dogs on that final walk... I understand the issue.

I just do not agree that the issue of pet over population supersedes MY rights to raise MY dogs how I see fit in regards to to their health and well being. I have made a commitment to provide my dog with the best life and health possible - not the countless strays and abandoned pets.

I'm a responsible pet owner. I've kept intact dogs for years without any accidental litters. My dogs are vaccinated and registered per local laws. I have never surrendered a pet of mine or abandoned them. This type of legislation punishes owners like me for a problem we are not responsible for. 



> Shadow cannot be spayed and cannot be vaccinated. She has FOUR vets! So what exactly is the real issue?


Shadow has current medical issues that make a spay dangerous, that is clear exemption grounds.

The issue is that people who have dogs WITHOUT current medical issues, but who do not want to risk the 1 in 2000 chance of their dog dying under anesthesia, or who believe in the research about endocrine deficiencies possibly having effects over the long term, can NOT get a medical exemption. 

They are being forced into a medical decision by legislators. That is not OK.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

CometDog said:


> Time to get the dogs a Molon Labe shirts too. I live in the Peoples Republic Of NJ. This type of legislation is such a slippery slope and people do not even realize it. Them SMACK it paves the way for more and more freedom robbing "for your own good" laws that will ONLY affect those who will actually follow the law, and who were never part of the problem anyway. This is template.
> 
> I had my boyfriend's friend over from England. He was amazed I was taking pictures of my kid in a parade. The city he lives in (and others in UK..might be UK wide, not sure) has made it illegal to photograph groups of children in public places or events. Because you MIGHT be a pedophile.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

selzer said:


> 31 deaths in 2016? When an average of 3500 deaths per year are due to drowning. Major health concern. A reason, you should come into our homes, on a search and destroy mission for testicles.
> 
> I agree it is horrific. But if you look at the context, it really isn't a lot of deaths due to dogs. And if you remove the wargs from the equation... 24 out of 31? What 7 deaths across the country due to dogs for an entire year? And people wonder why everyone is not against BSL??? Ok, if you remove the wargs, a number of warg-owners will move to other breeds, and their dogs will cause some of the havoc that those animals do. But when you add up the attributes -- not every dog has the power and courage to take on a bull with the stick-to-itiveness of a terrier. So if these folks could not get them, there very well may be fewer deaths due to dogs.
> 
> ...


That was 35 deaths by dog mauling last year, not 31, mostly children and old people. Can you imagine what it would be like to die that way? From frikking dogs tearing you apart? Not just by the unmentinable breed but by any breed. That's 35 deaths too many. The unmentionanable breeds are ubiquitous just about everywhere, I have seen the fury with which they tear into living things and have treated the wounds in person in the ICU. To write this off because it was so few deaths compared to this and that- -- Read that page of the victim's story and the dog's story. I have no solution to it except packing self defense. Nuff said.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Muskeg said:


> The fur-baby and pet- parent mentality leads people to want a de-sexed child-stuffed-animal, that has low intelligence, low energy, and is good for hanging around the couch, mostly. Bans on breeds, mandatory speutering, bans on certain training tools, and the "force free" "pure positive" "adopt don't shop" people are all behind it.
> 
> Someone somewhere needs to speak up, for our dog's sake. It's very important that people like those on this board, make their voices heard.


I did and it cost me a lot of business and I quit as a shelter board member due to gossip about just that. That group is very large and I doubt we get anywhere besides enjoying our own circle. It is the reason I started going to my current breeder, no more rescue/hoarded dogs for me unless I find a poor soul on my doorstep.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nurse Bishop said:


> That was 35 deaths by dog mauling last year, not 31, mostly children and old people. Can you imagine what it would be like to die that way? From frikking dogs tearing you apart? Not just by the unmentinable breed but by any breed. That's 35 deaths too many. The unmentionanable breeds are ubiquitous just about everywhere, I have seen the fury with which they tear into living things and have treated the wounds in person in the ICU. To write this off because it was so few deaths compared to this and that- -- Read that page of the victim's story and the dog's story. I have no solution to it except packing self defense. Nuff said.


Well, it just isn't a major health threat. Not 31 or 35 in a country this size. There are 11.6 million people in Ohio. If every one of these 35 died due to dogs in Ohio it would still not be a good reason to mutilate all the dogs in Ohio. 

If you are indeed a nurse, than you can probably tell that death is pretty ugly no matter how it happens. Sickness that leads to death is horrible. Injuries in ERs are gruesome. They are, whatever they are. 

Now I have taken my bloody stump to the ER after a GSD bite or two. It wasn't pleasant, but I walked in, days later in one of the cases. And I walked my butt out an hour or so later. Took some antibiotics, got a tetnus shot, and really, I was happy not to be dealing with some of the other stuff going on in there. The breathing tube and gagging. Whatever. Yes, yes, you can become septic, you can die, even from a normal dog biting. But it is so very rare. Let's see, we have twenty some electoral votes in Ohio and CA has 55, that means they have better than 22 million people in Ca and 6 deaths by dog. That's 6 out of 22,000,000. Probably more. What is that, .000027%. 

It just isn't enough to make me think that whole towns of people should spay or neuter their animals. The people that owned the dogs that attacked should be prosecuted for manslaughter or reckless endangerment or something. But the hysteria over this is daunting. 

20 deaths happen each year from the practice of horse riding. Should we run out and kill all the horses in America because no kid should ever be crushed to death by a horse? I actually knew someone who knew a young kid that was dragged to her death by a horse. I know no one, however remotely, that was killed by a dog. We pass legislation like this as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy, and another knee-jerk reaction might be to go door to door, ripping dogs out of people's grasps and executing them in the street. Sadly, I think this actually happened somewhere.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

If you choose not to die by horse, one can easily avoid horses. Too many of these dog bite related fatalities are happening on public streets or on the victim's private property, such as the women killed yesterday in her own yard by a neighbor's dogs or the woman who was the catalyst for this bylaw's predecessor who was killed in her own backyard by a neighbor's dog.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Magwart said:


> I'm in awe of how much in common Quebec and Louisiana do in how poorly they care for dogs. Is it a French colonial thing? I don't know, but it's like a cold and warm mirror image.
> 
> I totally understand your point, Sabismom, and while I've never been to Canada, I fully understand get the desperation that brings about measures like this, and I honestly appreciate that they're trying to _do something_ -- presently, I live in the anti-regulation side of that mirror, so our community creates trash barrels full of dead puppies to be euthanized in Parish animal control facilities every spring, and collectively shrugs its shoulders. I can't even get them to create mandatory speuter requirement for the "frequently flyers" that are picked up stray and returned to owners multiple times--the "at large" dogs most likely to be creating unwanted litters. Even a "three strikes" law for being found running at large would upset people and their right to let their dogs exercise nature's urges.
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I mean.

I don't AGREE with the legislation, and I don't like it. But as I said these people have proven that they will not make the right decision with out it. 
My ultimate hope would be that if they can get the situation in control this would be repealed as the BSL was.
It saddens me that the only way to get humans to behave is to legislate it. 
As was mentioned we are all the exceptions to the norm, but unlike most of you by beliefs teach that all life is equal. Humans are not superior but rather guardians, my views reflect those beliefs. I cannot not respond when a life is treated as disposable. My rights may not trample the rights of other living things. 

Except spiders. They die. Lol.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

That actually happened in Germany in the 90's with a "certain type" breed.


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

The only person I know who was killed via dog was not attacked at all. My mother's friend was walking her daughter's dog, got pulled over by the dog, and hit her head and died. 

One could make an argument this was a death due to poor training, and possibly to the "reward-only" training cult. 

I wonder how many of these types of deaths happen each year? Would be an interesting stat.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> *If you choose not to die by horse, one can easily avoid horses*. Too many of these dog bite related fatalities are happening on public streets or on the victim's private property, such as the women killed yesterday in her own yard by a neighbor's dogs or the woman who was the catalyst for this bylaw's predecessor who was killed in her own backyard by a neighbor's dog.


I suppose it would depend on where you live. For me, other than my own, I see a lot more horses than dogs.


----------



## WIBackpacker (Jan 9, 2014)

First and only public Mod warning.... it's a holiday, multiple PM reports are coming in, knock it off with pitbull conversation or you will get formally warned or outright banned. 

Rest of the topic is fine.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Magwart said:


> I'm in awe of how much in common Quebec and Louisiana do in how poorly they care for dogs. Is it a French colonial thing? I don't know, but it's like a cold and warm mirror image.
> 
> I totally understand your point, Sabismom, and while I've never been to Canada, I fully understand get the desperation that brings about measures like this, and I honestly appreciate that they're trying to _do something_ -- presently, I live in the anti-regulation side of that mirror, so our community creates trash barrels full of dead puppies to be euthanized in Parish animal control facilities every spring, and collectively shrugs its shoulders. I can't even get them to create mandatory speuter requirement for the "frequently flyers" that are picked up stray and returned to owners multiple times--the "at large" dogs most likely to be creating unwanted litters. Even a "three strikes" law for being found running at large would upset people and their right to let their dogs exercise nature's urges.
> 
> ...


 Yes, but now there are Neuticles  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuticles Made for dogs, men (who have had testicular cancer) and male horses too.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

WIBackpacker said:


> First and only public Mod warning.... it's a holiday, multiple PM reports are coming in, knock it off with pitbull conversation or you will get formally warned or outright banned.
> 
> Rest of the topic is fine.



:snowflake::snowflake::snowflake::snowflake:
:dancingtree:...:snowglobe:...:dancingtree:
-----Merry Christmas---
:snowflake::snowflake::snowflake::snowflake:


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

selzer said:


> Does it beat dead dogs? No. I don't think that is a valid, ends justify the means excuse for forcing law-abiding citizens to perform mutilation on their dogs.
> 
> I don't believe the Canadian government is going to go door to door examining dogs and bitches for compliance to the law. So once again, law-abiding individuals will be forced to do something to remain law-abiding, while irresponsible owners will continue to do exactly what they want to do.
> 
> ...


A lot of this rang true for me and I will just add that in regard to spaying your female vs neutering your male...there really does seem to be a "man" issue there. By that I mean, men seem to be really troubled by neutering their intact male dogs mcuh more than spaying a female or more than a female owner neutering a male dog. I know from my personal experience, my own husband has this issue and I can think of probably a half dozen other husbands making the same argument over a male dog and I have never heard of it to do with spaying a female.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

Nurse Bishop said:


> [/COLOR]
> Yes, but now there are Neuticles  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuticles Made for dogs, men (who have had testicular cancer) and male horses too.


OMG I clicked on this link and can I just say

it says "the dog licked where his testicles had been and acted very depressed for 3 days" I paraphrase but you get the idea. He acted depressed because he was in pain from surgery and then recovered, you idiots! (not directed at anyone on here) not because he realized he had been neutered!!!


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

Muskeg said:


> I believe that spay and neuter should be easily accessible (mobile clinics) and FREE to anyone that needs it in the southern states in the US that are producing such an excess of puppies and dogs. When I look at Petfinder for my area, the first 25 (plus) dogs listed closest to me are all bully breeds, every single one is a southern-state import. I'd happily donate to any organization that provided free, mobile, spay-neuter for areas that could benefit.
> 
> I am against BSL and mandatory spay neuter.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I used to joke that I was going to kidnap all the free roaming dogs within a mile of my house in Florida, neuter them, then drop them back off a day later where I got them from. I saw some horrible things-- a starving catahoula bitch who looked like she was near death and all her flea ridden puppies living under a trailer...and on and on.

Besides my kidnap idea I also had the idea of mobile speuter clinics going door to door. I saw a show recently on animal planet-- I think they went to Mexico. To do a free speuter clinic. They also treated other issues too, I think. And people turned out by the hundreds, it was hugely successful. The people did want to use the services, they just could not pay for it.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> OMG I clicked on this link and can I just say
> 
> it says "the dog licked where his testicles had been and acted very depressed for 3 days" I paraphrase but you get the idea. He acted depressed because he was in pain from surgery and then recovered, you idiots! (not directed at anyone on here) not because he realized he had been neutered!!!


Yet he pattented them and now he's very wealthy Neuticles.com

"Neuticles allows your precious pet to retain his natural look, self esteem and aids the pet and pet's owner with trauma associated with altering. Perfectly safe and complication free. Available in four models including the Neuticles Original, Natural, UltraPLUS with ScarRetard and the UltraPLUS with Epididymis. " 

Now, who is going to palpate the dog's scrotum to check for epididymis? Extra Extra large dog nuts are $629.00 EACH.
Also sells ear implants for prick eared breeds that didn't as well as fake horse eyes.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

One good thing is that landlords can decline to rent to dog owners or owners of certain dogs. Insurance companys can refuse policys to owners of certain dogs. Of course, lots of low lifes then go out and abandon their dogs.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nurse Bishop said:


> [/COLOR]
> Yes, but now there are Neuticles  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuticles Made for dogs, men (who have had testicular cancer) and male horses too.


Really? You know it is not the same. I have a male who will be 5 at the end of January, whose previous owners neutered him early. I have a young male who turned 1 last month. Day and night different. 

If a man wants his dog to have his testicles, because he is a guy and doesn't like the idea of neutering, I see nothing wrong with that. The problem is not the testicles, it is the management of the dog. Forcing anyone to mutilate their dog isn't ok, and I really do not care what the reason is, save maybe the frequent fliers. If people are really that irresponsible that their dog has been picked up multiple times, then maybe they deserve to lose the privilege of having an intact dog.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

That's what they did to me when they picked up (one time) the timid Russian wolfhound Ivan Putski. So I got him a vasectomy. He needed every bit of testosterone he could possibly make.


----------



## Kyrielle (Jun 28, 2016)

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- MLK Jr

[REMOVED - INFLAMMATORY]

People don't like having their private lives, property, and/or behaviors directly controlled or monitored by their governments. Any attempt to do so usually results in considerable resistance if not blatant disobedience--even at the cost of their lives, property, and/or freedom.

I suspect this is largely why only 14% of dogs are registered in Canada. The remaining 86% likely include a number of otherwise responsible dog owners who simply don't believe it's the government's job to know what private property they own. So they won't register them. This same 86% is probably going to thumb their collective noses any similar autocratic laws.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Kyrielle said:


> "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- MLK Jr
> 
> [REMOVED - PERSONAL/INFLAMMATORY]
> 
> ...


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

-------------Mod Warning----------------
Stop the bickering back and forth.Take your discussion to private messages.


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Gee. Its nice to live out here where all I have to worry about is intact male coyotes.


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Gee. Its nice to live out here where all I have to worry about is intact male coyotes.


[snarf!!] [wipes coffee off screen...]

Lucky you, Nurse Bishop! :wink2:


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

selzer said:


> Bolded: not sure what is wrong with this statement.
> 
> [REMOVED - POLITICS]
> 
> ...


@ WiBackpacker, Excuse me but politics as they refer to dog-issues are ok on this forum according to the rules, or at least, that is how it was from the inception of no-politics.

Wow, now religion is a banned topic? I hadn't heard that was banned.


----------



## WIBackpacker (Jan 9, 2014)

selzer said:


> @ WiBackpacker, Excuse me but politics as they refer to dog-issues are ok on this forum according to the rules, or at least, that is how it was from the inception of no-politics.
> 
> Wow, now religion is a banned topic? I hadn't heard that was banned.


Politics are not allowed, and when users report a post, it is reviewed by the Moderators / Admin team.

Similarly, 



> In addition, questionable posts may be edited or deleted without explanation or warning.


Religious remarks that lead to arguments about torturing people and "slaying babies" are not relevant to dogs.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

WIBackpacker said:


> Politics are not allowed, and when users report a post, it is reviewed by the Moderators / Admin team.
> 
> Similarly,
> 
> ...


That's funny. Years ago, they shut down a thread due to politics, and I got them to re-open it because the politics were about a dog-related issue. And that is how the rule has always been. 

I did not see the religious remark so I'll shut up about that. But religion on its own isn't a banned topic here, and I wanted that clarified.


----------



## WIBackpacker (Jan 9, 2014)

selzer said:


> I did not see the religious remark so I'll shut up about that. But religion on its own isn't a banned topic here, and I wanted that clarified.


You're correct. There's a difference between sincere wishes/stories/anecdotes vs. a post that is gruesome, offensive, or unrelated to dogs.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

WIBackpacker said:


> You're correct. There's a difference between sincere wishes/stories/anecdotes vs. a post that is gruesome, offensive, or unrelated to dogs.


Geeze, agreeing with me makes it difficult to keep up one part of the argument. 

This thread is about a draconian effort to prevent people from having dogs the way the want to have them. It is not exactly new, but it is a new attempt. I brought up the case where they ripped dogs out of people's arms... But that is because it did happen. Maybe a couple of times. Someone mentioned Germany. But it also happened in China, when they were concerned about rabies, the numbers of dogs slaughtered were daunting. The reason for it was maybe understandable. Maybe. 

But as we march into the future, it very might come to a place where we may be fighting for the right to have dogs where we live, to take them to parks, or walk them on the streets near our homes. I hope it never comes to that, but we should not allow the possibility of some people becoming offended to prevent us from discussing pertinent dog-related issues that we are facing. And, generally, "it is over-late to send for aid when you are already besieged" (J. R. R. Tolkein). I think the time for meaningful conversation is now. But, don't worry, I am not going to begin it. Not yet. 

In my neighborhood, on my crime site, someone killed 3 dogs that while hunting strayed onto their land. They were pointers or hounds, hard to tell. They looked like bird dogs, but they could have been some form of fox hound or **** hound. In Ohio, your dogs do not need to be on leash if they are hunting, it is part of the leash law. And I believe it is illegal to kill a hunting dog with a collar on. These were expensive remote collars. Why the dogs were killed were pure dog-hating attitude. And old fellow just decided to shoot them down. All three. It didn't have to do with culture or religion. But there are attitudes in today's current atmosphere that are vicious toward dogs. Some of them are religious and cultural. Some are not. Dog people have to be aware of them and ready to counter as much as possible any of them gaining a foot hold in their areas. Somehow there has to be a balance between our desire not to offend, and our desire to protect what is dear to us.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

WIBackpacker said:


> Politics are not allowed, and when users report a post, it is reviewed by the Moderators / Admin team.
> 
> Similarly,
> 
> ...


*
*

Well my apologies! I was simply pointing out that "the good book" says a lot of things and not all of them should be trusted or followed. 
What with all the talk on here about slaughtering animals, murdering wildlife and such I didn't think anything I said was offensive.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

selzer said:


> @ WiBackpacker, Excuse me but politics as they refer to dog-issues are ok on this forum according to the rules, or at least, that is how it was from the inception of no-politics.
> 
> Wow, now religion is a banned topic? I hadn't heard that was banned.


The removed post wasn't about dog issues, it was a general swipe at an entire nation's history. WIbackpaker was correct to edit in that context.


----------

