# Mandatory Spay and Neutering



## Stella's Mom

I just read this article in Cesar Milan's website, Cesar's Way.

What are your thoughts on mandatory spay and neutering?

Solving the Stray and Unwanted Dog Problem | CesarsWay.com


----------



## msvette2u

Licensed breeder could still be "puppy mill", so that would need to be defined.


----------



## Jax08

noooooo....I agree that the majority of pets should be s/n because the owners can't keep them from breeding. However, I had a female that was 4yrs before spay. Doesn't take a genius to make sure she isn't let out alone when in heat. And the jury is still out as to the health effects of s/n. How about the ppl that show? Not breed, just show in confirmation. If they are s/n they can't be shown. 

I think mandatory anything is a slippery slope. Mandatory rabies...and now we are seeing teh affects of over vaccination. Not saying rabies shouldn't be mandatory but maybe the yearly should be evaluated.


----------



## lhczth

I voted no. This is between myself and my vet and what is right for my dog. Everyone else needs to MYOB.


----------



## crackem

why does everyone else think they know what's best for everyone else? Seriously. I used to think breeders really needed to be regulated, now I could care less because it really doesn't matter. 

if someone has 400 breeding dogs stacked on top of each other in sheds producing puppies by the thousands, they do it because people buy them. 

The guy that spends 150 bucks for two dogs out of the newspaper and decides they need money for rent and to buy his momma a new pair of shows, breeds his dogs for some extra cash. More often than not, they find homes for these dogs. Whether they make money or not isn't really important. If they make it, they probably breed again and sell them, if not, they probably won't, but either way they usually find homes for all of the dogs because people wanting puppies are everywhere.

and they guy that spends thousands every year titling, working, training and proving his dogs has a few litters and yes, most of them also find homes.

almost every single dog you see in a shelter or rescue was somebody's pet once. There is no shortage of people wanting dogs, but there is definitely a shortage of those willing to live up to their responsibilities of owning a dog. Fixing that is about the only thing that is going to fix this problem without placing all the burden on those it will affect the least.


----------



## Emoore

No. No no no no no. Responsible dog owners shouldn't be punished because of irresponsible dog owners.


----------



## mycobraracr

Jax08 said:


> noooooo....I agree that the majority of pets should be s/n because the owners can't keep them from breeding. However, I had a female that was 4yrs before spay. Doesn't take a genius to make sure she isn't let out alone when in heat. And the jury is still out as to the health effects of s/n. How about the ppl that show? Not breed, just show in confirmation. If they are s/n they can't be shown.
> 
> I think mandatory anything is a slippery slope. Mandatory rabies...and now we are seeing teh affects of over vaccination. Not saying rabies shouldn't be mandatory but maybe the yearly should be evaluated.


 
I agree. I have recently decided not to spay my puppy. Well at least not until she has reached maturity. However I also feel that I am a responsable owner and can handle it.


----------



## Courtney

No No No...not the answer to mandate spay/neuter laws....ugh...


----------



## Stella's Mom

Emoore said:


> No. No no no no no. Responsible dog owners shouldn't be punished because of irresponsible dog owners.


I agree


----------



## CeCe

I saw that article as well. It's very interesting. I am for mandatory SN for all mixes as well as breeds that are over represented in shelters such as pit bulls and chihuahuas.


----------



## Wolfgeist

NO. Absolutely not! I am a strong believer that animals are healthier and mature properly when left intact.


----------



## Good_Karma

I voted neither because I don't have a solid opinion on this one way or the other and I wanted to see the poll results.  I do prefer the right to choose for myself, but I am not sure that everyone is always going to be responsible with their intact dogs. Should we take away everyone's choice because of this? I don't know. If I said yes to that statement, that would make me a hypocrite.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

I am not sure about how I feel concerning this matter. My lab isn't neutered but my GSD is. I have no plans of breeding nor of neutering my lab. I take good care of him and he never is allowed to roam around. He is either indoors with me, or I take him on a walk-always with him on a lead, or he is in our fenced in backyard. He is not the kind of dog to try to get out of our house, he is content to just be near me and the family. I see no reason to castrate him.

Some people though who leave their intact dogs "roaming" around the neighborhood, who have had "oops" litters, who don't train their kids to not let the dog run out the door-neither do they train there dogs not to bolt out of open doors, or the people who breed who have no regard for the health neither physical nor mental of the puppies-these people should have to have their dogs neutered/spayed.

So who is to decide who must neuter and who doesn't have to? It would be impossible to pass legislation without including everyone. So back to square one with this question-I think of the dogs who are in kill shelters or in rescues needing a home-dogs that very well could have come from the second group of people that I described, and I lean toward voting yes make it mandatory. Then I think of violating owners rights by forcing them to neuter/spay, many responsible owners do not need nor want their dogs to undergo a castration. Also to consider is the fact that probably only purebred dogs would be bred if all dogs had to be fixed except those who were being bred by reputable breeders. I don't like that at all, many mixed dogs are awesome and would reputable breeders then have to produce some mixed ones (muts)?  Because people should have the right to buy dogs of any breed or mix of breeds that they want provided that healthy dogs are used for the breeding.

*Also who and how would a reputable breeder be defined in the language of this law?


----------



## AbbyK9

I'm against mandatory spay/neuter and I am especially against young (under 2 years) spay/neuter.


----------



## martemchik

We'd spend more money as a country trying to regulate this than we do taking care of stray animals. I've spoken with people that admitted to me they can't s/n their animal because of the cost. What do you do with those people?

Its too big of a problem to think you can deal with it by making a law like that. It all comes down to money, and as long as people can make money by putting together two dogs this issue will never end.

Also anytime the government starts telling people what they can and can't do it becomes a big to-do, so what's the point of even trying?


----------



## arycrest

I voted *NO* since this is an issue between me and my vet! I don't want the government mandating that i have a surgical procedure performed on any pet I own!


----------



## Emoore

So let me get this straight. . . . Cesar Millan:

- crossed the border illegally
- had his citizenship fast-tracked because of who he was, who he knew, and how much money he had
- wants to implement a restrictive federal law about what all Americans can do with their property because of the irresponsibility of some


Why am I supposed to admire this guy again?


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

Emoore said:


> So let me get this straight. . . . Cesar Millan:
> 
> - crossed the border illegally
> - had his citizenship fast-tracked because of who he was, who he knew, and how much money he had
> - wants to implement a restrictive federal law about what all Americans can do with their property because of the irresponsibility of some
> 
> 
> Why am I supposed to admire this guy again?


Upset that the glass ceiling didn't hold him back?


----------



## Emoore

Germanshepherdlova said:


> Upset that the glass ceiling didn't hold him back?


Mostly upset because Mr. Millan wants to force me to put my dogs through a painful and unnecessary surgery that I don't see the benefit of and would have to pay for.

Also kind of upset that it does hold back the decent, hardworking Mexicans on both sides of the border who *don't* want to force me to neuter my dogs and would give their left eye to be citizens of this country but will never be able to because they aren't wealthy and aren't personal friends of Will Smith.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

Emoore said:


> Mostly upset because Mr. Millan wants to force me to put my dogs through a painful and unnecessary surgery that I don't see the benefit of and would have to pay for.
> 
> Also kind of upset that it does hold back the decent, hardworking Mexicans on both sides of the border who *don't* want to force me to neuter my dogs and would give their left eye to be citizens of this country but will never be able to because they aren't wealthy and aren't personal friends of Will Smith.


It is much easier for Mexicans to be approved for citizenship here if they are educated or have a special skill<which CM has, a special skill. USA is very welcoming to new citizens who can contribute to our society. BTW, my mom was granted citizenship here-no problems whatsoever! Not right, in my opinion to bring up his citizenship just because you are upset about him wanting to pass this law.


----------



## KZoppa

lhczth said:


> I voted no. This is between myself and my vet and what is right for my dog. Everyone else needs to MYOB.





Emoore said:


> No. No no no no no. Responsible dog owners shouldn't be punished because of irresponsible dog owners.


 
this down to a T. Shasta is ONLY being spayed because I feel she is done growing and has reached her full physical maturity. I also have no plans to breed and never have with her and dealing with doggie period is not my ideal so she's being spayed. Other than that, she wouldnt be going under the knife because she's watched like a hawk and restricted like crazy when she's in heat. Its a personal choice.


----------



## Emoore

Germanshepherdlova said:


> It is much easier for Mexicans to be approved for citizenship here if they are educated or have a special skill<which CM has, a special skill. USA is very welcoming to new citizens who can contribute to our society. BTW, my mom was granted citizenship here-no problems whatsoever! Not right, in my opinion to bring up his citizenship just because you are upset about him wanting to pass this law.


I imagine your mom didn't come here illegally and then ask for amnesty after the fact. If she did, don't tell us unless she's already mentioned it in a bestselling book. Which brings us to my second point. . . . . .

It's not like Cesar's illegal entry into the country is a secret. He mentions it in every book he's written.

In my opinion, it's ironic that he wants to pass an incredibly restrictive law that would affect everyone who owns a pet and would be expensive and difficult to enforce in light of the fact that he broke laws which are also expensive and difficult to enforce.



By the way I don't dislike the guy. I have his book on puppy raising and like it very much. Some other things I disagree with. This happens to be something I disagree with very strongly.


----------



## ponyfarm

Irresponsible people dont/wont follow the spay/neuter laws. The responsible people are, well, responsible. So, I vote "no".


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

Emoore said:


> I imagine your mom didn't come here illegally and then ask for amnesty after the fact. If she did, don't tell us unless she's already mentioned it in a bestselling book. Which brings us to my second point. . . . . .
> 
> It's not like Cesar's illegal entry into the country is a secret. He mentions it in every book he's written.
> 
> In my opinion, it's ironic that he wants to pass an incredibly restrictive law that would affect everyone who owns a pet and would be expensive and difficult to enforce in light of the fact that he broke laws which are also expensive and difficult to enforce.


I don't think the law is going to go anywhere. It would be almost impossible to pass, and enforcing it would be equally as difficult. I have an intact dog whom I will not be neutering and in the event that this law passes-I would rather pay the fine than neuter my dog. (if they even enforce it)


----------



## Emoore

I could totally see it passing in California. And then they wouldn't enforce it.


----------



## Liesje

NO NO NO! I would never do it! What would they do, come take my dogs and throw them in an animal shelter? lol


----------



## lhczth

*Anymore discussion on immigration, whether legal or otherwise, in this thread will lead to the poster receiving a warning. Get back on topic or don't post.*

ADMIN Lisa


----------



## TheActuary

The government has no right to tell me that I must spay/neuter my pets.


----------



## chelle

Maybe I read thru that article too fast, but I don't recall him saying he personally wanted to pass such a law? Just that he noticed on the major difference of how it is in Germany (mandatory speuter) vs here. 

Honestly, it is heartbreaking what is happening to animals in our country. Heartbreaking. They're throw a ways to so many. 

I don't have the slightest idea what to do to change that. Mandatory speuter would require so much more legislation, cost, etc, and the law abiding citizens would suffer, and the others would simply not register their dog for a license and slip under the radar, anyway. So, basically, most of those contributing to the problem (byb's) would continue to do so. You might prevent some OOPS litters from occuring. Maybe.

If you had mandatory speuter, "someone" would have to come up with the proper "age" it had to be done by.. and THAT would open a can of worms.. this breed by this age, blah and so on. Heck, a lot of law abiding citizens would likely become criminals.  

This type of thing won't get any traction.


----------



## PaddyD

I believe in spaying and neutering.

But I don't believe that the government should legislate their concept of morality.


----------



## selzer

The government should enforce the laws they have in place. The government should not make laws that they can't or do not intend to enforce. The responsible people who know the law, and follow the law, are also responsible with their dogs. Those that are not responsible, or ignore the law will continue to contribute to the problem. Thus, only those individuals least likely to contribute to the problem of stray dogs would be affected at all. And with money (i.e. special license) they would be able to keep their animal intact (to show or to breed). All this does is punish the law-abiding citizens, and generate revenue for no services whatsoever. Totally against that.

I agree with Emoore. No, no, no, no, no!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

This is such a great article on it:
ASPCA | Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

Before you freak, open it and read it all the way through. ASPCA does not support mandatory spay and neuter while recognizing that communities that are effective in providing multi-faceted targeted programs that are not mandatory do better in reducing the number of dogs killed in their shelters. 

From the link it includes:


> * is based on careful research to determine which segments of the animal population are actually significantly contributing to shelter intake and euthanasia and then targets efforts to those segments of the population;*
> focuses on the particular barriers to spay/neuter that are predominant and strives to overcome them;
> is well-supported and well-funded; and
> has an efficient voluntary spay/neuter infrastructure in place to service the populations it targets.


I am probably taking a foster puppy this weekend from a shelter in KY with a human population serving, I am guessing 60,000 people in five counties (I will try to get the actual numbers). 

That shelter kills an average of 1,000 dogs (including kennels full of puppies) each month. 

So I do not support mandatory spay and neuter but do support the research based information in that article as a way to encourage and target the people and places who need it most (for their dogs).


----------



## RocketDog

Germany has a mandatory speuter law? I'm going to have to ask my best friend about it--she just got a new puppy over there. When she lived here she never spayed her Golden and I thought she told me people DON'T do it over there very much.


----------



## msvette2u

I know Germany has very tough breeding laws. 
You don't even start the process if your dogs don't meet all standards and are doing something in the way of titles. 
One of our vets is from Germany and he met our Pebbles (a double-dapple) he said, "She's a very cute little puppy but in Germany she'd have been killed".


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

msvette2u said:


> *I know Germany has very tough breeding laws.
> You don't even start the process if your dogs don't meet all standards and are doing something in the way of titles. *


That is what I have heard too


----------



## selzer

Actually, Germany has good breeders and bad breeders, kind of like the US. If you want your pups to have SV pink papers -- kind of what full registration in the AKC/US would be, then you have to do way more than you have to do to register a litter AKC. That is only for German Shepherds though. Each breed of dog over there has its own registry. So the requirments for a leonberger may be more or less onerous than for a GSD. I do not know that Germany has any breeding laws. I think the SV controls breeding of GSDs, and the government does not have much to do about it. And, according to my friend who used to live there, they do not speuter everything with four feet. They are more responsible with their animals than some here tend to be.


----------



## lorihd

well i read the article on the aspca and they mention new jersey having a high rate of euthanasia, i live in nj and all the shelters around me are not filled to capacity, in fact when i looked they hardly had any dogs. now if i were to go to elizabeth or newark, that would be a different story, lots and lots of pitbulls. this really comes down to economics and responsibility, also education. anyway i was going to spay my puppy at 6 mos, but after reading all the info on this forum, i will wait until she is about 18 mos. i really wouldnt appreciate someone telling me when i have to alter my dog. i think that should be my( forum) educated decision!


----------



## RocketDog

selzer said:


> Actually, Germany has good breeders and bad breeders, kind of like the US. If you want your pups to have SV pink papers -- kind of what full registration in the AKC/US would be, then you have to do way more than you have to do to register a litter AKC. That is only for German Shepherds though. Each breed of dog over there has its own registry. So the requirments for a leonberger may be more or less onerous than for a GSD. I do not know that Germany has any breeding laws. I think the SV controls breeding of GSDs, and the government does not have much to do about it. * And, according to my friend who used to live there, they do not speuter everything with four feet.* They are more responsible with their animals than some here tend to be.


Yes, this is exactly what my friend said. This is why her Golden was never spayed. (She IS German, born and raised. Lived here 10 years, moved back 2 years ago.  )


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

[email protected] said:


> well i read the article on the aspca and they mention new jersey having a high rate of euthanasia, i live in nj and all the shelters around me are not filled to capacity, in fact when i looked they hardly had any dogs. now if i were to go to elizabeth or newark, that would be a different story, lots and lots of pitbulls. this really comes down to economics and responsibility, also education. anyway i was going to spay my puppy at 6 mos, but after reading all the info on this forum, i will wait until she is about 18 mos. i really wouldnt appreciate someone telling me when i have to alter my dog. i think that should be my( forum) educated decision!


This is what position statement said:


> As a result, the proportion of pets from poor communities who are being euthanized in shelters remains high; shelter euthanasia rates in the poorest counties in states such as California and New Jersey are several times higher than those in the most affluent counties (Handy, 2002; Marsh, 2008).


Plus more after that on each community is specific so you can't generalize.


----------



## PupperLove

I voted no. I do not plan to neuter Jackson and I would be very upset if I was forced to do so. I feel it is natural and more healty for a dog to have it's natural hormones and I also feel I am responsibe enough to keep him well contained so he will never sire a litter..ever.


----------



## Debbieg

I vote no! Benny had his retained testicle removed and the other left intact. He will not be bred. I did this after reading studies that show neutered dogs have a 2.3% higher chance of hemangiosarcoma than intact dogs. I lost my Eli from this disease and Benny is from the same bloodlines.

I took some flack and had to search for a vet who supported and agreed with my decision( she is also a breeder) Benny will not be bred and I take every precaution possible to ensure this.

Now I find that it costs almost twice as much for me to renew Benny's license each year as it does Jake who was neutered when he adopted him.

I feel like I am being fined for doing what I feel is best for my dog!
It is worth it for me to pay the fine.

I wish some how breeders were required to have a license, determined by some criteria, which reputable breeders would easily get. These breeders be allowed to breed, and that those without a license would be fined.


----------



## Draugr

If people want to decrease shelter euthanasia rates, MSN is the worst way to do it...has had exactly the opposite effect whenever it has been tried.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result every time. That's what implementing MSN to reduce the unwanted pet population is.

What does work - are speuter programs targeting at-risk populations - dogs in shelters, rescues, etc.

Using something developed to address problems on a grand scale, rather than an individual scale, is crazy. Plain and simple. You don't use MSN to get to individual owners, you use it to target large populations - unowned dogs in the shelter system. That works.

What works on individuals are programs which encourage participation, not programs which punish people into compliance.

And as has already been mentioned, I have seen, if you use MSN to target individuals, you hit the people who are already responsible and law-abiding and not terribly likely to contribute to the problem. You still miss everyone who already doesn't obey laws/ordinances like that.

Instead, how about applying the legislation on behavior. If your dog is found roaming X number of times, and has to be returned to you via AC - mandatory sterilization.

~

I will note that a few months ago (almost a year, maybe? can't remember) New Orleans passed an "MSN" law that...may actually work. It isn't draconian and backwards as virtually all other implementations have been. All cats/dogs over 6 months must be speutered - unless you have reason to keep them intact. And that reason can be "because I want to." And the "testicle tax" is not ridiculously prohibitive, either. I can see that working, maybe. I haven't heard anything on it since its implementation, though, so I don't know if it is working or not.

~

What it comes down to is that the government has no business legislating morality. Period. And punitive measures like this _do not work_. Licensing in LA county (where the country's most draconian MSN laws are in place) - is under 25% (lots of lost revenue). In Calgary, Canada, where no such laws are in place...licensing adherence is over 90%.


----------



## msvette2u

What _would_ work is mandatory s/n for every dog being sold at pet stores, and no freebies allowed. King Co. (I believe) has a law that no puppy or kitten litters can be given away, when they see those ads they go get the pets and s/n before placement.
I agree shelter pets and rescues need to be s/n - and we (usually) do. But that does not account for all the animals being born and surrendered all the time.
_Where_ are those coming from? Simply s/n shelter and rescue animals is not working. There's too many still out there, and tons of purebreds.


----------



## msvette2u

selzer said:


> They are more responsible with their animals than some here tend to be.


Bingo.
Sadly, we live in a fast food society where if you want it, you can have it - your way!
-doodle here there everywhere, every mix you can think of, even things you couldn't, and it's like a smorgasbord of dogs. 
Our country is a gimme, gimme, gimme society and our nation's health has gone down the drains, and because of the selfish nature of people, shelters are filled to capacity and animals are put to sleep daily across the country.

As I type I am holding a 1.5lb purebred Pug (she's asleep on my chest) who was tossed in the dumpster earlier today. She has a severe eye infection and will lose at least one of them on Wednesday. 
What Einstein bred this poor baby and then threw her away like so much trash?? 

Sick to death of this kind of thing. Whatever it takes to stop it...I'm praying something will change.


----------



## ladyfreckles

I disagree with any law that mandates we cut off a part of a living creature's body just because some people are stupid. Do not punish the responsible for the irresponsible.


----------



## msvette2u

Ah, but if only the responsible were the majority.


----------



## OriginalWacky

I am very much against mandatory speutering, it should be a personal choice. I am in favor of much more education on prevention of oops litters, and programs to fund s/n for low income folks. Koshka will not be neutered unless and until we feel it is needed, but the chances of him breeding is between slim and none. IF his breeder feels it would be appropriate and IF he has lots of pretty letters behind his name and IF he is healthy enough and IF there is a female that would make excellent puppies with him, then MAYBE he will be bred. I will be darn sure he doesn't have any chance to breed random litters along the way.


----------



## nomansland4404

More people wanting to make this country less free. Ridiculous.


----------



## Liesje

msvette2u said:


> Ah, but if only the responsible were the majority.


But this is not just a problem of reproductive responsibility. At least around here many if not most of the animals that end up in shelters and rescues are already spayed or neutered. People just need to be responsible for the pets, period. That includes making informed decisions about spay/neuter.

There are already things in place to encourage spay/neuter. It would cost me about 3 times as much to purchase a dog license for an intact dog as a neutered one. APDT registration offers a discount for altered dogs. The AKC ILP/PAL program is only for altered dogs.


----------



## Lilie

I would be more inclined to agree with raising the license fee (or something like that)and utilizing a part of that for low cost spueter programs. Said programs open to anybody with a pet. Not just low income people. 

I think that most people don't get their pets spuetered because of the cost factor. Unless the owner is strongly for spuetering , they won't spend the money for it. If it was affordable, it wouldn't seem like such a hardship on the owner. 

I don't recall ever seeing a celebrity donate money to a specific clinic so they can hold a low cost spueter day.


----------



## msvette2u

You forgot about Bob???

The DJ&T Foundation Subsidizes Clinics and Voucher Programs All Over the USA

And I agree w/you, Lies, but while everyone insists that they are responsible enough to own intact pets, there's still way too many dogs, and purebreds at that, to account for. 
Where are they all coming from?

*90% (easily) of the pets I picked up were not s/n. And not licensed.


----------



## Liesje

msvette2u said:


> You forgot about Bob???
> 
> The DJ&T Foundation Subsidizes Clinics and Voucher Programs All Over the USA
> 
> And I agree w/you, Lies, but while everyone insists that they are responsible enough to own intact pets, there's still way too many dogs, and purebreds at that, to account for.
> Where are they all coming from?
> 
> *90% (easily) of the pets I picked up were not s/n. And not licensed.


I guess my response would be why do we seem to have such a huge problem with too many pets while other countries where it is far less common to alter do not have these problems? Or even consider various locales within our country. Why do some euthanize thousands of dogs while others have to get dogs shipped in to meet the demand? Instead of focusing on a bandaid for the symptom, I'd be interested in understanding the real cause. I think it has far less to do with the reproductive abilities of the animal than we'd like to think.


----------



## msvette2u

Well that's what I'm getting at. 
Mandatory s/n is (like BSL) a knee jerk response but people are seeing the problem and wanting to do something, _anything._

I'd like to know, honestly, where all these animals are coming from! Cats are simple. There's huge feral colonies that reproduce like wildfire. But dogs? Dogs aren't out there, feral, reproducing, you don't see feral colonies of dogs. If you did, the local authorities would do something.

So if everyone is so responsible as to not need mandatory s/n laws, _where are all the dogs coming from?_


----------



## Liesje

Around here I think a lot of people just can't afford dogs anymore. We have one of the worst housing markets, some of the highest unemployment (near 15% in some places), I've looked through job openings that require someone to have a graduate degree plus work experience but want to pay about $12/hr. My dream job would pay about that right now. Who can afford to live on that, not even considering trying to start a family, or owning pets? I'm pre-approved for our state GSD rescue so I get all the notices when dogs become available and the vast majority of them are dogs that people simply cannot afford. Well meaning people that have taken decent care of their dogs but have no choice but to surrender them. Sometimes they lose their house and have to move in with a relative that can't have dogs, sometimes they honestly cannot feed the dog anymore. While I never had pets growing up (because we couldn't afford them and both parents worked), it seemed *everyone* always had pets of all kinds, like it's just part of our culture to have pets but when we hit hard economic times people genuinely cannot afford them anymore.


----------



## msvette2u

Oh yeah the economy is hitting shelters and rescues very hard. Coupled with dogs being turned in or turned loose daily is the fact nobody's adopting anything either.
Very very tough times.

But my question really is, where are the dogs originally coming from (like, where were they born, sold, bought, whatever).


----------



## Liesje

Does it matter where they are from if someone is no longer able to properly care for them?


----------



## msvette2u

Well...the analogy is like this...

You are sitting with friends enjoying a picnic alongside a beautiful river, when suddenly you see babies floating down the river. You all wade in to try to save the babies, but there's so many, many of them are drowning before you can reach them!
You keep going at it, though, saving all the babies floating by.
Would it not make more sense to go upstream and find out where all the babies are coming from and stop _that_?

We can s/n until the cows come home (and have been) but until the source(s) are found, it's pointless.


----------



## ladyfreckles

I think part of the problem is BYBs/people who think mating their mutts is cute. In other countries where more animals are in tact, they are also much looser about leash laws. So it's not that we aren't strict enough about spay/neuter, or that we aren't keeping dogs on leashes. I think another part of the problem is also impulse buying or people who just don't think before making important life decisions (giving up a cat because it "didn't get along with the baby", or getting that condo/apartment they just _had to have_ which doesn't allow pets). 

I think the main source of the problem is the selfish and uneducated nature of many Americans. I do not mean to generalize here, but compared to countries where there is less of an overpopulation issue, they out perform us in the math and sciences area. Their education is significantly better than ours. Americans are uninformed and it results in careless mistakes.


----------



## Draugr

I'd say it varies geographically.

In most places, millers are at fault, by and large. Not easy to stop, but possible, and very effective when you can, given that it is a single source. Even setting an absurdly high limit on the number of breeding dogs on site - say, 40 (I don't know what would be appropriate, I just made up a number for an example) would cut out the worst of the lot. How many times do you read stories where over 100 dogs are seized? And this is after years of operation. How badly do you think someone like that has contributed to the "stream of babies?"

~

From hearing from my friends in the South, though, it seems to be more the case of BYB's and people who just have dogs, and see no reason to stop them from doing what's "natural." Part of the life to let Rex and Sally make puppies, then when they're old enough, sell them out of the back of the truck in the Wal-Mart parking lot.

~

Some of the highest risk factors for a dog winding up in the shelter system is paying under $100 for it - miller/BYB price. The likelihood of a dog staying in the same home his entire life - or at least not winding up in the shelter system - increases dramatically the more money he initially cost. It's sad, but it's psychology - if you're the average American, and you pay $1200 for your dog - you're more likely to want to invest more money in him, rather than giving up on him. You pay $50 - well, he's disposable/replaceable. Why spend $800 on a surgery when you can pay $50 and get a dog without those problems?

And that's another part of it - if you're part of that demographic people consider to be the "average" American, and buying these milled/BYB'd pups - the poor breeding practices bring with them scores of genetic health problems, not to mention behavioral issues. Where do you think that $50 puppy is going to go when he starts being a nuisance (and even if we're just talking about standard puppy adolescence)? A $20/hr dog trainer, or the pound? I can tell you where I took mine, and I would have done it whether he cost me $2000 or $20. Hint: It wasn't the latter.

Anyway, it's sick, but that's part of the culture, here. Pets are fast becoming more integrated into the family unit, but as ladyfreckles pointed out, it's also an issue of education. I don't know what the causation is, exactly, but it seems the higher your education, the more likely you are to consider your dog an integral/vital/irreplacable part of the family.

I don't know what the attitude is toward dogs in other countries, or how they handle the issues - but I don't hear of shelter issues in Europe where S/N is very uncommon or even illegal. Perhaps they just kill everything that winds up in a shelter. I don't hear about that, either, though, and you'd think that would be a hot button issue if that were true. Hmm, maybe I need to take a vacation. See what it is like for myself.

I have to imagine that the general attitude is much different, though. Perhaps they are stricter on behavior-based laws? They actually enforce them? There are heftier fines, perhaps, for your dog being caught off-leash or roaming? I don't know. Just speculation.

~

One thing is for sure though - MSN isn't the answer when it brings us lower licensing rates, higher euthanasia rates...and generally just does exactly the opposite of what it's proponents claim it does. Punitive laws such as this tend to have that effect. People are pretty creative at getting around them. And the dogs suffer - if you don't want to speuter your dog, how likely are you to seek veterinary care? You don't want your vet reporting you and your dog.

And more than that, the government has no business imposing punitive measures on those who have done nothing wrong. It isn't just the result of MSN, but what MSN is in and of itself. It's decidedly immoral.

Now, imposing sterilization mandates on those who have repeatedly broken certain dog ordinances - that's a different discussion. It punishes owner behavior - and not just you or I making a mistake, but repeat behavior. The kinds of owners who at "at-risk" for worsening to the population issue. That, I think - or at least just *starting* with enforcing our existing laws/ordinances - would help make a small dent.


----------



## Jack's Dad

In the U.S. we are marketed to buy and consume whether we can afford it or not. Dogs, houses, vehicles, toys, it really doesnt matter. That is one of the reasons our economy is so bad. We not only want to have it all but are told we deserve it.

I think a lot of people get dogs because the idea seems cool. Then they get them home and realize they rerquire a lot of time and attention and can be expensive, so they get rid of them.

I do however think the overpopulation problem was with us for a long time prior to the present economy.


----------



## ladyfreckles

Draugr said:


> Anyway, it's sick, but that's part of the culture, here. Pets are fast becoming more integrated into the family unit, but as ladyfreckles pointed out, it's also an issue of education. I don't know what the causation is, exactly, but it seems the higher your education, the more likely you are to consider your dog an integral/vital/irreplacable part of the family.


If people were smarter about it and more educated, they'd be able to logically think things through before running headfirst into them. Logic would help people to avoid doing things such as BYB and letting their two dogs mate. Logic would allow people to think through the cost of an animal before buying it. But because we're uneducated and illogical many of us just flat out don't think before taking on responsibility for another living creature.


----------



## Liesje

msvette2u said:


> Well...the analogy is like this...
> 
> You are sitting with friends enjoying a picnic alongside a beautiful river, when suddenly you see babies floating down the river. You all wade in to try to save the babies, but there's so many, many of them are drowning before you can reach them!
> You keep going at it, though, saving all the babies floating by.
> Would it not make more sense to go upstream and find out where all the babies are coming from and stop _that_?
> 
> We can s/n until the cows come home (and have been) but until the source(s) are found, it's pointless.


No I see it as an issue of demand, not supply. If people were more educated about dog ownership and what it involves (both monetarily and with time and training) hopefully they wouldn't be purchasing dogs just for the sake of purchasing them. Puppy mills and large scale breeding operations would not have ever existed if no one wanted to buy those dogs. The supply should adjust to meet the demand. I don't want to adjust the supply just based on whether I think they are a legitimate "supplier". I put my money where my mouth is and that goes for what breeders, rescues, shelters, and trainers/clubs I support by purchasing from them or using their services.


----------



## msvette2u

I posted something similar pages back. "Fast food society/mentality".


----------



## msvette2u

ladyfreckles said:


> If people were smarter about it and more educated, they'd be able to logically think things through before running headfirst into them. Logic would help people to avoid doing things such as BYB and letting their two dogs mate. Logic would allow people to think through the cost of an animal before buying it. But because we're uneducated and illogical many of us just flat out don't think before taking on responsibility for another living creature.


It's not about intelligence. There's a lot of intelligent people who don't alter, but have figured out that they can sell puppies because_ people will buy them_.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

jack's dad said:


> in the u.s. We are marketed to buy and consume whether we can afford it or not. Dogs, houses, vehicles, toys, it really doesnt matter. That is one of the reasons our economy is so bad. We not only want to have it all but are told we deserve it.
> 
> I think a lot of people get dogs because the idea seems cool. Then they get them home and realize they rerquire a lot of time and attention and can be expensive, so they get rid of them.
> 
> I do however think the overpopulation problem was with us for a long time prior to the present economy.


----------



## Freestep

I do think that any pet going through a shelter or rescue should be spayed/neutered, in fact I think that is already mandated here.

Otherwise, it's a slippery slope. I, more than anyone, want to see BYB's and puppy mills go out of business. I don't want to see "oops" litters, I don't want to see "oops on purpose" litters, and while I'd like to believe that people are generally responsible, I know from experience that the general public cannot be expected to manage intact animals. 

HOWEVER:

Once we start litigating, it becomes a slippery slope and a mountain of red tape that costs the taxpayers money. You could argue that we taxpayers are already bearing the brunt of unwanted animals by government-run shelters and animal control, and that the need of those services could be drastically reduced by mandatory s/n.

Further, once we start issuing a license to breed, who decides who gets those licenses? Puppy mills have a lot of money and would almost certainly be approved. That does not solve anything. Ethical breeders don't make a living from puppy sales, so they might not have a lot of extra funds to spend on licensing.

And there will of course be a black market puppy trade; anytime something is regulated by the government, you will have those who simply go underground.

And there are the health concerns, as well. I personally think 8 weeks is too young to do s/n although I understand why shelters and rescues do it. I don't know whether the risk of s/n around 5-6 months is terribly egregious, I tend to think it's a bit overblown, although my pup is 14 months old and not yet spayed. Responsible people should be able to make their own choices with their animals.

If anything, I'd espouse free spay/neuter programs in lieu of a mandate. I think it would be less expensive in the long run.


----------



## msvette2u

If you could get vets on board!
They seem to have a morbid fear of spaying and neutering themselves out of work!


----------



## TankGrrl66

I honestly think the biggest problem is the delusion most people have that all dogs get adopted. Shelters need to tell the public just how many animals they euthanize. How many puppies and kittens, specifically.

You would not believe how many people I know who just refuse S/N. Mostly neuter. These same people do things that could be called irresponsible by people on this forum-letting their dogs off lead all the time, letting their dogs roam, not staying UTD on vaccines, etc.

These people, and most in general, really freak when I tell them 3-6 million animals get PTS every year. I have read multiple sources saying that euth rates in LA county alone are about 300 a day. That is INSANE. They think its insane. I tell them exactly-neuter your **** dog so it can't have puppies if you are not going to manage it and keep it from having puppies! It needs to be a society thing, not a legal thing. It should be a big responsibility to own a dog, and a much bigger one to have one capable of reproducing.

I do not believe in mandatory s/n. But I really fing hate license fee differences. I live in N. Orange County, and the fee is 100 for entire and 24 for sterile. You have to license within 15 days of owning, with a 45 late fee! Ridiculous. I don't even know why I bothered licensing at all if I'm just going to be treated like a criminal for not wanting to pay 25 for a puppy license for under 4 mos...then 100 for less than a year, then 25/100 again for simple wanting to wait to spay....


----------



## vicky2200

I chose neither. I don't think all pet owners necessarily need to have their animals spayed and neutered in order to prevent unwanted litters. However, I do think that incompetent owners should have their animals spayed/neutered. I don't really think there needs to be a law for this. If there were more low cost options there would be many more animals spayed/neutered.


----------



## msvette2u

What I see is that people often refuse, free or not.
I offered to alter a woman's dog free - and she refused. Why? Because she's bred him to a number of other dogs and made babies, so she wants to keep doing so.
Those people will not get their dogs altered if you drove to their house, picked up the animal, did it free and brought it back.
This same dog kept getting picked up by AC because he was out looking for "it"!


----------



## selzer

I think that dogs coming out of a shelter should be spayed or neutered too. But, if you mandate it, than little shelters like ours, run totally by volunteers and with funding only through donations, they would likely have to euthanize dogs that could not be adopted soley because they could neither pay for the spay, or charge the prospective owners.

Some people will go to the shelter because they can get a $25 dog. there. Small dogs and puppies are $50 and up. If they started charging $150 and up to include the cost of a reduced-cost speuter, well, some of their customers will go to the newspaper and get a puppy with papers for $150 - $500. 

It is supply and demand. There is a certain amount people are willing to fork over for a dog from a pound, a certain that they are willing to give a rescue, if the dog is speutered, trained or tested or socialized, and fully vetted (clear of heartworm), there is an amount people are willing to pay the BYBs, and there is an amount they will pay the better breeders. As for the millers, it is funny because they are getting pretty much $50 a head for pups usually, but these dogs are being sold for well over a thousand at pet stores. Near Christmas, a blue GSD pup will go for $1800. After Christmas, after the pup is 12 weeks old, they will knock that down to $900 or even more. 

Most millers, if their pups do not get their price 50-100$ per, they will euthanize them. They really do not want to stock the local shelters with puppies. They want to make the money. So they have breeding pairs of many different brands of dogs, and they stock the stores. Only occasionally do they sell to the general public. They do not want the general public on their property. They do not want them to see rabbit hutches, or poopie runs. Sometimes they have a contract with places like petland to sell whole litters to them. 

I do not know how the millers are the cause. Sure, they are the big bulk of the litters being born. But, ok, sometimes shelters have six-eight week old puppies, sometimes people dump pregnant and lactating bitches with pups, but the vast majority of dogs in shelters are adults, or at least older puppies. 

The people that paid 1200 for a dog at the pet store are not going to drop it at the shelter immediately. They do not have breeder support, and they do not have a chance at returning it to the breeder. But simple human selfishness suggests they try to sell the dog to cut their losses on the dog. They find out their Continental Kennel Club papers are about worthless, and find out that they really can't sell the dog for much, and they may dump the dog. 

I almost think a bigger problem though are the one-litter-only breeders. The breeders that have a bitch and a dog and will breed them one time a year just for the puppies. They will keep one, and sell the others for a couple of hundred dollars each. With little or no initial investment, and as little into the dogs and pups as possible, just 5 puppies puts $1000 in their pocket. Well, heck lets do that again, and again, let's keep a female or a couple and again. At some point you can call them a miller, but usually they have just the one breed, and take pretty good care of the dogs. They are not trying to improve the breed, and they aren't too fussed about genetic problems, but their buyers are bargain hunters, and they aren't complaining much until something bad goes wrong.

Now, in sheer numbers, these people are probably contributing more than the millers. As an area may have hundreds of these breeders but maybe only 1 or 2 actual mills. And these people are selling their pups very cheap to people who are a lot more likely to shell out the money on impulse, and possibly give up the dog when the wind blows the other way. 

Mandatory spay/neuter and puppy mill legislation is not going to affect these people. Some will pay the extra to keep an intact dog/bitch, and will breed them more just to pay for it. Others will not bother to license them at all. 

I don't like the idea of puppy mills. I would wish that they would enforce cruelty and neglect laws, and that would shut down some mills. I think for the casual breeder, though I do not really see an answer. Educate buyers. So long as they are selling all their cheap puppies, they will continue to breed them.


----------



## Liesje

msvette2u said:


> What I see is that people often refuse, free or not.
> I offered to alter a woman's dog free - and she refused. Why? Because she's bred him to a number of other dogs and made babies, so she wants to keep doing so.
> Those people will not get their dogs altered if you drove to their house, picked up the animal, did it free and brought it back.


But it's a free country and she has that right whether we all like it or not.

Mandatory neuter....I'd flat out refuse and I've never bred an animal of any species accidental or otherwise.


----------



## msvette2u

I like the idea of it. It looks good on paper as they say.
But as others have said, in reality, only the law abiding citizens will comply, and they probably would have anyway.

I really do think we have to get to the root of the problem. Everyone wants to deny there is a problem or they aren't part of it, and maybe that's true for folks on this forum but it's not true of the general population. 
Run over to Craigslist if you don't believe me. And then after a while come back and tell me if you'd not like to mandatory s/n some of those folks!! Or their pets


----------



## Emoore

msvette2u said:


> If you could get vets on board!
> They seem to have a morbid fear of spaying and neutering themselves out of work!


Really? I've finally switched vets because my vet was downright nasty about the fact that Kopper was intact. More than once she referred to his testicles as tumors. I've talked to other people with similar experiences-- vets who are positively nasty about people NOT spaying/neutering.


----------



## selzer

I agree with you. They gave up on me, but it seems like they can't wait to get dogs under the knife.


----------



## msvette2u

Noooo I mean free s/n for the general population. 
They don't reduce their fees no matter what. Someone said "free s/n clinics", owners won't pay and vets won't donate their time, so where's that money coming from?

Oh, and our vet agreed 12-18mos. is fine for Ruger. So not all vets are like that


----------



## Emoore

msvette2u said:


> Noooo I mean free s/n for the general population.
> They don't reduce their fees no matter what. Someone said "free s/n clinics", owners won't pay and vets won't donate their time, so where's that money coming from?
> 
> Oh, and our vet agreed 12-18mos. is fine for Ruger. So not all vets are like that


Oh I see what you're saying. I agree with you there. Then again I don't work for free no matter what either, so I can't say much. 

I did find a vet who agrees with me waiting and doesn't refer to testicles as tumors.


----------



## selzer

Free? Why should the vets foot the bill for spay/neuter? Why should the government? I suppose you could make the lifetime-dog-license-fee incorporate the cost of an average spay/neuter for an adult dog of your breed. The vet takes your license number and is given the reasonable customary for the breed out of the dog/kennel fund. Dog licensing would have to be enforced though. While the government would not be forcing you to spay/neuter, they would not be requiring it by a certain age, you would have no financial reason not to spay/neuter. And the general public would not be footing the bill. I don't know that I like the solution, because I choose never to spay neuter. But if one of my dogs needed an emergency spay, it would be covered.


----------



## selzer

When we are discussing free spay/neuter, we must guard against laboring under the delusion that all oops litters are in fact accidents. If people want to have puppies, they will. And if they must have their dog spayed or neutered by a certain time frame, chances are they will ignore the law until they can squeeze that breeding in. I see that causing dogs to be bred accidentally on purpose younger and younger.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

I am for spaying/neutering but I don't think there needs to be a mandatory law. Laws that are already in place need to enforced. There are responsible people of intact and altered animals. There irresponsible owners of intact and altered pets. 

I have friends who fall under the irresponsible owners of intact animals category.


----------



## msvette2u

Oh someone mentioned free s/n clinics in poor neighborhoods.


----------



## Freestep

selzer said:


> Free? Why should the vets foot the bill for spay/neuter? Why should the government?


No, the vets should be paid. Many vets around here already take a hit by keeping the costs of s/n artificially low to encourage people to do it. However, I would bet that many vets who truly care about animals would be willing to donate one day a month to work at a free clinic. Ideally, it could be a place for new vets to hone their surgical skills under the eye of practiced vets. New vets make very little money as it is, 

In our area, we have low-cost clinics that are funded both by the city and by private donations. Having a government-run free clinic would probably end up saving taxpayers in the long run; for every dog that is spayed or neutered, that's one less (or several fewer) litters and dumped dogs that must be taken care of by the government-run shelter.


----------



## PaddyD

msvette2u said:


> Oh someone mentioned free s/n clinics in poor neighborhoods.


Of humans or pets?


----------



## selzer

Freestep said:


> No, the vets should be paid. Many vets around here already take a hit by keeping the costs of s/n artificially low to encourage people to do it. However, I would bet that many vets who truly care about animals would be willing to donate one day a month to work at a free clinic. Ideally, it could be a place for new vets to hone their surgical skills under the eye of practiced vets. New vets make very little money as it is,
> 
> In our area, we have low-cost clinics that are funded both by the city and by private donations. Having a government-run free clinic would probably end up saving taxpayers in the long run; for every dog that is spayed or neutered, that's one less (or several fewer) litters and dumped dogs that must be taken care of by the government-run shelter.


The government does not have to run shelters either. We do not have a government run shelter in our county. We have no money here. Non-dog owners should not have to pay for dog problems, either by funding spay/neuters or funding a shelter. They do not here. If the county dog warden -- funding by the dog/kennel fund, funded by the sale of dog licenses, needs to house a stray for a couple of days they put it in the privately owned and volunteer operated shelter and pay for a few days board out of the dog/kennel fund. 

Social programs drive taxes up, and driving taxes up causes people and businesses to locate elsewhere. The cost of speuter ought to be on the dog-owner.


----------



## Syaoransbear

Mandatory spay and neuter shouldn't exist until spaying and neutering is free, which will probably never happen.


----------



## Freestep

selzer said:


> Non-dog owners should not have to pay for dog problems


Ah, but they do. In areas where there are services, they are funded at least in part by taxpayers. Private donations and dog licensing also helps, so dog owners do pay more than non-dog owners.

Non-parents should not have to pay for schools. But we do. 

Non-criminals should not have to pay for jails. But we do.

Non-drivers should not have to pay for roads. But they do.

You see where I'm going with this... some like to crow that it's socialist to expect everyone to pay a small part of everything whether they use it or not. But it's the way our society works. We all pitch in what we can to make social programs work, even if we don't agree with them.

Personally, even if I didn't own pets, I'd be happy to have my tax dollars go toward animal shelters and free s/n programs. Controlling animals and curbing pet overpopulation is good for everyone. As a non-parent, I am happy to help fund schools and childrens' programs, because I believe education and proper child-rearing is very important. I'm not so big on bailing out the banks that screwed us over, but I'd prefer that over total economic collapse.

I still think free s/n programs will help. There's always those morons who want to line their pockets and figure breeding their dogs is a good way to do it--the only hope for those people is education and outreach, which I'd also heartily support.


----------



## msvette2u

Syaoransbear said:


> Mandatory spay and neuter shouldn't exist until spaying and neutering is free, which will probably never happen.


Or, how about a really novel idea? If you can't afford it, don't get a pet!


----------



## AlpineGSD

In Las Vegas, we DO have a mandatory spay/neuter law. Any cat or dog older than 4 months of age must be spayed or neutered. It doesn't change a thing, nobody listens. The shelters are flooded with dogs, mostly pitbulls and chihuahuas.

I got my GSD spayed at 6 months, because that is what my vet recommended. Even the vets say the law is wrong. Why should people follow it?

I do believe people should spay their pets, but it should not be mandatory.


----------



## chelle

Syaoransbear said:


> Mandatory spay and neuter shouldn't exist until spaying and neutering is free, which will probably never happen.


Couldn't disagree more. Why should it be free? 



selzer said:


> Non-dog owners should not have to pay for dog problems,


No, they shouldn't. Yet, I pay $35 per year for a dog license because my dog is intact vs the $15 I would pay if he were neutered. Not quite the same thing as I quoted you on above, but I am paying for ... I don't know ... the "potential" of what my dog _could_ do? (Sire a litter, and the product end up at the shelter?) This difference in fees is a sore point with me. 



msvette2u said:


> Or, how about a really novel idea? If you can't afford it, don't get a pet!


:thumbup: 

I'm not saying you have to have a million dollar trust fund to have an animal, but geesh, speutering/food/care/shots, etc and so on are only normal and expected expenses, and if you can't plan for that... The taxpayer shouldn't have to have that come from his taxes due to your lack of planning.


----------



## Syaoransbear

chelle said:


> Couldn't disagree more. Why should it be free?


Because if a law passes saying it's mandatory, then clearly dogs being intact is a problem that affects non-dog owners. I don't think they'd pass a mandatory spay and neutering law because it's sad to see dogs in shelters, but more likely because of the over-population of strays affecting the entire public.


----------



## chelle

Syaoransbear said:


> Because if a law passes saying it's mandatory, then clearly dogs being intact is a problem that affects non-dog owners. I don't think they'd pass a mandatory spay and neutering law because it's sad to see dogs in shelters, but more likely because of the over-population of strays affecting the entire public.


If such a law did pass, it *shouldn't* affect non-dog owners, IMHO. Sort of like how I pay taxes for schools, though I have no child attending school. It isn't fair and it shouldn't work that way, but since I own property, I can't "not" pay those taxes. They're built in. I also can't "decline" to pay the added fee for an intact animal and that's not fair either. Taxes aren't fair. 

In a perfect world, you would only pay school taxes if you had a child in school, and you'd only pay extra licensing fees if your intact animals produced offspring that then overburdened the system.


----------



## Emoore

Kind of an interesting corollary to this:

We're dissecting cats in my Anatomy and Physiology class. (This is a mandatory class to get into health care programs like nursing school, med school, pharmacy school, etc.) The cats are sourced from animal shelters. Of the 8 classroom cats, NONE are spayed/neutered. 6 of them are females and 5 of them are pregnant.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl

You don't fix a problem by masking the symptoms. The symptoms are homeless animals, indiscriminate breeding, aggression, etc. The problem is ignorance and laziness. That will be present whether or not something is banned. A good example would be gun laws. Lets say you ban guns, ok that's fine the law abiding citizens don't go buy guns. The criminals still have them. Same applies to pets. You make a mandatory span and neuter, fine the law abiding citizens spay and neuter, but those who want a quick buck (the people you don't want breeding anyway) will probably risk it. 

Beyond that I don't think it's the governments business to tell me what's best for my pet, my kids, my health, etc. The government has its place but it is not as large as people seem to want to make it.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

msvette2u said:


> Or, how about a really novel idea? If you can't afford it, don't get a pet!


You don't know how bad I want to say that to some people I know. They can't even afford the cheap rabies vaccine!!


----------



## msvette2u

Emoore said:


> Kind of an interesting corollary to this:
> 
> We're dissecting cats in my Anatomy and Physiology class. (This is a mandatory class to get into health care programs like nursing school, med school, pharmacy school, etc.) The cats are sourced from animal shelters. Of the 8 classroom cats, NONE are spayed/neutered. 6 of them are females and 5 of them are pregnant.


When we volunteered at the shelter, we saw more than one female cat with kitten teeth still, pregnant. 
:shudders:


----------



## jetscarbie

Some cities already require certain forms of mandatory s/n. Doesn't matter if you want it or not......the law is already spreading like wildfire.
Rhode Island for cats
LA
Dallas
State Legislative Resources - Issues

Lots of people didn't agree with mandatory car insurance. BUT it still passed. There are still people that drive around without it.

If it does become law everywhere, the s/n, there will be people that don't follow the law. Or there will be people that find the "loophole" around the law.

I'm just taking a guess here.....but I believe most people don't s/n b/c it's expensive. Not to long ago, there was a free s/n clinic uptown for the day. OMG, so many people showed up with their pets. I'm talking hundreds. The clinic was surprised. They were not expecting that many. They had to turn most away.

Personally, I think if they want to help the problem....maybe the gover. should offer some incentives to vet's to volunteer their time...maybe a day or two a year to perform discounted/free s/n clinics. Maybe have one day a year called "free pet s/n day" A day where all the vet's* that want to join* in...and vet techs, and vet hospital....open that day to perform discounted/free s/n surgeries.
I don't know. Just throwing out a suggestion.:laugh:


----------



## Emoore

I really like the idea of having a dog license that covers the cost of the spay/neuter and a microchip. It's up to the owner if they actually want to get these things, but I'm willing to bet that if you already paid for the procedure and were given a voucher for it, a lot of people would get it done just to "get their money's worth." If you don't want to SN you don't have to. The extra money could go to shelters or education or whatever. I wouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## GSDolch

On one hand, I have a knee jerk reaction of YES, then I have a knee jerk reaction of NO. Then I calm down and think that there has to be something in the middle. I am not sure what that is, I don't think making it mandatory is the answer, but I will say that more people IMO need to s/n their pets. Education is a big thing, and price.

A friend of ours, his parents took in a little mix female that was pregnant that had been hanging around their work. I mean she was ready to pop, she birthed 5 puppies about a week after they brought her home. She had their puppies and luckily found homes for them all. When they started calling around to get her spayed, 300 was the cheapest they could find. For some that may seem like nothing, for some its everything. Just because its everything doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the dog though, the alternative would have been her out on the streets, to get pregnant again next heat. Their son is disabled and lives with them. Gets disability so he qualifies for the low cost spay/neuter program and she got spayed for 40bucks. 

When I lived on St. Croix USVI, at one point..if you wanted a dog, you did not go to the one itty bitty animal shelter..you went to the dump. Yup, you could find boxes and boxes of puppies just dumped off at the dump. While I was there, they started a free spay/neuter program for the whole month of Feb. Their turn out was HUGE and they got alot of dogs done. They had hoped to do it the next Feb. and keep it going if they had the funds. The funds they got were from PeTA and HSUS granted, and I don't think I would really want them doing that state side, but with working with a place like the USVI or some such place, I could see them coming in.

Its not something that is going to be easy do, to find that happy middle that keeps responsible breeders/owners safe while weeding out the irresponsible breeders/owners.


----------



## Liesje

Personally I'd rather people just not have dogs if they are incapable of making an informed decision about spay/neuter or not able to pay for it if that's really what they want. I see owning pets as a privilege, not a right. I would never expect my vets to incur part of the cost of an elective surgery.


----------



## GSDolch

Who decides how much one can afford? IMO 300 dollars is crazy for a spay. But that is just me. Who makes up the amount someone has to have to have a dog? That would, IMO put MANY dogs into shelters. Imposing ones ideas on how much they think someone should have before they can have a dog is the same as imposing mandatory spay/neuter.

When Buddy broke his leg, I had NO money to spend on it. Thankfully though I was allowed to make payments I could afford so that he could get treated. My vet knows me and will work with me. Some will, some wont. If something happened that was life/death and I had to go to an emergency vet I probably couldn't pull it off if got up into the thousands.


----------



## Syaoransbear

Chrono's neuter cost somewhere between $500-$600 dollars. That would be a ginormous cost to have mandatory, and I don't really understand why it would be mandatory because we don't have a stray problem and our shelter is mostly empty.



GSDolch said:


> Who decides how much one can afford? IMO 300 dollars is crazy for a spay. But that is just me. Who makes up the amount someone has to have to have a dog? That would, IMO put MANY dogs into shelters.


That's another thing that would worry me. If spaying and neutering was made mandatory, all the people who couldn't afford to pay for it or pay for a ticket if they got caught would be dumping their dogs. Dumping a bunch of intact dogs seems like the opposite of what mandatory spaying and neutering would be trying to accomplish.


----------



## Liesje

I don't think anyone can and should decide. I think the biggest factor is locale. Spays aren't $300 around here but we also have a terrible economy, terrible housing market, and close to 15% unemployment in some areas. Cost of living is low and that includes vet care.

I'm not going to tell anyone they can't own a dog because they won't do this or that or can't pay for this or that. I don't care if people don't spay their dog even if they CAN afford it. It's their dog.


----------



## msvette2u

Emoore said:


> I really like the idea of having a dog license that covers the cost of the spay/neuter and a microchip. It's up to the owner if they actually want to get these things, but I'm willing to bet that if you already paid for the procedure and were given a voucher for it, a lot of people would get it done just to "get their money's worth." If you don't want to SN you don't have to. The extra money could go to shelters or education or whatever. I wouldn't have a problem with it.


I like this idea as well.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Just that he noticed on the major difference of how it is in Germany (mandatory speuter) vs here.


Ahem... going back to this quote.

I do not know how, or why Cesar Millan believes that Germany requires mandatory spaying or neutering of dogs (regardless of breed) because this is not, in fact, true. Germany has no such law. (Cesar claims he found out this was mandatory when he visited Germany but as there is no such law, he may either have been told so by someone at a shelter - which would require spay/neuter in their contract but not by law - or he is just saying this to tell people in the US that this is how things should be, figuring they wouldn't check further into it.)

As a matter of fact, opinions regarding spaying and neutering of dogs seem to be more relaxed - and certainly pushed less by the majority of veterinarians - in Germany than in the United States. The majority opinion in Germany seems to be that dogs should not be altered unless there is a valid, medical reason to do so. 

Some Germans even believe that altering an animal violates the German Tierschutzgesetz (animal protection law), which states that the complete or partial amputation of body parts is illegal - and which considers altering to be "amputation". There is an exception clause that states amputation to prevent uncontrolled breeding is allowed, however, a lot of German veterinarians argue that there is no such thing as "uncontrolled breeding" with dogs, as they are owned and have to be under their owner's control. (As opposed to, say, cats, who may be allowed to roam.)


----------



## JakodaCD OA

This is what I think

While I am not for early speutering, I think any dog or cat sold in a pet store/coming out of a shelter or rescue should be speutered before purchase/adoption. I think just that alone would cut down on some of the overpopulation.

While all my animals are speutered, I don't want the govt coming in and telling me I 'have" to, tho I guess it wouldn't matter cause I have no intention of having an intact animal

The AC/shelter here in town, has an adoption fee of 50$ , they then get a voucher to get that animal speutered for 'free' (if it hasn't been already) which I think is a good "thing"


----------



## chelle

AbbyK9 said:


> Ahem... going back to this quote.
> 
> I do not know how, or why Cesar Millan believes that Germany requires mandatory spaying or neutering of dogs (regardless of breed) because this is not, in fact, true. Germany has no such law. (Cesar claims he found out this was mandatory when he visited Germany but as there is no such law, he may either have been told so by someone at a shelter - which would require spay/neuter in their contract but not by law - or he is just saying this to tell people in the US that this is how things should be, figuring they wouldn't check further into it.)
> 
> As a matter of fact, opinions regarding spaying and neutering of dogs seem to be more relaxed - and certainly pushed less by the majority of veterinarians - in Germany than in the United States. The majority opinion in Germany seems to be that dogs should not be altered unless there is a valid, medical reason to do so.
> 
> Some Germans even believe that altering an animal violates the German Tierschutzgesetz (animal protection law), which states that the complete or partial amputation of body parts is illegal - and which considers altering to be "amputation". There is an exception clause that states amputation to prevent uncontrolled breeding is allowed, however, a lot of German veterinarians argue that there is no such thing as "uncontrolled breeding" with dogs, as they are owned and have to be under their owner's control. (As opposed to, say, cats, who may be allowed to roam.)


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

jetscarbie said:


> Some cities already require certain forms of mandatory s/n. Doesn't matter if you want it or not......the law is already spreading like wildfire.
> Rhode Island for cats
> LA
> Dallas
> State Legislative Resources - Issues
> 
> Lots of people didn't agree with mandatory car insurance. BUT it still passed. There are still people that drive around without it.
> 
> If it does become law everywhere, the s/n, there will be people that don't follow the law. Or there will be people that find the "loophole" around the law.
> 
> I'm just taking a guess here.....but I believe most people don't s/n b/c it's expensive. Not to long ago, there was a free s/n clinic uptown for the day. OMG, so many people showed up with their pets. I'm talking hundreds. The clinic was surprised. They were not expecting that many. They had to turn most away.
> 
> Personally, I think if they want to help the problem....maybe the gover. should offer some incentives to vet's to volunteer their time...maybe a day or two a year to perform discounted/free s/n clinics. Maybe have one day a year called "free pet s/n day" A day where all the vet's* that want to join* in...and vet techs, and vet hospital....open that day to perform discounted/free s/n surgeries.
> I don't know. Just throwing out a suggestion.:laugh:


I can somewhat vouche for LA as here in Lakewood is a part of the Los Angeles County. I am currently looking at their site and nowhere does it say that it is mandatory for someone to spay/neuter their pet. Also it only applies to pet owners not owners of dogs who compete in shows and sporting events, police dogs, and dog owned by professional breeders.

This must be the law for the actual city of LA, not the county of LA.


----------



## GSD2

I live in LA county, it's as close to mandatory as you can get. When I went to license my unspayed female the charge was $60 compared to around $20 for an altered pet. When I read the paperwork I was actually paying a 'fine' on a yearly basis, every time the license was due to be renewed. They also do have a mandatory spay/neuter for all pit bulls and rotts at the local AC in my town, I don't know how they enforce that, though.


----------



## Draugr

New Ordinance Introduction Page - Department of Animal Care & Control

Found this, seems it is for the whole county (although how well enforced, who knows).

Unless you're showing your dog or he/she is a police K9 dog, he/she isn't important enough to warrant an exemption.

This is probably the most disgusting, draconian example of MSN I've ever seen. All dogs _over four months_.

It's no surprise that it's increased euthanasia rates, decreased adherence to the licensing programs...basically all the same nasty baggage that MSN brings with it everywhere its poison touches.

If you get caught, and don't "correct" the "problem" within 30 days, you go to jail. Misdemeanor. Criminal record for trying to make an educated decision about what's best for your dog's health...remind me never to move to LA county. They have a link to the exemption form, it's pretty ridiculously restrictive.


----------



## mycobraracr

Draugr said:


> New Ordinance Introduction Page - Department of Animal Care & Control
> 
> Found this, seems it is for the whole county (although how well enforced, who knows).
> 
> Unless you're showing your dog or he/she is a police K9 dog, he/she isn't important enough to warrant an exemption.
> 
> This is probably the most disgusting, draconian example of MSN I've ever seen. All dogs _over four months_.
> 
> It's no surprise that it's increased euthanasia rates, decreased adherence to the licensing programs...basically all the same nasty baggage that MSN brings with it everywhere its poison touches.
> 
> If you get caught, and don't "correct" the "problem" within 30 days, you go to jail. Misdemeanor. Criminal record for trying to make an educated decision about what's best for your dog's health...remind me never to move to LA county. They have a link to the exemption form, it's pretty ridiculously restrictive.


This is interesting. I just registered my puppy today and they didn't say anything about this. Hmm.... I guess I will have to tittle her in something.


----------



## Draugr

mycobraracr said:


> This is interesting. I just registered my puppy today and they didn't say anything about this. Hmm.... I guess I will have to tittle her in something.


It could be something that is no longer enforced, maybe? I don't know.


----------



## Debbieg

In San Joaquin County CA, I pay 3 times as much each year for keeping Benny intact. (He had his retained testicle removed only. )

We have a mandatory spay/neuter for Pit Bulls and to comply with this we convinced our son to have his 5 year old pit and best friend neutered. He had already been fined and the dog would have been taken.

His dog died 5 days after surgery from hemophilia, even though we emptied our savings on transfusions.

This dog was not being bred, had never shown any aggression to anyone,

My son is still not over the loss

It makes me rethink being a law abiding citizen.

Irresponsible dog owners cause the government to micro manage and ruin things for the rest of us human and canine.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Blame the idiots who don't know how be responsible.


----------



## Emoore

Debbieg said:


> His dog died 5 days after surgery from hemophilia, even though we emptied our savings on transfusions.


Wish i could remember who it was the other day who was saying he didn't want to pay for pre-surgical bloodwork. I'd like to send him this. He said the bloodwork was just a way for the vets to charge more money. 

I'm so sorry about your son's dog.


----------



## Debbieg

Emoore said:


> Wish i could remember who it was the other day who was saying he didn't want to pay for pre-surgical bloodwork. I'd like to send him this. He said the bloodwork was just a way for the vets to charge more money.
> 
> I'm so sorry about your son's dog.


 It was not about the money.

The vet had not recommended any pre surgical bloodwork and I did not know enough at the time to ask for it. It was just "Sign this and pick him up at $4.00. The vet felt very bad. She told me later that in 20 years of practice she had never seen hemophilia or other clotting issues in a pit bull, but where as they are so common in dobies that she won't do surgery on one without the testing.

When I had Benny's retained testicle removed we had pre op testing done the week prior. It was only $60. 

Two days at the ER vet and blood transfusions cost a whole lot more. The emotional loss to my son will never be paid. We just learn from our mistakes and move on.

Do shelters or low cost speuter clinics do pre op testing?


----------



## Emoore

Debbieg said:


> It was not about the money.
> 
> The vet had not recommended any pre surgical bloodwork and I did not know enough at the time to ask for it. It was just "Sign this and pick him up at $4.00.


 I know, I didn't mean to imply that it was. I figured your son had probably gone to a place that didn't offer the bloodwork or simply didn't know about it. The person I was talking about was offered the blood work and was planning to turn it down because he thought it's just another way for vets to make $$$. 





Debbieg said:


> Do shelters or low cost speuter clinics do pre op testing?


 Some of the clinics I've been to offer it at extra cost. Some don't offer it at all. I've also pulled from some shelters that offered it for an extra fee. I imagine it's different for every location.


----------



## 2GSDmom

No one has the right to vandalize anyone else's property---that is the law---let alone mandate that someone do it to their own property! Mandatory S/N is unlawful and it should be abolished on those grounds alone.

As for whether it's a good idea---I think that's a self-evident "NO". Not only is it a BAD idea, it's a bad idea for multiple reasons, not the least, the health and well-being of the animal. As for deciding which animals are worthy to be breeding stock is not up to the law or any other to decide--only the owner of the animal can make that call (or nature). Biodiversity is not just a catch-phrase. It applies to dogs, too.

As for intact animals costing more to [email protected]%$^!!!---That's adding insult to injury. There is absolutely no justification for it. What--Intact dogs poop more? Really? Give me a break.

By the by---All mine are S/N. (But, the future ones...that is still TBD).


----------



## GSD2

Draugr said:


> New Ordinance Introduction Page - Department of Animal Care & Control
> 
> Found this, seems it is for the whole county (although how well enforced, who knows).
> If you get caught, and don't "correct" the "problem" within 30 days, you go to jail. Misdemeanor. Criminal record for trying to make an educated decision about what's best for your dog's health...remind me never to move to LA county. They have a link to the exemption form, it's pretty ridiculously restrictive.


In looking at the law they do have a list of which cities this law affects, lucky for me my town isn't effected by this law, although it is in effect for 'restricted breeds' pits and rotts I assume as I did find the law in my town for mandatory spay/neuter for those two breeds. Wow!! Looks like I came close to going to jail I think I'd have to move rather than let them spay my girl at 4 months old, crazy. I think it would be very hard to find a vet to write a medical exemption even to wait until the dog was 2 years old.


----------



## Thomas Roesen

Opinions vary, and are many on this matter it seems.

Check out the pros and cons of spaying and neutering in this short article:

Raising German Shepherds

I hope this simplifies the choice for you.

Best regards,
// Thomas


----------



## selzer

Thomas Roesen said:


> Opinions vary, and are many on this matter it seems.
> 
> Check out the pros and cons of spaying and neutering in this short article:
> 
> Raising German Shepherds
> 
> I hope this simplifies the choice for you.
> 
> Best regards,
> // Thomas



From that site, 
Pros and Cons of Spaying And Neutering
Feb 07, 2012
by Thomas Roesen
0 Comment

There are plus points and negative ones to the side of spaying and neutering and before you get your German Shepherd spayed or neutered, it would be wise to read what we have researched for you and then take a call for the same.
*Lets first talk about the benefits of spaying;*


Pregnancy risks are done away with when the dog is spayed
Spaying helps the dog remain calm and clean
Spaying also keeps the dog healthy and fit for all their lives
 *Now let us tell you about the negative aspects about spaying;*


When you spay the dog once and plan on having a litter later, it cannot be done since the process is irreversible.
Your German Shepherd can gain a lot of unhealthy weight, because it would eat a lot and not have enough to burn excess calories.
The German Shepherd turns out to be a lazy dog in the long run, and if you don’t want an inactive German Shepherd as a pet, spaying is not an option for you.
 *Having given you the positives and negatives about spaying, we would now like to speak to you about the pros and cons of neutering.*
*The positive aspects of neutering;*


No more risks for your German Shepherd to get pregnant
The German Shepherd would be a calm dog all his or her life
The German Shepherd would be a healthy dog for all its life
 *Negative aspects of neutering;*


Sterilization of the German Shepherd would mean no more litters from her anymore ever.
The German Shepherds appearance could change
Unwanted weight gain on the German Shepherd
The dog becomes uncannily quiet
 So folks, these are the pros and cons of spaying and neutering respectively. It would thus be wise for you to do more research on the two before you think of getting your German Shepherd undergoing through any of them.


******************************************************************************************


There is not a single point, positive or negative that I agree with, not even the first one, because there have been cases where the spay was done incompletely and all kinds of pregnancy complications happened. Except that once you spay your bitch you can no longer pro-create with her, and it is irreversible.



I particularly disagree with the idea that the dog will be healthy and fit for the rest of their lives. So what does that mean exactly? The dog will be at its ideal weight, perfectly muscular, and will be perfectly healthy for 12 to 14 years and then drop dead? Where do I stand in line? 



There are many dogs out there that are altered and not overweight. And the jury is out about health concerns pros and cons. 



I really thought this had to be typed out here for those who do not follow links.


----------



## Emoore

selzer said:


> I particularly disagree with the idea that the dog will be healthy and fit for the rest of their lives. So what does that mean exactly? The dog will be at its ideal weight, perfectly muscular, and will be perfectly healthy for 12 to 14 years and then drop dead? Where do I stand in line?


I can't decide which one is more hilarious: the idea that the dog will be healthy and fit for the rest of its life, or that neutering a dog will ensure that he is calm for the rest of his life. HA!


----------



## selzer

Yeah, perfectly healthy and calm for the rest of their lives. All you have to do is nick their nads. I wonder if it works on humans too.


----------



## OriginalWacky

Thomas Roesen said:


> Raising German Shepherds


That is such a poorly written article. I wonder if the writer is not an English speaker. Still, the lack of any evidence to back up the claims is enough to make me disregard it.


----------



## _Crystal_

_"Spaying also keeps the dog healthy and fit for all their lives."_

That... That's hilarious.

First example of "healthy their whole lives": My female, Crystal, is currently 2 years old and suffers from luxating patella. She is prone to early arthiritis. By early, she could get it in the next 2-4 years in her life. It's a pain in the butt, because she gets defensive if her knee is popped out of place, and, lets say, Nour tries to play with her. Obviously spaying didn't do anything.

Second example of "fit all their lives": My neighbor has a very energetic English Springer Spaniel. She's spayed... She's fat. Of course it probably isn't the spaying that caused it, but the owner's over feeding, but spaying does NOT guarantee a fit dog. It never will.


----------



## msvette2u

Well spaying can reduce or eliminate breast cancer and it eliminates the possibility of a pyo.
But the rest? Of course not. There's a lot more than simply spaying that goes into keeping a dog healthy.


----------



## SophieGSD

If the gov't makes it mandatory to spay/neuter our pets, can we make it mandatory for them to spay/neuter themselves? They seem to do nothing but breed more and more stupidity into the world, whereas our pets breed our happiness.

Just my two cents. C=


----------



## msvette2u

The government needs spayed/neutered...?


----------



## phgsd

I haven't read the whole thread - but just looked at the article. He says it's mandatory to spay/neuter in Germany. I lived in Germany for 5 years - most dogs were intact and dogs were only fixed for medical reasons. Has that changed??? It's been about 5 years since we were there...but I can't imagine it's changed so much in a short time.

I do not believe in mandatory spay/neuter - I believe it is healthier for dogs to at least reach adulthood before being fixed, if not longer. I have had intact dogs for years without issues. Sure if people are not responsible enough to keep dogs from running loose and breeding, they should spay/neuter their dogs. But it is not fair to punish those of us who can keep them responsibly.


----------



## Draugr

phgsd said:


> I haven't read the whole thread - but just looked at the article. He says it's mandatory to spay/neuter in Germany. I lived in Germany for 5 years - most dogs were intact and dogs were only fixed for medical reasons. Has that changed??? It's been about 5 years since we were there...but I can't imagine it's changed so much in a short time.
> 
> I do not believe in mandatory spay/neuter - I believe it is healthier for dogs to at least reach adulthood before being fixed, if not longer. I have had intact dogs for years without issues. Sure if people are not responsible enough to keep dogs from running loose and breeding, they should spay/neuter their dogs. But it is not fair to punish those of us who can keep them responsibly.


I think he was either grossly misinformed or is being deliberately misleading. Or maybe just flat-out lying to advance an agenda. Is there a law saying pets from shelters in Germany must be speutered? Because there, I can at least see that there's an honest mistake or just some clever wording to hide the full details. At any rate I don't believe him for a second.

~

On your other note - I just measured Samson at the shoulders today, after noticing he can peek up into the sink to see what I'm thawing for his dinner. He didn't used to be able to do this even 2-3 months ago. He's around 26 inches at the shoulder. Last I measured, which was...maybe, 20 months of age or so? He was around 24 inches. Granted my measurements are not exactly very accurate, so, perhaps one inch growth...but, his frame is still growing! He is 26 months old as of yesterday. Two might be the common age for larger dogs to finish growing physically...I don't know...but it at least isn't the case for mine. And mental maturation takes even longer - which I think is affected also by the presence/absence of hormones.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

....that or they should just shoot/kill strays on the spot, it's a lot less expensive. <object lesson

The problem is it costs money to run shelters and pay ACOs ..... so _local _communities are trying to find ways to control/contain something that is condsidered a public nusiance, safety and health issue in addition to an expense.

We can disagree on the methodology used but most of this wrt spay/neuter are decisions made at county/city levels and therefore by request of the majority of the citizens in those communities.

Again I am *NOT* saying here that mandatory S/N is the 'right' way to go but there is a legitimate driver behind some of these decisions. 




msvette2u said:


> The government needs spayed/neutered...?


----------



## RubyTuesday

> We can disagree on the methodology used but most of this wrt spay/neuter are decisions made at county/city levels and therefore by request of the majority of the citizens in those communities.


I certainly haven't seen anything like that where I live. Over & over disaffected citizens vote the buzzards out only to get more of the same.


----------



## Draugr

RubyTuesday said:


> I certainly haven't seen anything like that where I live. Over & over disaffected citizens vote the buzzards out only to get more of the same.


This. And just because the tyranny of the majority wants it - does not make it right (not that you were saying that, Gwenhwyfair).


----------



## Jeven's Tyde

I only made it to page 8.

I'm voting no. 

Maybe if S/N wasn't so expensive, it would be done voluntarily by people who just want family pets. How about a program that lets someone s/n their animal for free, or at a lower cost... and require vets to do the procedure, without more compensation.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

ehhhh I know that's sort of the accepted mantra but at a local level it really doesn't apply well at all IMO.

Most of the type of legislation being discussed in this thread is at city/county level.

Therefore if you want to affect change you need to be active in your local community, attend meetings and vote for people who represent what type of action you want to see taken in your community.

BTW- this is not directed at you personally. There is, however, a lot of complaining going on but people just don't seem to want to take the time or put the effort in to really get involved. Another problem is that these sort of questions simply do NOT arise in a vacuum. Some communities really do have problems with pet overpopulation. I know with feral cats one method has been to capture, vaccinate, sterilize and release....don't think that works for dogs but it's an example of people thinking outside of the box to find solutions.



RubyTuesday said:


> I certainly haven't seen anything like that where I live. Over & over disaffected citizens vote the buzzards out only to get more of the same.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

No of course I'm not saying that. However this is the process by which a representative form of democracy works. People can affect change. See my BTW comment above.




Draugr said:


> This. And just because the tyranny of the majority wants it - does not make it right (not that you were saying that, Gwenhwyfair).


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Actually there are a lot of low cost spay nueter programs.

In our state there are various independent groups which perform spay/neuters for around $50.00-$80.00

There are also vets who participate in Spay Georgia program. You request a certificate, bring the certificate into a participating vet and they perform the operation at a reduced cost.

You do bring up a very important point though, which is how do we incentivize people to either be more responsible with intact pets OR get them into those clinics to s/n?





Jeven's Tyde said:


> I only made it to page 8.
> 
> I'm voting no.
> 
> Maybe if S/N wasn't so expensive, it would be done voluntarily by people who just want family pets. How about a program that lets someone s/n their animal for free, or at a lower cost... and require vets to do the procedure, without more compensation.


----------



## Draugr

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You do bring up a very important point though, which is how do we incentivize people to either be more responsible with intact pets OR get them into those clinics to s/n?


This isn't relevant to Southern states, because from what I've heard from friends who live in those states, the culture is quite different - but at least in the Northeast - I know someone who works in rescue up that way, and she says most people, if given the opportunity, will S/N their pets. The problem is not just money, but transportation, and availability. If you hold your S/N clinic during day shift hours, how many people can actually get in? If they don't have reliable means of transportation, how will they get there and back? I mean, if it's close enough, and they own a cat or a very small dog, sure, they can probably walk, but most people probably aren't that motivated.

As far as incentives...well, I see two different options here, probably two that could be used together. I don't know how many people I've come across both on the internet, but mostly "in real life" - who think S/N is some kind of civic duty and not doing so makes you worse than a pedophile. Or at least, that's how it seems, from their reaction. If we can brainwash people to such a ridiculous extreme with S/N propaganda - I'm sure we can do the same with responsible ownership (which is not an equivalent term to "spay/neuter" despite public perception).

I'm not sure how easy that is to do, though - given that "responsible ownership" has a lot more to do with your actual behavior, and just thinking "S/N and I'm responsible," is a thought pattern.

But I think there can be some reasonable changes in that direction to change public thought, and combine that with enforcing laws _already on the books_ to penalize pet owners who DO allow their pets to roam/indiscriminately breed, etc, could help.

I'm not sure how feasible this would be to implement - and I really don't know what the impact would be on legitimate breeders, so please excuse me, those of you who are dog breeders on this site, because I'm completely speaking from inexperience, here - it's just an idea. But, I'd support some sort of per-litter registration fee with the county - something small, around $75-$100, perhaps.

No, that won't stop all of it. Probably even a big chunk of "irresponsible breeding" would continue. But you would be surprised the psychological effect attaching "monetary permission" to an act has, on curbing said act. Even when that act (breeding your dogs) can recuperate those costs and more. And then, actually enforce a per-puppy fine if the dogs were bred without a "litter permit."

Enforcement is a big issue and I definitely understand cash-strapped AC departments being unable to do that. But, those fines would bring income, too...would it be enough to fund the extra enforcement effort? I mean, you don't have to go out hunting, but if it were discovered by happenstance...I don't know. Just something to consider, I guess.

I'm not a huge fan of penalty-based systems to get people to "behave." But I really have absolutely no ideas on how to use the carrot in this instance, rather than the stick.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> I know with feral cats one method has been to capture, vaccinate, sterilize and release....don't think that works for dogs but it's an example of people thinking outside of the box to find solutions.


TNR actually works really well with feral cats but with dogs (as you said), there's really not a large enough stray dog population in most areas of the US for that to have a major impact on shelter intake rates (most of which are owned pets). Cats are small enough and need less resources to survive, and are more independent creatures overall, so they can really become a big problem quickly.

As far as dogs, sterilizing any that leave their doors (assuming they are not owned pets captured by AC, in most places there are no stipulations there since the shelter does not "own" the animal) appears to have worked well. I mean, 30 years ago, instead of 3-4 million cats/dogs euthanized a year, we were euthanizing 25 million cats and dogs a year with, IIRC, around a third the number of owned cats/dogs that are in the US today. So, yes, there's a problem - but at the same time it's important to remember how much progress has been made. And it's a lot.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Me, in blue. 



Draugr said:


> This isn't relevant to Southern states, because from what I've heard from friends who live in those states, the culture is quite different - but at least in the Northeast - I know someone who works in rescue up that way, and she says most people, if given the opportunity, will S/N their pets.
> 
> The local rescues here often send dogs to the North/Northeast. Last time I helped out with one the folks who actually travelled up with the dogs reported people were literally camping out overnight to be first in line to adopt. You simply don't see that here in the south (I'm not from 'round here originally btw  )
> 
> Culture...you know IMHO it boils down to stubborness. Some folks just don't like bein' told what they oughter do by gubbmint, even it it's their own local officials they voted for and see at the coffee shop.
> 
> Even if it makes sense.....
> 
> The problem is not just money, but transportation, and availability. If you hold your S/N clinic during day shift hours, how many people can actually get in? If they don't have reliable means of transportation, how will they get there and back? I mean, if it's close enough, and they own a cat or a very small dog, sure, they can probably walk, but most people probably aren't that motivated.
> 
> We actually have (and I heard of them in other states/cities) mobile spay/neuter clinics. Big greyhound type buses with surgical suites in them.
> 
> 
> As far as incentives...well, I see two different options here, probably two that could be used together. I don't know how many people I've come across both on the internet, but mostly "in real life" - who think S/N is some kind of civic duty and not doing so makes you worse than a pedophile. Or at least, that's how it seems, from their reaction. If we can brainwash people to such a ridiculous extreme with S/N propaganda - I'm sure we can do the same with responsible ownership (which is not an equivalent term to "spay/neuter" despite public perception).
> 
> Well I don't get too much push back from people I know about not having spayed Ilda (yet). In MRL it's mostly been the rescue folks who push it pretty hard. I think they mean well (most of them) but get trapped in imputing the worst onto pet owners in general because of the bad situations they have witnessed.
> 
> IMO BIG picture puppy mills and irresponsible back yard breeders (who aren't about to s/n no matter what) are more of a problem then the occasional 'oops' litters from people who just didn't know better.
> 
> I'm not sure how easy that is to do, though - given that "responsible ownership" has a lot more to do with your actual behavior, and just thinking "S/N and I'm responsible," is a thought pattern.
> 
> But I think there can be some reasonable changes in that direction to change public thought, and combine that with enforcing laws _already on the books_ to penalize pet owners who DO allow their pets to roam/indiscriminately breed, etc, could help.
> 
> I'm not sure how feasible this would be to implement - and I really don't know what the impact would be on legitimate breeders, so please excuse me, those of you who are dog breeders on this site, because I'm completely speaking from inexperience, here - it's just an idea. But, I'd support some sort of per-litter registration fee with the county - something small, around $75-$100, perhaps.
> 
> No, that won't stop all of it. Probably even a big chunk of "irresponsible breeding" would continue. But you would be surprised the psychological effect attaching "monetary permission" to an act has, on curbing said act. Even when that act (breeding your dogs) can recuperate those costs and more. And then, actually enforce a per-puppy fine if the dogs were bred without a "litter permit."
> 
> Enforcement is a big issue and I definitely understand cash-strapped AC departments being unable to do that. But, those fines would bring income, too...would it be enough to fund the extra enforcement effort? I mean, you don't have to go out hunting, but if it were discovered by happenstance...I don't know. Just something to consider, I guess.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of penalty-based systems to get people to "behave." But I really have absolutely no ideas on how to use the carrot in this instance, rather than the stick.
> 
> I'm not a fan either, hence my using the word 'incentivize'.
> 
> 
> 
> TNR actually works really well with feral cats but with dogs (as you said), there's really not a large enough stray dog population in most areas of the US for that to have a major impact on shelter intake rates (most of which are owned pets). Cats are small enough and need less resources to survive, and are more independent creatures overall, so they can really become a big problem quickly.
> 
> As far as dogs, sterilizing any that leave their doors (assuming they are not owned pets captured by AC, in most places there are no stipulations there since the shelter does not "own" the animal) appears to have worked well. I mean, 30 years ago, instead of 3-4 million cats/dogs euthanized a year, we were euthanizing 25 million cats and dogs a year with, IIRC, around a third the number of owned cats/dogs that are in the US today. So, yes, there's a problem - but at the same time it's important to remember how much progress has been made. And it's a lot.


In red above, I wasn't aware of that! Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## mjbgsd

I'm very against this. 
I would like to keep my dogs intact because I want too. I'll never breed but I see no reason why I can't leave a dog intact, I believe they're healthier whole.


----------



## cuhomie

I dont think people should be forced to spay/neuter based on other peoples irresponsibility. I am able to keep my dogs in check and if i wish to stop my male from breeding to my female there is diapers and sheaths that go around the males body and keep his penis against his body. It all comes down to being a responsible dog owner.


----------



## Draugr

cuhomie said:


> I dont think people should be forced to spay/neuter based on other peoples irresponsibility. I am able to keep my dogs in check and if i wish to stop my male from breeding to my female there is diapers and sheaths that go around the males body and keep his penis against his body. It all comes down to being a responsible dog owner.


Please don't assume a diaper will keep your dogs from breeding. Diapers are not chastity belts, they just keep your home clean during a dog's heat. They are not a substitute for hyper-vigilism. A diaper might buy you a few seconds, but that's it - determined dogs will just rip them off and breed anyway. I have not heard of the thing for males you are describing but I suspect the same thing applies.

~

I've been re-evaluating where I stand on this whole issue these past few weeks, and I'm thinking I'd probably support some limited, behavior-based form of MSN - i.e., your dog is found roaming a certain number of times, you're required to get him/her neutered as a condition of further ownership of that dog.

I'm not comfortable with the current form of "neuter any aggressive dog" found in some MSN/BSL, because aggression can have nothing and everything and anything in between to do with the presence of testosterone, and there is some (weak) evidence to suggest that neutering a fear-aggressive dog is at least correlated with further aggression. I would want to see that, especially, before we jump on that bandwagon. With females there's especially a more established correlative link between spaying and aggression. It's rare, but you don't want to impose that on a dog if it will make the problem worse.

I agree that problem people/animals need to have some form of penalty imposed upon them...problem is I can think of few situations in which that would not backfire. The roaming, at least, is a very definable behavior/offense that can be counted. I definitely don't think that any animal picked up by AC ought to be spayed/neutered on first offense before releasing back to AC, but if it keeps happening, keeps happening, keeps happening...this person shouldn't even own a dog in the first place, but, at the very least, we could minimize further risk to the stressed shelter system.


----------

