# Why Mandatory Spay/Neuter does NOT work!



## Candacee1224 (May 11, 2008)

Los Angeles Animal Shelter Becomes
Slaughterhouse After Spay/Neuter Law

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org
[email protected] net

LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles animal shelter system has become a 
slaughterhouse for dogs and cats less than six months after City 
Council passed an ordinance mandating pet sterilization, an analysis 
of official city statistics shows:

Euthanasia rates for dogs and cats have increased by 28-
percent, compared to the same period a year before the ordinance was 
enacted.
There was a 20-percent increase in impoundments for dogs, 
and a 21-percent increase for cats, compared to the same period a 
year ago.
Those numbers came from the official shelter statistics compiled by 
the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services. We encourage our 
readers to verify the accuracy of this report for themselves. Here 
is a link to the actual city data: 
http://www.laanimal services. com/PDF/reports/ CatNDogIntakeNOu 
tcomes.pd

In only six months, Los Angeles has mirrored the same brutal results 
that have been proven in every other community in America that has 
enacted mandates to spay and neuter pets. All of these ordinances 
have failed, and dogs and cats have paid the price in blood.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance attempted to warn Los Angeles 
City Council members of what would happen before they passed the 
ordinance, but the truth was drummed out by the shrill voices of 
animal rights groups that knowingly and deliberately misled Los 
Angeles officials into believing that the ordinance would save 
animals' lives.

The animal rights agenda is the elimination of animal ownership in 
America, but these plans are concealed from elected officials and 
people who love animals. The leaders of these groups know full-well 
that spay and neuter mandates will result in the abandonment of 
thousands of pets, and an increase in shelter killings as a result. 
They know it, and these brutal deaths are a major part of the animal 
rights game plan.

Now the truth has come home to roost in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles ordinance became law in early February 2008, 
following several months of intense media coverage and a coordinated 
disinformation campaign by animal rights groups.

City Councilman Richard Alarcon called it a "humane" ordinance that 
was needed to save the lives of cats and dogs.

Since then, this "humane" ordinance has taken the lives of 1,667 
more dogs and cats than were killed during the same period a year 
before, the data shows.

The first six months of 2008 represent the first increase in Los 
Angeles shelter admission and euthanasia rates in more than 15 
years, official data shows. These rates had dropped steadily over 
that period.

In a single sweep of the pen, the ordinance has destroyed more than 
15 years of hard work and dedication by many people who had 
succeeded in moving Los Angeles much closer toward "no-kill" status.

In just six months, the Los Angeles shelter admission and euthanasia 
rates have soared back to levels that have not been seen since 2002, 
the data shows. 

City Council's vote turned back the clock six full years, and at its 
current rate Los Angeles will likely descend once again into the 
Dark Ages of animal shelters of the early 1990's.

Euthanasia Rates

The impact of the ordinance on euthanasia rates can be seen clearly 
in a month-by-month analysis of the shelter data, beginning with 
December 2007, two months before the ordinance was passed. Here is 
the month-by-month body count:

In December of 2005, 1,011 dogs and cats were killed. This 
dropped to 827 in December of 2006, and again to 769 in December of 
2007. This month represents a fair baseline of the situation before 
the ordinance became well known. It is typical of every other month 
during the three previous years, and shows the great success that 
had been achieved in Los Angeles before the ordinance was passed.

In January 2006, 768 dogs and cats were killed. The January 
death count fell to 739 in 2007, but rose to 820 this year. This 
increase was 11.6-percent. During January of 2008, the pending 
ordinance received much press coverage.

In February of 2006, 569 cats and dogs were killed. This 
rose inexplicably to 644 in February of 2007 but soared by 17.5–
percent to 749 this past February. This was the month the ordinance 
was passed

In March 2006, 763 cats and dogs were killed. This fell to 
547 in March of 2007. But it rose by a frightening 50–percent to 824 
this past March. This was the first month following passage of the 
ordinance.

In April 2006, 1,100 dogs and cats were killed. This fell 
sharply to 856 in April of 2007, but rose to 1,257 in April of this 
year, two months after the ordinance was passed. This is a 47-
percent increase.

In May 2006, 2043 dogs and cats were killed. This fell to 
1,339 in May of 2007, but rose by a heart-stopping 68–percent to 
1,762 in May of 2008.

In June 2006, 2,636 dogs and cats were killed. This fell 
sharply to 1,849 in June of 2007, but climbed back to 2,229 this 
past June. This represents a 21-percent increase.

The picture painted by this data is clear. After a 15-year decline 
in euthanasia numbers, they increased somewhat in January of this 
year, when the ordinance was being publicized. The increase was 
steeper the month that the vote was taken, and then went through the 
roof over the next four months as the news of City Council's action 
began to sink in.

If the experiences of other cities holds true, it will take at least 
five years for euthanasia numbers to get back down to 2007 rates.

Shelter Admissions

While shelter admission rates increased by 20-percent over the most 
recent six-month period, as compared to the same six months the year 
before, the increase has been much steeper in the months following 
passage of the ordinance. We will focus on the last four months of 
data beginning with the month after the ordinance was passed, 
although readers can verify the trend over previous months 
themselves by following the above link to the documents.

In March of 2007, 3,067 dogs and cats were impounded. This 
rose to 3,491 in March 2008, the first month following passage of 
the ordinance. That is a 13.7-percent increase.

In April 2007, 3,462 cats and dogs were impounded. This rose 
by 24–percent to 4,315 in April 2008.

In May 2007, 4,299 dogs and cats were impounded. This rose 
to 5,507 in May 2008. That is a 28-percent increase.

In June 2007, 4,601 dogs and cats were impounded. This rose 
to 5,371 in June 2008, for a 17–percent increase.

The pattern of escalating shelter admissions in the wake of the 
ordinance is very clear from this data.

What Will Happen Now

Based on both the actual trends shown in the Los Angeles data and 
the experiences of other cities and counties, there is little room 
for doubt that shelter admissions and euthanasia rates will continue 
a steep rise for the next several years.

We expect the rates of increase shown in the past six months to 
continue to grow, as soon as the City of Los Angeles begins to 
enforce the ordinance. The above data represents people who 
abandoned their pets because they were frightened of the ordinance, 
but there has been no actual enforcement to date.

When enforcement begins and many people begin to pay large fines and 
see animal control officers at their doorsteps, we expect these 
abandonment rates to soar. Other people simply will surrender their 
pets or allow them to be confiscated.

The noose already has begun to tighten.

Los Angeles Animal Services already has informed rescue groups and 
pet stores that they will have to turn in the names of everyone who 
adopts or buys a pet.

This has caused much dissention among rescue organizations, 
including New Hope Partners, the city's main rescue program, and 
threatens to disrupt or destroy the fine work that has been done 
over many years to find new homes for abandoned cats and dogs.

Pet stores also have received official notice that they must turn in 
the names of everyone who buys a pet. The notice says that all pet 
stores must:
"Submit to LA Animal Services a monthly report to include the names, 
addresses, and telephone numbers, of persons purchasing pets, to 
include the date the animal was purchased by each person."
From this notice, it would appear that pet stores also have to turn 
in the names of everyone who buys a pet fish, turtle, bird or 
gerbil. It does not specify only kittens and puppies.

All city veterinarians also have been notified that they must turn 
in the names and addresses of everyone who gets a rabies vaccination 
for a pet.

Recent minutes from a meeting of the Animal Services Board say 
that "…we are notifying all veterinarians in the City that they are 
required to send rabies certificates, with owner name and address, 
to the Department."

In other cities, this requirement has caused many people to refuse 
to take their pets to a veterinarian to get a rabies vaccination. 
This creates a public health hazard that is a direct result of 
spay/neuter mandates.

What You Can Do

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all dog and cat owners 
from Los Angeles to write to their City Council representatives and 
ask them to quickly repeal the mandatory pet sterilization 
ordinance, before more harm is done to animals. Please let them know 
the information contained in this report reflects their own internal 
reports, which conclusively show the high price that is being paid 
by dogs and cats in the wake of the ordinance.

We strongly suspect that Animal Services is trying to hide this 
carnage from City Council.

Here is a link to contact information for Los Angeles City Council 
members: http://www.lacity. org/council. htm.

Attending City Council meetings and speaking during public comment 
periods also would be very important. Ask Council to repeal the 
ordinance, and tell them what has happened at the shelter.

Chicago City Council is expected to vote on a similar ordinance in 
September. The Chicago ordinance will be modeled on Los Angeles.

Please let the Chicago aldermen know about the terrible tragedy that 
is unfolding now in Los Angeles, and ask them to completely reject a 
similar ordinance. Their contact information is available at: 
http://www.chicityc lerk.com/ citycouncil/ alderman/ find.html.

Also, Dallas City Council passed a very similar ordinance in July 
that goes into effect in October.

For Dallas residents, it is important to let City Council know 
quickly about the inhumane carnage at the Los Angeles shelter and 
the destruction of the shelter and rescues system there. Please ask 
City Council to repeal this ordinance before it's too late for dogs 
and cats in Dallas.

Here is how to reach them: 
http://dallascityha ll.com/governmen t/government. html. 

(Special note: We are deeply indebted to California Pomeranian 
fancier and activist Geneva Coats, who discovered the shelter 
statistics and made them available to us. Every dog and cat owner in 
Los Angeles thanks you, Geneva.)

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and 
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for 
hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as 
legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement 
working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the 
traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its 
rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we 
can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your 
membership, participation and support are truly essential to the 
success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our 
members, and maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at 
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org. Our email is 
[email protected] net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are 
found at the bottom left of each page.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Very sad, but these results should have been completely obvious. The people to whom this bill is directed to will NOT have their pets s/n, they'd just dump them. Besides, 6 months also happens to be the age where puppy cuteness turns into adolescent nightmare so this bill is even greater incentive to dump. I feel for the pets in the area and for everyone who fought against the bill who now have to deal with the aftermath.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think this is the exact article that has already been posted. As on that thread, I want to say up front that I'm not convinced mandatory S/N is the way to go either however, I don't see that this post actually provides compelling evidence that it doesn't work. Think about it - if all the people who weren't willing/able to S/N their animals dumped them at the shelter, then those animals may get put down. Yes, very sad. But do you really think that if those people were so irresponsible as to dump their pets at the shelter they were likely to be responsible about keeping their pet from reproducing? So, that's a lot of reproductive animals that just got removed from the population. At what cost to the individual? Good question. Is it worth it? Also a good question. But is it evidence that these programs don't work? No. 

Also - and Diana I know I remember you having a great and very insightful take on the misuse of stats - we need to be wary of the stats presented here. His numbers are far from scientific. Are the counties comparable? Is he comparing comparable figures? 

The whole thing is just an opinion piece and the use of a dateline to make it look like a news article is just silly.


----------



## Dano (Sep 20, 2004)

The whole point is to stop irresponsible breeding of pets. There is bound to be a number of animals that will be put to sleep before the spay/neuter law will make a difference. How can anyone argue against spaying or neutering of pets? 

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is working to protect the rights of dog owners? What about protecting the dogs? Who gives a (*&^$! about the owners?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I would have to see stats from other shelters not enacting such laws and their recent rates, and look at how they determined causation, but I have an alternate hypothesis, which includes, in the words of a ragin' Cajun, Jim Carvelle: "It's the economy, stupid."

Not saying I am FOR mandatory speuter, but saying that there may be other factors in play. I understand that there is an increase in numbers, but were people, as an example, surveyed to determine why the animal was turned in and was it because of that law?


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Look at the source you're posting from! Of course that will be their conclusion! 

Here is the link to the statistics: http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats_dept.htm

Unless I'm reading them wrong, the numbers are statistically insignificant between 07-08 and 06-07 and far less euthanizations than years previous to 2006. Adoptions are also up. Owner reclaims are about the same or a little better this year than previously. 

Euthanization
(includes 
unweaned) 
2007-2008 807 678 563 488 455 554 486 450 504 519 601 864 6,969 
2006-2007 878 679 532 452 475 486 379 269 346 431 525 623 6,075 
2005-2006 932 828 632 644 526 494 327 407 513 576 751 865 7,495 
2004-2005 1,123 862 896 765 620 719 547 666 607 588 696 741 8,830 
2003-2004 1,250 1,081 989 959 873 819 586 770 733 666 987 1,158 10,871


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Ah yes, what was it.... 87% of stats are made up? Or was it 63%?







I didn't know the article was already posted. Numbers or not, I can totally see the end result happening. 



> Quote:But do you really think that if those people were so irresponsible as to dump their pets at the shelter they were likely to be responsible about keeping their pet from reproducing?


Absolutely not, but that's the point. Rather than being responsible, they'll take the easy way out and dump rather than the rest of us who DO follow the laws and would s/n. It punishes the rest of us. I still say that education is the only way to solve problems like these. In fact, I think education would solve just about any problem, except for maybe funding and resources of said education.







But when one fully understands something, one can care, and one can act appropriately and also educate others.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Yes! I think those were the stats.









Seriously though, I can see the end result happening too but that's the part that I don't actually think is a compelling case for why he says it "doesn't work." 



> Quote: Rather than being responsible, they'll take the easy way out and dump rather than the rest of us who DO follow the laws and would s/n. It punishes the rest of us.


Well, actually I'd argue it punishes the dogs that belong to the irresponsible owners. But again, isn't what you're saying an argument that it DOES work? Like you say, the responsible owners S/N their pets and the animals that wouldn't have been altered get dumped at the shelter where they reproduce no more. 

Again, NOT arguing that this is right for the animals or right to force the law abiding owners into, but from a population standpoint, if what he's saying happened really happened, that's actually a success not a failure of the program.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

pupresq said:


> Think about it - if all the people who weren't willing/able to S/N their animals dumped them at the shelter, then those animals may get put down. Yes, very sad. But do you really think that if those people were so irresponsible as to dump their pets at the shelter they were likely to be responsible about keeping their pet from reproducing? So, that's a lot of reproductive animals that just got removed from the population. .
> 
> I agree.
> 
> This was my thought exactly. Cruel, but it brings out the bad owners that are dumping and backyard breeding and the accdential litters.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

I suppose that is true, if they dump the pets before breeding age then yes, they have their goal, but then a bunch more are dying and the rest of us who CAN control intact animals get screwed.  I wonder also if the demand for pups will go up too- will the dumpers just keep getting new puppies every 6 months? I sure hope not.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Quote:In other cities, this requirement has caused many people to refuse to take their pets to a veterinarian to get a rabies vaccination. This creates a public health hazard that is a direct result of spay/neuter mandates.


I confess if I was in that case, I would not go to a vet unless it is an emergency and I would skip the rabbies vaccine and would put the other shots myself. But I'm NOT spaying before maturity, period.


----------



## Timber1 (May 19, 2007)

Your comment follows. "How can anyone argue against spaying or neutering of pets?"

I do rescue and am also involved with highly competitive dogs. My rescue dogs have to be spayed and neutered. There are so many dogs needing homes and I clearly understand the reasons.

However, the competitive dogs, literally without exception have not be spayed or neutered. Futhermore, if you have read any of the recent medical studies on spaying/neutering, the likelihood of health problems increases, especially with males.

Nonetheless, I believe most dogs should be spayed/neutered our I would not be part of a rescue group that requires it.

However, there are exceptions, and no American should be told how to decide on this issue by any government, state or national.


----------



## LadyHawk (Jan 19, 2005)

After I hurt my back , they replaced me with someone of - well - let's just say He's not the brightest bulb in the christmas decoration box. He was a worker in the highway department. He replaced windows , made repairs on town buildings and filled pot holes. Ogh Yeah- He's afraid of dogs too. ehem.

Anyway, the budget was small, I'll admit. But you work with what you've got and beg for the rest. People tend to be responsive when you ask for it.

He imposed a "cost per drop-off .....per animal" 
People stooped to the level of THROWING animals over the seven foot fence to get rid of them.They figured ....well, at least I got them to the shelter. (Yeah with a broken leg) newborn Kittens, grown dogs you name it....

There are always those mentalities that will make your head almost shake off........... I 'm not paying to drop off a lkitter of kittens..they're not mine- 

The aim is altruistic.......But the reality is something much much different. 
Too bad......... there are so many wonderful animals that will meet that fate.
And too, there are many considerate and respected breeders whom are impacted. Should they all go out and get breeders licences????


I always say I'll take the company of my animals over many people....there's a good reason for it.

It's never been said more accurately:
People "need to take responsibility to what they've tamed"
"You ....need to be responsible for your rose"
E. St. Exupery
The little prince.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Has anyone taken into consideration that with the economy tanking and with forclosures on the rise this year, that may have been the cause of the jump in surrender and euth rates? Maybe the rates quoted have nothing to do with mandatory S/N. 

John Yates and his sporting dog alliance puts a real good spin on the numbers.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

I also think its amusing that of candyE's 4 posts, 2 of them are spouting John Yates' drivel.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: ninharHas anyone taken into consideration that with the economy tanking and with forclosures on the rise this year, that may have been the cause of the jump in surrender and euth rates? Maybe the rates quoted have nothing to do with mandatory S/N.


that is a very good point. It would be nice to know what is happening in states with no spay/neuter regulations.

This subject interests me because just like legislator are copying failed BSL laws of other countries, soon they will start with this too.


----------



## Dano (Sep 20, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Timber1Your comment follows. "How can anyone argue against spaying or neutering of pets?"
> 
> I do rescue and am also involved with highly competitive dogs. My rescue dogs have to be spayed and neutered. There are so many dogs needing homes and I clearly understand the reasons.
> 
> ...



If you compare so called, health problems in spayed or neutered dogs with the problem of euthanizing unwanted and abused dogs because of not spaying or neutering, the health problems are overshadowed. 

You say "most dogs should be spayed and neutered". Which ones? All but competitive dogs, show dogs, which dogs should be spared the horrors and terrible health problems of spaying and neutering?

Call me crazy but I firmly believe that breeding any dog whatsoever, should be an expensive and nearly unobtainable thing. I would make it very difficult to legally breed any dog and leave it only to professionals that have their ducks in a row.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

> Quote:Call me crazy but I firmly believe that breeding any dog whatsoever, should be an expensive and nearly unobtainable thing. I would make it very difficult to legally breed any dog and leave it only to professionals that have their ducks in a row.


Then where will you get your next dog? From "professional" breeders who can afford to breed because they have lots of puppies all of the time and not enough time to spend socializing them? "Professional" breeders whose breeding stock lives in pens 24/7 so there is no way to get to know their individual strenghts and weaknesses? Sounds like a puppy mill to me.

What will happen to MY breeding program -- 3 generations of champions that are OFA certified and performance titled. Dogs from my breedings have been donated to police departments, SAR, and service dog trainers -- how can I afford to continue to do that? Most of us don't make any money on the dogs as it is now -- good dog food, vet care, training, titling, showing, etc. are all expensive to do right. Stud fees and travel expenses on top of that. If you add high breeding licenses and fees I "might" be able to afford to continue breeding -- but who could afford one of my puppies??? High prices will push more people toward the less thoughtfully bred but also less expensive "professional breeder" puppies.


----------



## Dano (Sep 20, 2004)

You sound like you are a professional breeder. Nothing should change for you. You sound like you are on a roll and a good example of someone that has a breeding program and is not just buying two dogs and trying to make a couple of bucks in their back yard or has tons of dogs that end up in pet shops. Sounds like you may even know where your dogs are going before they are born. What I suggest would make your dogs available only to serious dog lovers that understand the huge investment they are about to dive into. 

I certainly would not classify puppy mills as "pro breeders". They are the ones that should be affected by any law making it "more difficult" to breed dogs. I've had this argument here many times and for some reason, the professional, good breeders are the ones that don't agree with me although they are the ones that stand to benefit the most. Maybe I don't get it since I am not a breeder.
I think there should be something, laws, rules, whatever you want to call it, that insures that knowledge and a breeding program is required to breed any dog. Not just enough money to bang out pups as if they were lifeless dolls. It would eliminate the people with the "shepherdoodles are a real breed" thought patterns and such.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

What about if someone wants to become a breeder? Just starting to develop his or hers breeding program so has nothing to prove his 'pro' status? Responsible breeders are going out of business, pass away, move. Will it even be possible for someone new to enter the field, or we are doomed to only import good dogs and puppies in the nearest future?


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Dano
> which dogs should be spared the horrors and terrible health problems of spaying and neutering?


My dogs, Dano. I brought them into my home and I am responsible for them, including spareing them the health problems from early spay and neutering. They cannot defend themselves but I can. If I need to move because I will be forced so I will since there is no fun to live in a police state anyway.

I don't even have to chose, my dogs will come before any dog in a shelter, sorry. Will you deny your kid a meal because you need to send one to a kid in Africa? 

Mandatory s/n basically turns everybody into an irresponsible dog owner because we put the interests of our dogs on the second place after avoiding fines.


----------



## Dano (Sep 20, 2004)

Not doomed to only export good dogs at all. If you develop a breeding program with the supervision and sanction of breeders with a standard and a proven professional breeding program, you too can become one of the chosen few. There could be a way to develop a program for those with the knowledge and understanding of breeding dogs to pass on the right to be called a professional breeder. 
The whole point would be to pass down the professional standard and knowledge that is out there without all of the random breeding that is now happening which only weakens the breeds and develops 'self professed' professionals. Right now, anyone with a few bucks and some free time can breed whatever they want and sell to whomever has another few bucks, with little regard towards the breeds, their standards or their development. Thats when you start seeing the "rare" harlequin GSD puppies or "150 lb. sire and dam" pups for sale and things of that nature. It's just too easy to breed, sell and buy dogs.


----------



## Timber1 (May 19, 2007)

Ok, I will call you crazy as you suggested. 

As I clearly said I do rescue and they require the dogs be spayed/neutered. I also mentioned my family has competitive dogs and regrets having them neutered. The answer why us simple. The high energy ones are not neutered.

As for show dogs, especially German Shepherds, I could care less.

Finally, of course the health problems I mentioned are overshadowed. But you miseed the message, as I said my rescues are all neutered/spayed. 

The competitive guys, no way.


----------



## Dano (Sep 20, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Timber1Ok, I will call you crazy as you suggested.
> Finally, of course the health problems I mentioned are overshadowed. But you miseed the message, as I said my rescues are all neutered/spayed.
> 
> The competitive guys, no way.


I guess I did miss a message. I don't understand why your competitive dog would be "no way" and show dogs, you could care less. 
What do reproductive organs bring to competition? What kind of competition are your dogs into? Competitive breeding?
Is it because you want to breed them? I don't want to get into the "look at this link" to prove one way or the other but I can't really swallow that you, as a dog person, would be gullible enough to believe any internet study that a spayed/neutered dog will suffer more health problems than an intact one. It's almost (not quite, but almost) like arguing whether people are more healthy with the ability to reproduce or without.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Dano, for schutzhund, which can be very competitive, dogs need to develop full maturity, physically, emotionally, mentally. Same with police/military work. For this they do need to be intact at least through adulthood. Also, since good dogs for police and military are not a dime a dozen, if you want more good dogs hunting down bad guys, you need to get them the old fashioned way.







For agility, the dogs will benefit from a physically mature skeletal system so again it is beneficial for the dogs to be intact through maturity so they can have full use of the hormones. It is cold hard fact that those boy and girl hormones do a whole heck of a lot more for the mind and body than just "find mate, breed, have offspring." 

The sex hormones are crucial for many more things than a lot of people realize. For this, I will always hold off sterilization until maturity or simply vasectomy/ligate a dog and perform the full surgery later on if a health problem dictates.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Dano
> It's almost (not quite, but almost) like arguing whether people are more healthy with the ability to reproduce or without.


 Do you truly believe that a woman after hysterectomy is as healthy as one without that surgery with intact reproductive organs? 

I don't need any internet studies to prove the harm of early s/n. I have my own experience seeing unaltered dogs when I lived in a different country. GSDs that saw a vet one time in their lives only as they were pups and lived healthy with pearl white teeth until age of 15 - 16 years old. 2 of those dogs were our family dogs, 5 others belonged to our extended family. What can you say about lives of 7 altered GSDs you know?


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Well said, Diane. The thing is that for some people being a plant in the house is the main virtue of a dog so they don't really care if that dog is mentally, physically and emotionally mature. Also normally fanatics don't have lots of knowledge on the subject of their own religion. (This is not directed personally to anybody on this board).


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote: Do you truly believe that a woman after hysterectomy is as healthy as one without that surgery with intact reproductive organs?


As a woman who has had one, I will say absolutely yes. Unless you have had your reproductive organs removed you don't have a clue that it makes no difference in a woman's health. So that kills that theory.


----------



## lars0997 (Oct 9, 2004)

Depending on the reason for the hysterectomy, some woman keep their ovaries to keep their main hormone production. A traditional spay/neuter removes ovaries/testicles.

I imagine what a 5 yr old boy would end up developing into without hormones or hormone replacement therapy. Mother nature gave hormones for a reason other than sexual reproduction for animals as well as humans. Keep you laws off my dogs and let me decide what is best for my animals.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: ninhar
> 
> 
> > Quote: Do you truly believe that a woman after hysterectomy is as healthy as one without that surgery with intact reproductive organs?
> ...


I am very happy for you, ninhar, and I hope you will enjoy a healthy happy life. It wasn't the case with my mom who keeps aging 5 years in one year after the surgery. Also, would you perform this on a 15 years old girl without any medical reasons, just to make sure she is not getting pregnant? Honestly? 

I wasn't correct naming hysterectomy because spaying is actually ovariohysterectomy.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

I'm sorry for your mother's issues, but you cannot say as a generalization that women who have a hysterectomy and oophorectomy will not be as healthy as women who haven't. In that same light, you cannot say that all female dogs who are spayed with have medical issues. This is not a one size fits all issue.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: WetroskyDepending on the reason for the hysterectomy, some woman keep their ovaries to keep their main hormone production. A traditional spay/neuter removes ovaries/testicles.
> 
> I imagine what a 5 yr old boy would end up developing into without hormones or hormone replacement therapy. Mother nature gave hormones for a reason other than sexual reproduction for animals as well as humans. Keep you laws off my dogs and let me decide what is best for my animals.


The boy would be like this
http://www.peabodyopera.org/essays/handel05/castratocaricature360.jpg


----------



## Dano (Sep 20, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: DianaMDano, for schutzhund, which can be very competitive, dogs need to develop full maturity, physically, emotionally, mentally. Same with police/military work. For this they do need to be intact at least through adulthood. Also, since good dogs for police and military are not a dime a dozen, if you want more good dogs hunting down bad guys, you need to get them the old fashioned way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for your concise and to the point response. I do have a "pet mentality" and appreciate responses that actually make sense and make me say "I stand corrected".


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Happy to help.







Of course if I have any doubt in my mind of someone's abilities in keeping their pet from reproducing, I say SNIP IT! When in doubt, I think it's better to speuter. But for someone up for the challenge, from what I gather it is better to keep them intact until a health problem crops up to make them do otherwise. Also, there is a correlation between a spay prior to maturity and incontinence issues. One member here I remember had that problem with her bitch. 

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
Have you seen that one?

I still believe that anything going into a shelter/rescue must come out of the shelter/rescue missing a few less body parts appropriate to the gender. Mine was a rescue so we had him neutered per agreement. The lady who adopted him to us knew my stance on neuter/spay which is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it, except if it's a rescue," so it works. I would have preferred keeping him intact longer to see if he could get a wee bit more mentally mature but it is what it is. I think we got him around 6-12 months, probably right after teething was completed, but who knows.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If you look at a shelter as a death sentence for a dog/puppy. And someone offers a Get out of Jail Free card to a dog/pup on the basis that it be speutered before it go to its new home. I believe that a dog that is better off speutered (at any age) then euthanized in a shelter. So I am all for speuter of a dog before adopting them out from a shelter. 

If a dog is picked up and delivered to a shelter by AC or by any citizen, and the dog has identification, the owner should be allowed to retrieve their dog un-mutilated paying any appropriate fine. 

Though it is more paperwork, but with computers why should it be a big deal? But if there is a repeat offender, that dog should be required to be speutered before returning to its owner. The owner should be liable for the cost of the speuter and any applicable fines. Notice should be given to the owner prior to the speuter so that they can argue their case before a judge if necessary if they want to keep their animal intact. I suppose there may be one case in 50,000 where an owner's dog did land in a shelter more than once through no fault of the owner. In this case the owner should be able to fight this. 

All people should be considered "responsible" until they are proven "irresponsible."

Responsible people should not be forced to peform a surgery to alter their dog in any way. 

Any breeder who drops a litter off at a shelter should be branded "irresponsible" and waive their right to own an intact animal when they turn in their litter. They should have a period of sixty days to have all of their animals in compliance. It should be a legally binding document tied to dog-licensing, violations penalized by the court system by fines and imprisonment. 

There will be people who will euth a litter themselves rather than accept that, but there will always be people who skirt the law whatever method they choose. 

My country makes it a point that we are innocent until proven guilty. We should not be penalized until we merit it. 

Unfortunately, recent public opinion is that people are generally irresponsible and all should be led, required, forced to do things to prevent something that their being irresponsible MAY cause. 

What is really bad is when a person who is irresponsible to make themselves feel better, claims everyone is irresponsible just like themselves, and therefore, should be forced to protect themselves and others from their irresponsibility. 

So I do not have any problem with dogs being adopted out speutered as the alternative is euthanasia, and they will live longer and healthier speutered than if they are gassed. 

There is always a possiblity that a dog, through no fault of the owner lands in a shelter -- like if the owner is seriously injured in a car crash on the way home from training class and the dog in the crate in the back of the car is delivered to the shelter to be cared for until someone comes and claims him for the incapacitated owner. This dog should not be altered just because it spent the night in a shelter. 

People who habitually leave their animal get loose and picked up by AC need to have the animal fixed. 

Anyone who dumps a litter is a scumball and needs to have some type of constraint put on him so that he lawfully never repeats this.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

> Quote:If a dog is picked up and delivered to a shelter by AC or by any citizen, and the dog has identification, the owner should be allowed to retrieve their dog un-mutilated paying any appropriate fine.


I thought that was a given. I wasn't talking about owner reclamations, just dogs that were surrendered or found and have passed the reclamation period. As for owner "oopsies," first offense, I think the dog should be returned as-is with fine. Second offense, I'm inclined to say "pound sand" but would probably just stick with the 3rd strike and you're out rule, so the third time for sure, here's your neutered dog back.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have heard of places that will not let ANY dog back out before it is neutered.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Be that as it may, all the more reason to be extra careful, and if a mistake happens, it wasn't anyone's fault but the owner's, one way or another. Sucks, but I understand their position. They can't vet the world so they figure if it happened once, it's very likely to happen again. I don't agree with it, but I understand it and won't argue with that choice.


----------



## lars0997 (Oct 9, 2004)

It's not always your fault that your dog ends up in the control of AC. Think about what happens to your dog when you have a car accident (maybe you are just driving through) that renders you unable to care for your animals in the immediate aftermath. These types of situations are what make me nervous - especially in some of the ordinance crazy towns.


----------



## scannergirl (Feb 17, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: WetroskyIt's not always your fault that your dog ends up in the control of AC. Think about what happens to your dog when you have a car accident (maybe you are just driving through) that renders you unable to care for your animals in the immediate aftermath. These types of situations are what make me nervous - especially in some of the ordinance crazy towns.


If my dog was in a crate, properly identified in the above situation and was spayed without my consent I'd have a holy fit. There would be no evidence of irresponsibility to justify it. Not to say it could not happen, but I would be mighty angry


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

This is very true, which is why I say three strikes, you're out. You've got two freebies to use up. I don't agree with insta-speuter. 



> Quote:If my dog was in a crate, properly identified in the above situation and was spayed without my consent I'd have a holy fit.


Me too. But what if you used up your "freebies" and now they cannot ID you or the dog? Do they go ahead and let it go or do they figure it's like tons of other people who are just letting their dogs loose and speuter it? Like I said, I don't agree with it, but I understand why they do it. The bad apples ruin it for the rest of us.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I figure one freebie is all you deserve. The odds that someone have their dog land in a shelter twice with no fault of their own, is so slim that I would be willing to risk it. 

However, that would not include a situation where animal control came to your home and relieved you of your dogs. 

I know that we do not believe that would ever happen to us. We take good care of our animals and stay within all of the laws. But get one crazy AR/PETA type at your shelter, and you never really know what they MIGHT do. 

The guy that had taken a couple of his dogs to a show and AR used a battering ram to take down his door because counting a litter of puppies he was over their limit of dogs. He had to go to court to fight for his dogs back. If they took it upon themselves to alter his dogs -- no way, somebody would be getting sued and big time.


----------

