Poll: Spay/Neutring

Cocker Mom

I don't however; agree with not altering pets because 'they can't afford it.'  It is an expensive procedure...it's also major surgery.  I always wonder what the same pet owner would say if their pet required a trip to an emergency animal hospital.

 It is also an elective surgery. Just because someone feels they can not afford an expensive elective surgery, doesn't mean they wouldn't come up with money in an emergency. If someone gets a Dobe puppy and can't afford to have it's ears cropped, does that mean they won't come up with money if there was an emergency?

 Many people do have a limit as to what they can spend on medical care for their pets and simply can't come up with X sum of money to treat an emergency or unexpected illness. That is a personal thing though and I don't think one should be judged for it. If they should be, what is the minimum one should be willing to spend on medical procedures to be considered a good owner?

erica1989

ok - so offer spay/neuter clinics at low cost. We have 3 in my immediate area. There's a website spotusa.org that offers low cost spay/neuter coupons. The SPCA offers free spay/neuter for pit bulls, Animal Services offers low cost vet care for people on government programs, there's another clinic the next county over, our shelter offers $35 dollar neuters twice a year. I think we are trying pretty hard to control our fair share of the pet population, but, in reality, is it doing any good? NO, obviously not.

I'm not saying a spay/neuter law would work by any means. Nor would laws put in place to stop irresponsible owners from having oops litters.

You say spay/neuter clinics are the only option. I don't think they are. We have them, and still are getting animals left and right.

I don't think you're replying to me exactly.

I don't think spay/neuter is the answer.  I think responsibility is the answer. 

Xerxes

I don't think you're replying to me exactly.

I don't think spay/neuter is the answer.  I think responsibility is the answer. 

well actually we are talking about mandatory spay neuter obviously because most people are not responsible 

yep - and you can't legislate responsibility. If you could - a lot of things would be different.

I am not opposed to spay and nueter requirements for dogs that are pets providing the owners have some ability to decide when the best time is to have this done.

For instance Hektor is my 14 month old Dogo Argentino. I intend to nueter him since he is not breeding material and he has faults according to the standard, but did not want to do this while he is growing and maturing. Dogo's are a large mastiff breed and I believe it is bad for their growth to nueter them while they are puppies.

 If the law would make allowances for things such as this then I would not oppose it.

 I also think that allowances should be made for purebreds of good pedegree where the owner would like to retain the option of showing the dog. When you buy a puppy you do not always know at that point what you may want to do with that puppy as it grows and matures. You may have no interest in showing in the begining and then find yourself wanting to try it, what a shame if you have fixed your dog and are now inelegible for competing in the ring.

 I would also like to see the kennel clubs have classes for nuetered/spayed dogs. They should be a seperate class from the breed ones but this would enable average people to get a taste of competition without them having to keep their dogs entire.

 I would like to add that this is a responsibiltiy problem. I have owned a male Vizsla who is still entire for 6 years. He has never once roamed free, he has never bred, and there have been no issues with his being intact. The problem is owners that allow their dogs to roam. Fix that and there would be no need to nueter

I am dead-set against any kind of mandatory spay/neuter laws.  The OP mentioned that it could exclude breeders and show dogs...still, I say no. 

For starters, it doesn't work.  It's completely unenforceable.  And there are emerging studies showing a higher incidence of some pretty nasty health problems (increased chance of osteosarcoma, increased chance of metabolic problems) all of which completely suck for the dog and are expensive for the owner in addition to being distressing.  While I understand completely that there is an overpopulation problem, I don't want to be forced to open my dogs up to these diseases.  There are other answers.

 I have 4 intact males, an intact female, and a spayed female.  The intact female will be spayed when her breeding career is over at age 7.  In weighing the risks, I would most rather avoid pyo and most of those other health issues are most likely to occur in dogs who are spayed young, not older.  Mammary tumors?  Sure, there's a higher chance of those keeping them intact but those can be removed.  Osteosarc is a death sentence. 

My foundation girl is not an AKC champion.  But I'm almost 100% certain she has more AMCA working titles than any other female malamute alive today, and possibly more than any malamute alive period.  I think she ties for the most ever.  She hates to show.  She has produced 7 good working dogs out of 8 puppies--the one has never been tried.  Under most of these laws, she would be spayed.  I find that incredibly wrong.  Sleddog people run with what amount to pound puppies....they breed their best dogs to get more sleddogs.  I would hate to see them unable to continue because of some stupid misdirected law. 

The puppy mill people have more money then god.  While I would love to see better inspections and whatnot directed at them and only at them, it's never going to happen.  Those mandatory spay/neuter laws?  They do not apply to the large commercial breeders.  Instead they seek to shut down people like me.  I do my research, I am careful about my homes, I do more health clearances than are probably necessary, I take back my dogs when it doesn't work out.  Sorry, no, I think mandatory spay/neuter is wrong.  I would much rather see low-cost spay/neuter programs available.  I belive California just passed a bill that would allow for a checkbox on their tax form to have a couple bucks donated to low-cost spay/neuter.  I would love to see other states follow suit.  I'd kick in $10-20, if a lot of people did that, think of how much could be done! 

Edie

as the people who this law should apply to would no doubt ignore it anyway!

That however being true, I would support it and verbaly enforce it! i think it would be great!

 Against,Against, Against. As a responsible pet owner it is your responsibility to ensure you pet is well cared for and protected. I had my Golden fixed due to a genetic disorder. I so wanted to breed him but in all fairness wouldn't dream of it now. I hope I have interpreted your question correctly and apologize if I went off on a tangent...Cheers

Jr. Dog Expert

Would you be against or for mandatory spay/neutring?

Very much against!!  Why?  Let me count the reasons:

1. The laws are unenforceable.  It would require a massive amount of manpower and funds. 
2. Confiscated/relinquished dogs would wind up in the shelters when people can't afford a s/n.
3. Many localities don't even have the bureaucracy to handle things like breeders' permits.
4. Most places have trouble just getting people to register their dogs.  Do we really want to discourage vaccinations because people are afraid that vets will turn them in?
5. Many of the pups now brought to shelters would likely wind up drowned instead of "not born".  Would this really be an improvement?
6. There are lots of surgical issues and hormone issues to be considered in a s/n.  Vets have trouble keeping up with all of it.  How are we going to write a stagnate law that encompasses all the issues?
7. Most of the hobby breeders that work to improve breeds and keep them healthy make little, if any, money.  More fees and restrictions would put many out of business.
8. Working dogs, service dogs, new breeds, and breeds not recognized by the AKC have just as much right to exist as established AKC purebreds.
9. We have way too many genetic problems to start severely decreasing the canine gene pools.
10. Pups coming from commercial kennels, unregulated areas of the U.S. (It is called free commerce), and Mexico will supply all the pups that people want.  However, the health status of these pups would be questionable.
11. Untrained, poorly socialized dogs won't decrease because there will still be plenty of pups for irresponsible as well as responsible owners.

What will work?  A combination of:

1. inexpensive, and convenient s/n
2. clean, attractive, and convenient adoption centers
3. a program for the transfer of dogs to areas where they are in short supply
4. the training of unruly dogs
5. the acceptance that some dogs will be unadoptable due to issues like being ill, being feral, or just being vicious.

AGAINST! 

The animal to human birth ratio is 7 animals to every 1 human! This means that every person would have to own 7 animals to eliminate the homeless animal problem. Even if this were possible, each of those animals would have to be spayed or neutered, or their offspring would soon be homeless. Spaying and neutering is the only way to help cut down on the numbers.

In just 6 generations one male and one female dog, which can reproduce two times a year, can be responsible for the birth of 67,000 puppies. One male and one female cat, which can reproduce three times a year, can be responsible for the birth of 420,000 kittens. Look at the number of animals that would not have been born if just 4 animals had been spayed or neutered!

My hope is that eventually we will eliminate the daily euthanasia of homeless animals. Requiring all adopted dogs and cats, including puppies and kittens, are spayed or neutered prior to going to their new home is the only way to guarantee those animals will not be contributing to the problem of pet overpopulation. The cycle of homelessness will end one animal at a time and I hope we do all we can to ensure that happens.

In recent years, more veterinarians have embraced the concept of early spay and neuter of kittens and puppies, 6 to 7 weeks of age. This has considerably furthered the goal of eliminating the pet overpopulation problem. Some veterinarians still cling to the old school belief that owners should wait until the animal is 6 to 7 months. This is unfortunate, since
studies suggest otherwise. Many litters of kittens and puppies are surrendered to the shelter each year because the owner "was waiting until the animal was 6 or 7 months." Mandatory, and early, spay/neuter is part of the solution of pet over population.

For IT !!!  With a specific breed related clause for each breed, maybe the puppy police could convers with breeders and learn "something"

I would want any dog Not being shown (sorry I know that upsets a lot of folks) , and not being tested for basic Chic +/or other breed specific issues to have until the age of 18 months to be altered.

In RRs you will have a chance for your pup to pyhsically fillout and look like the dog your heart was set on. If you are showing then continue to wait until 2 years.. if you have significant points, then the wait period extends.  If you have like 2 points and have been showing then maybe they could give you an extension.. to allow you a chance to find th eright shows, afford the travel and entries etc... By 2 years chances are good any and every hormonal issue has been addressed the you are getting somewhere!!!!!!!