Poll: Spay/Neutring

 I am against juvenile spaying and neutering,as in getting them done before the dog has fully matured,eg younger than 18mths-2 years,and older for some Giant breeds.

I dont think i could support a mandatory spaying/neutering Law,as the people who this law should apply to would no doubt ignore it anyway!

If it were possible to achive, yes, I would be in favor of mandatory spay/neuter. Why? Because there is a pet overpopulation crisis, many pets never find a permanant home and end up in shelters/pounds and eventually euthanized.

I'm for them but honestly, I think the money, time and effort is better spent on education and on low-cost or free clinics.  I could foresee a situation where a locality passes the legislation, then let say for instance, only chooses to enforce it by going after people who might post for sale ads in the papers or on Craig's list and enforces that they either spay/neuter the pups/kitties or pay the higher fees and that they pay the fees for the brood bitch that may be on site.  The time that would take and the money it would cost would probably spay/neuter far more animals than it would prevent.  I hope that makes sense, it's late. 

Administratively, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare and I think it would be better to provide incentives for doing the spay/neuter if alliances can be built with organizations working to reduce the homeless pet population.  Like pet store gift cards, reduced vet fees for 1 year, free pet food, something like that.  Catch more flies with honey, you know?

in principle (assuming that working animals would also be exempted, sensible time limits applied, etc.) i think its a good idea.

in practice it is highly unlikely to work, because anyone who really wants to will get around it (there's always loopholes)/
 

Just like I said on the other board, I don't think it's much of a poll if you're going to exclude a huge segment of dog owners. 

I'm totally against it. Once you start getting the government involved it becomes nothing but a mess and the ones who will really pay the price for it will be the good, respectable breeders. Puppy mills will still exist, BYB will continue to breed. The rest of us will pay the price for this kind of legislation, financially and in every other way.

Yes, I hate the overpopulation of animals. It's horrible. Not only dogs and cats, but other animals as well, such as horses.  Seems like everyone who has a mare thinks they have to breed her too.  It makes me sick.

I think there were some good suggestions mentioned.  Give people some incentive to spay and neuter - for one thing, lower the price.  For crying out loud, it's almost $200 to spay a medium sized female dog.  And then the pain meds are extra.  You mean to tell me that you can cut open a dog, do major surgery, and pain meds are OPTIONAL???  That's responsible vetting??  And of course, you have to pay up front.  I'm sorry, I mean no offense and I love my vet, but that is just crazy.  My daughter and son in law bought a very nice female pup.  They take wonderful care of her, she eats a high quality food, she is vaccinated on time and wormed, etc. And she is not spayed.  They just don't have that much extra cash laying around.  One vet tech said that if they can't afford responsible care (spaying), they shouldn't have the dog.  I counter that with if the vets/humane associations are truly that concerned with overpopulation, then lower the prices and help people out. 

Another thought - I know that Humane Associations have a lot of costs to cover.  I have a niece who has worked at a pound for many years.  The pound charges a lot for a mixed breed dog around here. Why would I, if I were looking for a dog and didn't have a lot of money, that much money for a 'mutt' when I can open the paper and find a BYB (or puppy mill) who is selling one for less? I'm just an average person wanting a dog for my family.  I have no clue what a BYB or puppy mill even is.  (I am just repeating something that was said to me, by the way.  I am not saying I agree with this.)

 I don't know.  It's a huge issue.  But as a person who is considering possibly breeding my dogs, I feel that mandatory spaying/neutering is wrong.  Who gets to decide what animals get spayed/neutered?  Who decides what a 'good breeder' is?  Scary.

I think it's a good idea, in theory, but it wont work. I work in a shelter, and it's awful to see all these animals changing hands. I could never imagin giving up my pets for any reason, at any time. They come first, I made a commitment to them, and I have every intention to honor that.

I think the better alternative is to open more spay/neuter clinics, and public education. A stricter crack down on BYBs, and stronger licensing for "professional" breeders. I think anyone that breeds dogs needs to first walk through a shelters kennels, and think long and hard about their decision. (I'm not saying all breeders are bad, many do breed to better their breed, but there are way too many who do not.)

Some incentives to spay/neuter? A better animal. Fewer temperment problems, fewer health problems. Neutering a dog eliminates the risk for testicular cancer in males. And if you think spaying is more painful for a female than having a litter (or 6) - I suggest you talk to any woman who has given birth to a kid. Dogs bounce right back up the NIGHT after.

Actually, that comment about eliminating the risk of prostate cancer is incorrect.  Neutering may reduce the incidence of other prostate problems, such as BPH, but may increase the risk of prostate cancer. 

http://www.pawsperouspets.com/tips/spayneuter.shtml

Eliminates testicular tumors and reduces prostate gland problems.

http://www.ask-the-vet.com/dogs/19/Health-benefits-of-neutering-dogs.html

The main benefits of neutering in male dogs :
1. Eliminates prostate problems - the prostate gland enlarges as a dog ages when it's under the influence of testosterone. This can result in constipation and makes it very uncomfortable for the dog. The prostate gland can also get infected which would inevitably mean the  dog has to be neutered anyway to treat it

I agree with everything you're saying about the cost of S/N.  I love my personal vet, I really do.  But when it came time to neuter my shelter kitty Milo, they wanted something like $90 in addition to the discount coupon I got from the shelter.  A nearby vet only charged me $40, so I took him there and donated the other $50.  I agree, if they care and want to be part of the solution, they should participate in the discounts.  I also like that the shelter where I volunteer won't adopt out until altered.  There are groups around here that offer reduced and sometimes free altering, base it on income, etc.  

 The only thing I think might be helpful if there were mandatory SN laws is in the following situations:

1) A locality knows of a puppy mill but can't do much about it because USDA regulations are lax and sporadically enforced.  Cutting into a millers profits with litter fees and citations might help shut them down or get them to reduce the number of litters they produce because the fees cut into their bottom line.

2) A local BYB that the authorities knows about because they routinely dump their leftovers at the shelter when they reach about 12-20 weeks and haven't sold.  Authorities know more about who is operating in their area than I previously realized.  The problem is they often lack the legal authority to do anything about it, a SN ordinance could give them that.

You cant legislate behavior... Mandatory spay neuter laws will just drive folks underground if they are not law abiding and out of the area if they are.

I would support aggressive enforcement of licensing and leash laws... I would also support higher fees for licensing if the additional money funded spaying and neutering of shelter dogs and low cost clinics.

Mandatory alteration of dogs would significanlly impact my primary leisure time activities and essentially one of the primary things that give joy to my life.  I dont trust the exemption "garbage" currently being placed in legislation to shut people up... It all expires.... I believe (and I am not usually a conspiracy nut) that the whole aim behind mandatory altering is to further the animal rights agenda of no animal husbandry of any type.

The thing is, spaying before the 1st heat DOES lower the risk of mammary cancers. But it INCREASES the risk of spay incontinence, and the risk of ovarian/uterine cancers goes down no matter WHEN she's spayed.

 Secondly, there's dogs BEYOND show dogs that should be bred. Dogs that actually WORK- I'm thinking working cattle dogs, but police dogs, heck, even performance/sport should count equal with showing, the breeding stock for service dog programs like CCI and GDA.

 
We need to fix the people end o this problem- the ones that think pets are disposable. Then we need to ix the strays and ferals. THEN let's see how many we actually have in shelters.