Poll: Spay/Neutring

I would be for it. Mandatory after the first season for a female and at 18 months for a male. This allows them to fully develop from the hormones etc.  A Girl needs the first season to mature as far as her "female parts" go , you avoid leaking when you delay till that first season is over. And a male will not fully devepo without testosterone, the head will not broaden, the chest will never fully drop or widen. If you have a breed that you enjoy the adult look of altering a puppy will likely prevent you from obtaining the finished look.

As far as why mandatory, people get lazy or stupid then you have an unplanned litter.  Breeding is a science and and art form.  If you do not put in the time studying and the money testing you have no right to breed.

Bonita of Bwana

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.

 That is a very good point.

 We have a lot of cur, feist, and Plott breeders here in the Southeast. They are picked for breeding on temperament, achievement and hunting ability, not conformation, coat pattern, etc. Nobody cares if the dog's ears are set too high, or if his legs are a bit short -  if he can consistently tree squirrels he's a good hound. I honestly believe that this focus on ability rather than physical appearance is what has kept genetic/health problems out of such breeds.

These are not AKC breeds. These are not show dogs. They are working dogs.  But these dogs are NEEDED and should be bred by those who use them. I really hope the AKC never gets its hands on these wonderful dogs.....true spirits of Appalachia.

 Ideally, I would be for mandatory spay-neuter - but the problem is, in real life it only hurts the true breeders. People are going to acquire unaltered dogs. Marijuana is technically illegal, but look how easy to get and common it is. Just making a law does nothing - but then again, how would we "follow up" such a  law?  Search people's homes? Are we going to have to employ vets to report people who bring in unaltered dogs? Well, that will just make people stop taking their dog to the vet. Dogs lose.

 I think the first thing to do instead is pressure the AKC to stop looking the other way at puppy mills, for starters. Then limits on number of litters, if possible to enforce. If you wanted to be a registered breeder, I don't think you should have to pay a fine - but I think you should be required to provide proof of all the health testing/screening, your dog's registry (even "working" dogs have registries, its not just a show dog thing!),  etc. That would week out a lot of newbie BYBs and puppy mills. Current breeders would be fine, because they have already done all that.  When you get a puppy, you must register it with the county,  and the country must make sure it came from a registered breeder. If it is not, you have to pay a HEFTY fine and are required to get it fixed. But now I'm just rambling....

     ABSOLUTELY 100% AGAINST MANDATORY S/N!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Reasons? First, it's legislation of this sort that are slowly, inch by inch, leaking the animal rights agenda into our society. If someone wants to be an irresponsible breeder, s/n legislation is NOT going to stop them. At the same time, it can hurt ethical, small breeders, who WILL have to pay fines out the gazoo to keep their dogs intact. It's frankly not the decision of the government to dictate whether I alter my animals. Those who wish to neuter should be free to do so, but should not push their beliefs onto everyone else.
     What about overpopulation? Frankly, this isn't going to win me any brownie points, but I believe the overpopulation crisis is a myth. Oh, yes, there ARE overcrowded shelters! In my area it's pit bulls that are the problem, they consist of approx. 80% of all breeds/mixes in NYC shelters. Passin s/n legislation will not alleviate this problem, because many of these dogs were bred by the criminal element for guard/fighting purposes. Are THEY going to abide by the law? Ain't no way. We have shelters here that were pressured by AR groups to go no kill. They are now overcrowded, unsanitary, and have numerous dogs of unstable temperaments. The fact of the matter is that no shelter should be no kill, rather "low kill". I have and still do volunteer/donate to area shelters, and soem fo the dogs they are adopting out have been dumped for behavioral/temperament issues and need to be put down. Very sad, and who in their right mind wants to see dogs put down, but I'm sorry, that will greatly relieve the burden of shelter overcrowding.
    

I'm against mandatory spay/neutering.

I'm FOR wider access to low cost (or no cost) spay/neuter programs.  Back in teh day when DH and I got our first dog (minpin, now 12) we didn't make a whole lot of money and the $90 to neuter Gobie might as well have been $1000, you know?  I'm sure a lot more people would do it if the cost was much lower or there was a sliding scale according to income.

I think the government would spend its money much more wisely in this manner than to go around trying to enforce it (paying employees, purchasing equipment like cars, etc).  Put money toward spay/neuter costs would be much more beneficial.  I know I would have appreciated some sort of grant to lower the cost of neuter to say, $20 co-pay. 

And it's not to say that low income people should not have pets. I think they should. Pets enrich our lives, give us company, become our family.

shamrockmommy

I'm against mandatory spay/neutering.

I'm FOR wider access to low cost (or no cost) spay/neuter programs.  Back in teh day when DH and I got our first dog (minpin, now 12) we didn't make a whole lot of money and the $90 to neuter Gobie might as well have been $1000, you know?  I'm sure a lot more people would do it if the cost was much lower or there was a sliding scale according to income.

     EXACTLY!!! I live in a low income, working class area, but our Vets here charge your typical inflated NYC prices. To alter a 25lb male can run close to $300, and I feel that is insanely ridiculous. Now, we do have programs funded by the ASPCA that will offer low cost s/n, but ONLY if you're on welfare. There are hundreds of thousands of families who are not on welfare but are at or slightly above the poverty level, but no one offers any programs to assist them Veterinary care here is quite cost inhibitive/generally low quality.

100% YES.

Although, some posters have argued that the very people a law like this is intended to reign in will just ignore it, and sadly, I agree.  However, places with BSL have found it enforceable, so I don't see the difference.

My reasons are all the pit bull puppies I see being sold out of the backs of trucks at Walmart, and all the puppies who are drowned in the pond on some farm, and all the puppies who are dying of starvation in backyards, and all the dogs who are being euthanized at shelters because there's "no room".  My reasons are the poms and chis of the world who people breed and breed to make money, and are then suprised when they come to the vet finally and discover terrible luxating patellas or heart murmurs, and are suprised to find that these are genetic problems, and that they have just populated the world with poor genetic resources, and have most likely sold the dogs to people equally as ignorant who will breed the puppies as well.  My reasons are every dog who is chained outdoors, completely lacking in human companionship.  My reasons are every dog who has ever been stuck by a car chasing after the bitch in heat down the street.  My reasons are fighting dogs and dogs intentionally bred for aggression.

I cannot understand why anyone who isn't either a responsible breeder or the handler of a show dog should be allowed to have unaltered pets.  The only reason to want them is so that one can profit from them, and I am not OK with that.  A pet is a pet, not an ATM.

I would agree with those who have listed age guidelines as well, for HEALTH PURPOSES ONLY.

badrap

I cannot understand why anyone who isn't either a responsible breeder or the handler of a show dog should be allowed to have unaltered pets.  The only reason to want them is so that one can profit from them, and I am not OK with that.  A pet is a pet, not an ATM.

I would agree with those who have listed age guidelines as well, for HEALTH PURPOSES ONLY.

I agree with this a lot. Educating the general public is great of course but it can only go so far (obviously).

I think it should be more difficult to even become a breeder in the first place. License, test, Dept of Arg. inspection, etc. Not only will this get rid of back yard breeders but it would litterally FORCE puppy mills to shut down. We'll never be able to shut down thse "Hunte Corporations" for example unless it's the LAW. And I feel like those opposed to that, well that's fishy... The only reason why I could see someone against that is because they themselves are BYBs.

I also think breeders should be enforced to have all their "companion/pet" dogs spayed & neutered by contract & law. What's wrong with that? The dogs meant to be pets, are sold as pets, will be pets... they should be altered!

Put the Animal Rights people aside for a moment and all of that. Let's talk about individual State Departments of Argiculture helping to regulate this problem locally by enforcing inspections & records of ALL dogs. Why not? The only reason once again why I could see someone being opposed to this is because they are all ready breaking the law.

I understand spaying/neutering is expensive; and I don't make the most money in the world; but I knew that before I got a dog... Being upset about surgery costs is like being upset about Gas prices. There's only one source so you have to pay their price. I think we should be educating people more about how dogs are expensive and if you can't afford spay/neutering why do you deserve to have a dog?! Sometimes dogs get sick and rack up $3000 medical bills... It's just like when deciding to have a human child; you need to understand it may be expensive and be prepared... I don't think anyone who's anyone deserves a dog. Look at shelters, some want income proof, etc. Idk the argument that surgery is too expensive isn't a good one in my eyes. No one is FORCING people to have dogs... you get a dog by choice and its your job to be able to afford it.

I mean it seems so simple to me... am I wrong? Why do you need an intact dog? Why do you own a dog if you can't afford surgery? I mean if I'm off please tell me and SHOW me how because I don't see how laws could make things WORSE???

I am against MANDATORY spay/neuter.  However, I am HUGELY in favor of low-cost/free spay/neuter clinics for anyone who wants to spay, but cannot afford it.

Hijacking question.... If we are going to legislate it for dogs and require high levels of training and responsibility,,, are we going to do it for folks wanting to be parents?  (ok  back to the topic at hand)

Pomeranian <3

I think it should be more difficult to even become a breeder in the first place. License, test, Dept of Arg. inspection, etc. Not only will this get rid of back yard breeders but it would litterally FORCE puppy mills to shut down. We'll never be able to shut down thse "Hunte Corporations" for example unless it's the LAW. And I feel like those opposed to that, well that's fishy... The only reason why I could see someone against that is because they themselves are BYBs.

I also think breeders should be enforced to have all their "companion/pet" dogs spayed & neutered by contract & law. What's wrong with that? The dogs meant to be pets, are sold as pets, will be pets... they should be altered!

Put the Animal Rights people aside for a moment and all of that. Let's talk about individual State Departments of Argiculture helping to regulate this problem locally by enforcing inspections & records of ALL dogs. Why not? The only reason once again why I could see someone being opposed to this is because they are all ready breaking the law.

 I mean it seems so simple to me... am I wrong? Why do you need an intact dog? Why do you own a dog if you can't afford surgery? I mean if I'm off please tell me and SHOW me how because I don't see how laws could make things WORSE???

 You can't put AR aside with this subject because AR is a driving force behind it. Do you think the purebreds would be fine with a drastic cut in their gene pools? Is it ok for the goverment to take a dog owner's choice about elective (as in not required for the animal to live a normal, happy life) surgery for their pet away? I wouldn't choose to have a dog altered early, even if I wasn't planning to show or breed but mandatory S/N laws generally require it be done under 6 months old. Lots of studies point towards early altering causing more problems than it prevents, although thanks to AR propaganda that info isn't nearly as widely available as the pros of altering. I most likely wouldn't choose neuter a male dog, my own personal preference. If and when I choose to have surgeries done on my pets should be my business. I am not sure why that is so hard to understand. Besides, just because someone owns an intact animal doesn't mean they are irresponsible owners who let their dog wander the neighborhood, breeding with every dog they come across.

 As for not caring about being inspected unless you have something to hide - are you kidding? Being a dog breeder should mean you must allow authorities to inspect your home whenever they feel like it? Since when did dog breeders become criminals. Should everyone who gardens be required to allow inspections of their home and property just to be sure they aren't growing anything illegal?

  Most of the restrictive legislation applies to everyone but commercial breeders. Much of the legislation is actually going the direction of eliminating all small breeders, while allowing large commercial breeders to continue as usual because they are already regulated by the goverment.

  There is more to think about than what is currently PC, your personal feelings and what you have been told about the "overpopulation". There are PLENTY of people who would be unlikely to fall under your BYB catagory who are very much opposed to such laws. Check out Pet-law on yahoo groups, a high volume email list of people opposed to restrictive ownership/breeding laws.

 FWIW I do hope that you try to educate yourself a bit more on the subject. Here are a couple links to get you started:

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/articles.html Check out the last article, a two part called "The Gathering Storm". One of the breeds mentioned as an example is mine. FWIW the article first appeared in Dog News, a magazine for people involved in AKC conformation showing.

http://www.mofed.org/Redefining.html About "overpopulation"

http://www.toybreeds.com/animal_welfare_vs_animal_rights.htm

 http://www.mofed.org/Before-It%27s-Too-Late.htm

http://www.wethepeopleusa.us/

 Count me in as VERY opposed to new restrictive ownership/breeding laws of any sort.

spiritdogs

I'm not a big fan of legislating mandatory spay/neuter.  I'd be more inclined to think that breeder licensing, mandatory microchipping, or limiting the number of litters a breeder can produce in a year would be better than spay/neuter.  That way, legitimate hobby breeders, who are doing everything correctly to improve their breed, and breeders of working or service dogs, would be free to continue, but puppy mills would have a harder time. 

 Who decides which breeders are "doing everything correctly"? Even breeders can't agree on that among themselves, let alone creating a law that would exclude those who "breed correctly" but get rid of the bad ones. That would hardly be leaving breeders free to continue as usual.

HoundMusic

     What about overpopulation? Frankly, this isn't going to win me any brownie points, but I believe the overpopulation crisis is a myth. Oh, yes, there ARE overcrowded shelters! In my area it's pit bulls that are the problem, they consist of approx. 80% of all breeds/mixes in NYC shelters. Passin s/n legislation will not alleviate this problem, because many of these dogs were bred by the criminal element for guard/fighting purposes. Are THEY going to abide by the law? Ain't no way. We have shelters here that were pressured by AR groups to go no kill. They are now overcrowded, unsanitary, and have numerous dogs of unstable temperaments. The fact of the matter is that no shelter should be no kill, rather "low kill". I have and still do volunteer/donate to area shelters, and soem fo the dogs they are adopting out have been dumped for behavioral/temperament issues and need to be put down. Very sad, and who in their right mind wants to see dogs put down, but I'm sorry, that will greatly relieve the burden of shelter overcrowding. 

You should volunteer at a shelter, then you would see pet over population. I help out with shelters down South, most are kill shelters, and they do not care if the puppy is a pit, hound, lab, bulldog, any breed, pure bred....they euthanize whatever/whenever if they have to. I have once got an "update" on a hound Mom and 5 day old pups.....no rescue came and all were euthanized. Check this website:needfulsouls.org and look at the Gone but Not Forgotten link.........get your tissues ready too.

HoundMusic did say she activly volunteers at a shelter. Some dogs ARE NOT adoptable. I've seen them all. Not every animal is safe to be placed in home. No training in the world will help some of these dogs. That's a fact. No kill shelters DO NOT WORK. They just can't. Many animals deteroriate in shelter care, no matter how hard you try. Dogs are pack animals, they are not meant to spend years in a concrete kennels. This is not the fault of the shelter staff. Shelters will never put themselves out of business, sad, but true.

And to say that shelter workers do not care about the animals they are putting down is a very incorrect statement. EU techs do what they have to do. That's a fact. No one WANTS to put an animal to sleep - for any reason. But in some cases, it must be done.

erica1989

 No kill shelters DO NOT WORK. They just can't.

Tell that to the Maxfund in Denver, CO.

http://maxfund.org/

 In many county run pounds/shelters, especially rural ones dogs are euthanized because that is the "job" of the shelter - to dispose of unwanted animals. If the shelter does little or nothing to promote adoptions and has a short hold time (3 days here), dogs are being PTS not due to an "overpopulation" or a lack of a home but because no attempt was made to place the dog. Some shelter dogs need to be PTS, they simply aren't safe to be adopted out or have severe health issues. In many places no kill (as in no adoptable dog is PTS) is a reality now. Some places have such low numbers of dogs in shelters, especially small breeds and puppies that they are bringing dogs from other parts of the country or out of the country to fill the demand (kinda like petsores). If there is such an overpopulation across the country, why would shelters be adding to that by bringing in extra dogs from say Mexico?

 What makes you think because someone doesn't believe in the national overpopulation crisis that they have never volunteered at a shelter?