Poll: Spay/Neutring

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!  

     Everything you mention is already in place in this country - commercial breeders do need to be "USDA" licensed and/or state licensed, and are subject to inspections by either/both AKC & the United States Department of Agriculture. Personally, I would be opposed to becoming USDA licensed, because what you don't understand is that there is a certain standard of husbandry one must provide when one is a licensed breeder. According to the rules already in place with USDA, their breeders are NOT allowed to keep breeding stock in the home. My dogs would need to be kenneled 24/7, and neither I nor most smaller hobby breeders have the property and funds to erect enough kennel runs or buildings to house all their dogs in addition to a seperate whelping shed. I have one kennel run on the property w/ one large sized dog house. that's against USDA regulations, and I don't have room for more, so I'll be forced to end my breeding program. My bitches are primarily in the house (another USDA no no), and all are housed in the basement in crates or ex pens in particularly foul weather. Were my inspector to see this, I'd loose my license or have several hundreds of $$$ in fines - reason being this would not be appropriate for record keeping purposes. Inspectors want to see each dog in their kennel with some sort of ID, or you are breaking rules. See, this is only one of many reasons why these mandatory s/n and breeder restriction legislations serve only to RESTRICT RESPONSIBLE BREEDING!!! The Hunte Corporation are brokers and are also required to be USDA licensed ...
     Regarding all companion dogs being altered - well, some people, incliding myself do not believe in altering dogs before a certain age, others have every right to let pet dogs remain intact because they feel it's healthier - no one has the right to force them to alter their dogs if they are responsible owners. I'm also of the opinion that unless your breeder required you to alter your dog under contract, the government has no right to force someone to do this. We cannot disregard the animal rights aspect of this, because this is a major player in the legislation. There are many self righteous responsible breeders that are for this legislation, but what they don't realize is that in a matter of time, ALL breeders are going to be affected. The public opinion is swaying towards breeder indignation and the AR's are certinly behind that. The public doesn't always distinguish someone who has dedicated their life towards bettering the breed with that BYB down the block who has "thoroughbred" papered dogs @@ I also want to add that if all breeders are required to be licensed, the public looses. See, I can offer a cushy health guarantee b/c I am a hobby breeder, but if I were USDA licensed, I would need to base my guarantee on the state's puppy lemon law. Which gives the buyer essentially a 14 day health guarantee ... 
     This is why I'm against these types of legislation. Public opinion is changing, and no one is going to care if dedicated breeders with their snobby show dogs go out of business with the millers. The fact of the matter is, if we are burdened with stricter legislation than is already in play, the ONLY breeders that will be able to keep their head s above water are the USDA licensed "high volume" commercial breeders. What a sad day for purebred dogs when that occurs. And as I mentioned, it starts with the ARs leaking legislation like this into laws, then esculates from there. They do not want dogs to be owned by humans, period. And what other way can they slowly achieve that but prevent all dogs from breeding?
     Anyone who doesn't think this is a threat to all breeders, from the dedicated to puppy mills needs to check out the legislation that has already been proposed in New Jersey! It's going to damage all breeders if it passes. It's hiding under the guise of dog protection/mandatory s/n.

Pomeranian <3

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??? 

     The point is, that the cost of altering a dog is quite high in many areas, and while there are low income owners who religiously have their dogs vetted, they can't afford several hundred dollars to alter their dogs. I am quite disturbed by the sentiment that people who can't afford to alter a dog should not own them IMHO, you are "off" because you can get a mutt from the pound here for as low as $75-100 without income verification and the like. It's easier & cheaper for low income families to go to the pound for a dog, then find out later on they can't afford Fluffy's Vet bills. Have seen it happen.
     It doesn't matter why they choose to leave  their dogs intact, this is a free country, and we should not have AR ideals force fed to us. Personally, I want my dogs intact because you simply will not convince me it's healthier. Pyometra, testicular cancer, mammary gland tumors you say? Yes, they occur - but if not in the testes or mammaries, then elsewhere. What about the increased rate of bone cancer in dogs altered before sexual maturity? I lost a 30lb Beagle to bone cancer, she was spayed before her first heat. That was her ONLY risk factor for the disease. It's not a nice way to loose a dog, and ther eis no cure. I'd rather have mammary gland or testicular cancer, because it's easily removed/contained/treated. Bottom line is that I don't think you realize the consequences. It opens the door for animal rights legislation, and if this legislation passes in NJ, in 20 years, all forms of dog breeding may be banned as cruelty.

A quote from their website

The only reason for euthanasia is when it is in the humane interest of the animal.

that right there tells you that they are NOT a no kill. We have a no kill shelter near where I live - and it is the WORST place I have ever been. We tried to help them by taking some dogs - most were very old, aggressive, protective. These poor dogs had sat in those kennels for, some, 5 years. How is that in the best interest of the dog?

A NO KILL shelter does not euthanize FOR ANY REASON. That is the definition of a no kill. There are many LOW KILL shelters that opperate very successfully.

AgileGSD

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

Because if you worked/volunteered at a shelter- especially a rural or shelter down South then you would physically see pet overpopulation at it's prime. I do not agree with trucking dogs in the United States from anywhere....not Mexico, not St. Croix, not anywhere. I don't care about supply & demand....these are lives, and many are lost everyday because there just aren't enough homes for them all.

Honestly - the shelters down south are not any different from the shelters up north. Pet overpopulation is a problem ALL OVER, not just in the south. Mand. s/n laws in some states just wont solve the problem. There is no easy answer for this question. Shelters have to do what they do - because it's why they are there.

erica1989

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.

Never said shelters workers do not care about the animals they're putting down. I did say they will euthanize whenever/whatever though because they will....they will euth. a puppy or senior or pure bred or mutt....doesn't matter, if they don't have the room, the dog can't stay. Never said shelter workers wanted to put an animal to sleep either. I don't think anyone would want to.

erica1989

Honestly - the shelters down south are not any different from the shelters up north. Pet overpopulation is a problem ALL OVER, not just in the south. Mand. s/n laws in some states just wont solve the problem. There is no easy answer for this question. Shelters have to do what they do - because it's why they are there.

I think they're very different...I don't know of any shelters up North that use the heartstick method or gassing method. However, the shelter where I got my dog from, Spalding County in GA, they still have a gassing chamber, and actively use it.

BlackLabbie

AgileGSD

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

Because if you worked/volunteered at a shelter- especially a rural or shelter down South then you would physically see pet overpopulation at it's prime. I do not agree with trucking dogs in the United States from anywhere....not Mexico, not St. Croix, not anywhere. I don't care about supply & demand....these are lives, and many are lost everyday because there just aren't enough homes for them all.

     That's funny. I don't believe in the overpopulation crisis, rather shelters are overpopulated. And I have worked in rescue, both private rescue where dogs were fostered outside of shelters and also in no kill shelters. I've volunteered for one no kill in Westchester and another in Manhattan. I have plenty of my own dogs to care for but I often donate food/supplies to area shelters. I donate my time whenever I can. I enjoy going up to New Rochelle and walking/socializing the dogs @ that no kill shelter. It's heartbreaking, but I still don't think everyone should be forced to adopt.       I also am well aware of one Long Island shelter that habitually takes dogs out of southern shelters. The dogs that are euth'd, often times, should be put down for the health & safety of the general public. Severe temperament or behavior issues do not make a dog adoptable material. But for instance, in the NYCACC (our animal control) about 95% of the dogs are pit bulls. These are dogs that are usually owner surrendered b/c we do not have much of a stray problem here. They have behavioral problems and no one should be expected to try and adopt these dogs. Now, is it almost always the fault of the owner that the dog ended up in the shelter - yeah, usually. But they are NOT dying because there are not enough homes, they are dying because they are not fit to be adopted. The estimated US population is 301,139,947  opposed to the canine population of approx 61 million. That's quite the gap. I'd wager to say there ARE homes for them all, they are just not adoptable.
    

erica1989

A quote from their website

The only reason for euthanasia is when it is in the humane interest of the animal.

A NO KILL shelter does not euthanize FOR ANY REASON. That is the definition of a no kill. There are many LOW KILL shelters that opperate very successfully.

I'm not sure you fully understand what they're talking about.

They are talking about dogs who have been hit by 18-wheelers and have half a leg hanging off and are basically bleeding to death anyway.

I work at a low kill shelter.  I know what I'm talking about.  The overpopulation problem is SEVERE.  SEVERE.  As long as we're making declarative statments.  "low kill" euthanizes for space- that means there's not space in a medical annex for an animal's recovery.  I'm not nuts about that policy.

I don't believe in allowing dangerous dogs to be adopted, but tempermant testing is inherently flawed and biased.

BlackLabbie

I don't know of any shelters up North that use the heartstick method

I didn't want to ask this question - but you have struck a nerve with that statement.

Have you ever put an animal to sleep? Not a pet - but have you PERSONALLY been the one performing the euth?

I also work as a vet tech for a low kill animal shelter. I DO know what I am talking about. We DO NOT euth for space, medical reasons, or trainable behaviors. But - euth for space depends on your policies. Our Humane Euth. policy states that we are a "no kill of adoptable animals". We foster out dogs with medical issues - or send them to a breed specific rescue. We have an on staff behaviorist and several trainers that work and evaluate our animals. If we don't have kennel space for an animal - we make it. Crate them inside, set them up in the kitchen - whatever it takes.

Just because there are LITERAL homes doesn't mean there are GOOD homes.  Just because there's a HOUSE doesn't mean there's a home. 

And just because there's not a stray problem in YOUR area doesn't mean that a stray problem doesn't exist at all.

erica1989

BlackLabbie

I don't know of any shelters up North that use the heartstick method

I didn't want to ask this question - but you have struck a nerve with that statement.

Have you ever put an animal to sleep? Not a pet - but have you PERSONALLY been the one performing the euth?

No. I have never done it, and never will. Not my job.

READ my post.  I said you didn't know what THEY were talking about.

Everybody's got a story, you're not the only one here who has performed euthanasia on an animal deemed "unadoptable" for whatever reason.

Maxfund has operated as a NO KILL for 20 years.  I would call that successful. 

But this is getting way off topic.

 

badrap

 

Just because there are LITERAL homes doesn't mean there are GOOD homes.  Just because there's a HOUSE doesn't mean there's a home. 

And just because there's not a stray problem in YOUR area doesn't mean that a stray problem doesn't exist at all.

I totally agree with you.

badrap

AgileGSD

 
  opposed to the canine population of approx 61 million. That's quite the gap. I'd wager to say there ARE homes for them all, they are just not adoptable.
    

Just because there are LITERAL homes doesn't mean there are GOOD homes.  Just because there's a HOUSE doesn't mean there's a home. 

And just because there's not a stray problem in YOUR area doesn't mean that a stray problem doesn't exist at all.

 

     But the estimated canine population of 61 million is all inclusive. This number is not just strays, but all dogs living in the US - dogs that are owned by someone. So the shelter population decreases even further. My point is that these dogs are not being adopted because there is not enough people who want them - they are simply not adoptable. Also, I realize there are tremendous stry populations in other areas. I also do not see many of these dogs as adpptable either. Many are feral, aggressive, etc.