Poll: Spay/Neutring

The heartstick is the most humane method of euthanising an animal. They are sedated before - the animal is not just prodded in the heart with a needle. They do not feel what is going on. Once injected into the blood stream - the phenobarbatol stops the brain first, then circulates back to the lungs and heart. The animal has no feeling of what is happening - it's extremely humane. Gas chambers are slowly exiting the scene. Fewer places are usuing them, write to your legislature if your shelter is still using one - get them to stop. There are much better ways out there - such as the heartstick.

And with that - I'm done with this thread. It is so far off from the origional topic.

Mod's note:

This topic is well off topic.  If you'd like to continue this conversation, please start a new thread in the appropriate area of the forum.  

For reference this is the OP's Post:

Jr. Dog Expert

Hey Everyone, I'm going through alot of the dog forums that I'm a member of and taking a poll, and seeing what the responses are.

My hypothetical question is:

Would you be against or for madatory spay/neutring?

The only exceptiongs being if you are a breeder, or have a show dog.

I know that this seems next to impossible, but IF it were possible to achive, would you be against it or for it? Tell me and give me your reasons, please. All input is much appreciated.

HoundMusic

 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.

*note*I believe I may have messed up the quote function and quoted someone as saying something they didn't say, so I'm sorry for that.  I'm still not completely used to my laptop's keyboard.

I'm not sure how the above post relates to mandatory spay/neuter.  To me, it just supports my argument.  But I may be reading it wrong.

erica1989

The heartstick is the most humane method of euthanising an animal.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think the heartstick is an inhumane, old method. I think that a needle filled with Sodium Pentobarbital (I believe that's what's in the injection, could be wrong though), administered by a licensed and caring vet is the most humane.

And I'm also done with this thread.

erica1989

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.

Actually there is some confusion over this issue. No Kill though in most places that legally define it means that "no adoptable animal is killed". Low kills would be where adoptable animals are usually not killed. The "no kill" you are talking about is a sancuatary style shelter where unadoptable animals are kept as "lifers". I think some of these work out for the dogs but some not the dogs live a pretty sad life - depends on the place. Have you ever heard of Nathan Winograd? http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/

To answer the original question....no I do not support mandatory spay/nueter laws.  For one thing, this would be an enforcement nightmare, for another, you're always going to have people who rebel against more governmental intrusion on our rights and just flat out ignore the laws, and I agree that the only dogs of value are NOT show dogs.

While the pet overpopulation situation is a HUGE problem in this country, we're opening a big ugly can of worms by forcing juvinille altering.

Rather, instead, lets work on educating pet owners and offering low cost surgery so everyone CAN afford to have it done.  I can't agree that people who don't have a huge income should not have a dog.  A loving "poor" home is better than life in the shelter or death for want of a home.

 I would be for it providing there are valid timeframes in which to get teh dog spayed or neutered. I do not agree with spaying and neutering little puppies (although I understand why shelters do this) because IMO the dog needs to grow and mature before this is done.

Jr. Dog Expert

Would you be against or for madatory spay/neutring?

Absolutely not, not in anyone's wildest dreams. In fact, if it ever came to it, I'd put forth my best efforts to oppose such a bill.

Do I think it's a good idea for shelters to spay/neuter? I most certainly do.

Do I think it should be forced upon everyone? I certainly don't. And I would rather have the ability to live with intact animals for their entire lives if I so desired.

athis is just a test run

dgriego

I do not agree with spaying and neutering little puppies (although I understand why shelters do this) because IMO the dog needs to grow and mature before this is done.

I very much agree.I think there are more problems associated with juvenile spaying/neutering then there are doing fully matured dogs.

As for shelters doing it so early...I have heard of shelters who charge a spay/neuter deposit at the time of adoption,which the owner's get back when they bring the dog back to be done,when they are at a more appropriate age! 

I also agree with lowering the cost of spaying/neutering.This method would work much better IMO than forced S/N. 

I am totally against mandatory spay/neuter. I am not in favor of government agencies having any more power than they already have in our lives.  The only ones who will 'pay' for a law like that are the responsible breeders out there.  Irresponsible BYB and puppy mills will continue to do their thing and get away with it.

I do think that animals at the pound should be 'fixed' before being allowed to be adopted out, unless too young.

I would like to see veterinarians do some price reductions for spay/neuters - many of them complain about all the intact dogs out there, but they really are a big part of the problem with the high prices they charge and 'pay at time of service' policies. And lets not even get me started on the 'optional pain meds'.  Give me a break - pain meds should be part of the whole deal like they used to be.  It's just another way to make money at the expense of the poor animals. I'd like to neuter/spay one of them and opt not to give them pain meds.  On a nice note, there used to be two vets about 100 miles from here that did free or very low cost spay/neuters once every month. They, of course, were booked solid.  But what a wonderful, responsible thing to do.

I disagree that someone who can't afford the surgery shouldn't have dogs/cats.  That's just ridiculous and very, very harsh.  I know many people, my daughter being one, who are wonderful pet owners but just can't come up with $200 all at once.  At least kids need surgery there are some payment options. No options whatsoever with the vets around here - you pay up front or no surgery. 

Mandatory spay/neuter will create more problems than it solves.  Let's look at making it more affordable.

Jr. Dog Expert

Would you be against or for madatory spay/neutring?

Completely against.

Mandating this is un-enforceable.  Are you going to hire the  "Testicle and Uterus" police force?  

Secondly, working dogs and performance dogs sometimes take up to 3 years to be completely trained and to come into their own.   To eliminate their genes from the gene pools is a waste.

 Thirdly, the massive amount of hereditary diseases we see in dogs now is a result of an ever shrinking gene pool.

Fourth, there is no excuse for irresponsible ownership.  I know plenty of breeders that have NOT had an "oops" litter, despite being in the dog hobby for 40 or more years.  If proper precautions are taken, an "oops" litter will occur very, very rarely. 

Fifth, why punish responsible owners because of the actions of irresponsible owners?  It makes no sense.

Sixth, there are certain breeds in which reproductive homogeneity is rampant and within those breeds there is a very limited stock available on this continent.  Limiting the gene pool further serves only to create more of a condition for hereditary conditions to become dominant and thus more apparent in subsequent generations.  Yet if one were to breed to older, proven stock those same conditions could remain recessive, and possibly eliminated.
 

Xerxes

Jr. Dog Expert

Would you be against or for madatory spay/neutring?

 Fourth, there is no excuse for irresponsible ownership.  I know plenty of breeders that have NOT had an "oops" litter, despite being in the dog hobby for 40 or more years.  If proper precautions are taken, an "oops" litter will occur very, very rarely. 

  Oops litters happen for sure BUT if they happen to responsible people, they are really not that big of a deal. Puppies are born, socialized and raised as any planned litter would be. They are placed in the same way planned puppies would be too. And sometimes, as any one involved with dogs can tell you - some of the nicest litters are unplanned ones ;)

 ITA with the goverment not having any more control than they already have. These laws are all about how much money AR groups have to push their agendas and how the general public has been made to feel by AR propaganda over the years. It is no longer PC to buy or breed purebred dogs because all that is ever talked about is "adopt!!!! adopt!!!!!! adopt!!!!". Even the Westminister dog show was overrun with emotionally driven ads that promote adopting from shelters. What is wrong with promoting buying a puppy from a breeder with a well thought out litter? I am all for adopting if that is what people choose but I don't think people should do it because they are made to feel it is the only "good" option. These laws would never make it, if the AR groups hadn't convinced a large portion of the general public that breeders are bad and adoption is good.

This past week we have gotten two litters of puppies, 3 preggy mommas (1 gave birth to 2 pups, the other had 9, we are still waiting on the 3rd - anyday now) and a handful of other "single" pups. We also have had in 4 preggy cats, and a ton of kittens, including bottle babies.

There has to be something that can be done about this. This was just in a weeks time. I'm waiting to see what will come in in the next few weeks, and puppy/kitten season is just starting for shelters.

erica1989

This past week we have gotten two litters of puppies, 3 preggy mommas (1 gave birth to 2 pups, the other had 9, we are still waiting on the 3rd - anyday now) and a handful of other "single" pups. We also have had in 4 preggy cats, and a ton of kittens, including bottle babies.

There has to be something that can be done about this. This was just in a weeks time. I'm waiting to see what will come in in the next few weeks, and puppy/kitten season is just starting for shelters.

There is:  Fine the irresponsible owners the cost of spay/neuter, housing, and adopting the animals.

Why punish the responsible owners of animals for the lack of responsibility of a few?  Oh wait, I know the answer:  Because it makes us feel that we're doing something about the problem.  We're not though.  The irresponsible owners will still be out there, and they will still allow their animals to tie and breed and no one will enforce the law.  Think I'm kidding?  I'm not.