legislating morality

ORIGINAL: mrv

Ok discussion point, it may get a bit heated but I think we can all keep it civil.  I have been working on trying to identify why mandatory spay neuter seems over kill to me....So,  I came up with these analogies.   No more wine with dinner at resturants because drunk drivers cause personal and property damage.  So lets take it further, the resturant looses customers, employees get laid off, revenues go down, business closes.  So rather than imposing alcohal free restruants, why not increase monitoring of traffic in the area of resturants and other establishments that have liquor permits.

To link that to spay neuter debate, commit to increased enforcement of leash laws, pick up/clean up laws, and licensing using a data base and home visits. Change licensing to reflect a rice break for neutered/spayed animals.  Collect the data and evaluate in 1 year.  One option for consideration. 

Or one could try the law that will probably go into effect in California fairly soon, and see how it works to reduce the number of animals that are executed in shelters there every year. I think an attempt to save dogs by the tens of thousands to be put to death is the fastest way to improve the horrendous situation in California and the other 49 states as well. 

Maryanne - I love this kind of discussion and hopefully others can contribute in a productive, civil way.  So, as I was reading your analogy, my first thought was that we simply don't have enough police to patrol and catch everyone who's had too much to drink.  I did frequent a nightclub that had heavy patrols for when the club closed at 2 AM and I saw more than a few people getting pulled over, so I think it does help, but I still saw a lot of people leaving drunk.  It's kind of like trying to close the door after the cow got out.  So, the other law on the books is that a server can be held liable for knowingly serving alchohol to someone who is clearly intoxicated.  I don't know the details of the law, but I think it might be a comparable analogy to the spay/neuter law.  If we can't trust that the general population to be responsible pet owners, then perhaps legislation it is a step in the right direction....just thinking outloud again []

ORIGINAL: mrv

Ok discussion point, it may get a bit heated but I think we can all keep it civil.  I have been working on trying to identify why mandatory spay neuter seems over kill to me....So,  I came up with these analogies.   No more wine with dinner at resturants because drunk drivers cause personal and property damage.  So lets take it further, the resturant looses customers, employees get laid off, revenues go down, business closes.  So rather than imposing alcohal free restruants, why not increase monitoring of traffic in the area of resturants and other establishments that have liquor permits.

To link that to spay neuter debate, commit to increased enforcement of leash laws, pick up/clean up laws, and licensing using a data base and home visits. Change licensing to reflect a rice break for neutered/spayed animals.  Collect the data and evaluate in 1 year.  One option for consideration. 

Well both ways of enforcement cause the average taxpayer to pay more in taxes.  Either to fund the police for drunk drivers or to fund the animal control to police dog owners.  Just as every dd or law breaker is not caught, neither would every BYB or irresponsible dog owner.  In the police example, no new living things are produced to end up dying in shelters from lack of good homes (law breakers that kill/injure people are generally caught. Not all, I know, but I'd say "most").  In the AC example lots of puppies could be produced to die in shelters because of lack of homes.

My town actually had a licensing law.  And you got a break for an s/n dog/cat.  But it didn't work because they couldn't fund the enforcement.  So they repealed the ordinance.  [>:]  So now you don't have to have your dog licensed at all.

My friend and I had a discussion about this on a long car drive recently.  Her BC is not yet spayed because she wants her to have her first heat so she knows she hit puberty.  Then she will spay her.  She sent me a link citing research that shows in a PERFORMANCE dog that having a first heat or two and/or never neutering may help prevent athletic injuries due to growth.

If there was some way to require s/n of all non-performing dogs, then I would be for it.  Even the CA law has exemptions for large breeds, for health reasons, for "working" dogs and obviously show dogs.   So for the average pet owner, I don't think it's a bad thing.  For the more responsible owner, I can see how it might cause some issues if they plan to show and/or compete, etc.  But there are exemptions, so you might have to pay a fee in order to take part in them.  So I dunno.

It's sad that we, as the human race, must legislate morality among us, so that our individual freedoms are not infringed upon by each other.  The laws are meant to protect me from you, not me from myself,  however who protects the dogs? and cats, horses, etc... We do, as the human race, because we've developed them for our purposes.  So yes, we should have laws to protect them from the human race, hence licensing, leash laws, spay/neuter, etc...  my [sm=2cents.gif]

ETA: What if there was a tax break for s/n dogs/cats?  And the only way to verify is if you buy a government license for your dog?  But then what's to stop people from buying a dog to get the tax break but then chain it outside till it dies, then next year get another.....  hmmm...  again, morality...  *I* would never do that but I'm sure there are idiots out there who would...

Back to the wine with dinner example..... my town goes dry with respect to eating establishments.  So, if I want a glass of wine with dinner, I have two options: 1) eat at home or 2) eat in a town that does not have the same restrictions.
 
Either way, I have gotten around the law.  I have had an impact on local economy (small granted).  As stated previously, folks will just ignore the law or go underground.
 
The idea of improved enforcement of existing laws has been discredited because of lack of enforcement funding.... So how would that be different from lack of enforcement on a mandatory spay neuter.
 
Just because a law is on the books doesnt mean it will be followed.
 
More consistent enforcement and monitoring of adherence to existing law is a better option than new legislation, my opinion of course.

ORIGINAL: cakana

........  So, the other law on the books is that a server can be held liable for knowingly serving alchohol to someone who is clearly intoxicated. I don't know the details of the law, but I think it might be a comparable analogy to the spay/neuter law.  If we can't trust that the general population to be responsible pet owners, then perhaps legislation it is a step in the right direction....just thinking outloud again []

But apparently we can trust the general population to be responsible pet owners, at least to the extent of spay/neuter. Something like 80 % of dogs and nearly 90 % of owned cats are already spayed/neutered according to vet records in CA. And not all those remaining unspayed pets are breeding indiscriminantly. So, to use the alcohol analogy, what the proposed CA legislation is doing is imposing prohibition on the entire population because of the irresponsibility of a small percentage of pet owners. And we all know how stunningly well prohibition worked. Almost as well as all those laws against marijuana pocession in Humbolt county.

To again go with the alchohol analogy, let's look at the server being held liable for serving alcohol to someone who is intoxicated. Note that this doesn't require that the server not sell alcohol to anyone. I think a better comparison than across the board mandatory spay/neuter would be that all puppies have to be microchipped with the chip registered in the breeder's name, before it can be sold. Then if that puppy ends up in a shelter, the breeder is notified, and they have the choice of either recovering their dog, which is what a responsible breeder would want to do anyway, or they pay a stiff fine when it comes time to annually license each of their intact animals. And, commercial breeders don't get any exemption for this. Sure, this wouldn't be perfectly enforceable, but neither is the proposed mandatory spay/neuter. The advantage of this idea is that it doesn't punish the conscientious breeder who screens puppy buyers carefully, maintains contact with them, and does take back any dog that they've bred for life. Of course, for those whose goal is the elimination of domesticated animals this wouldn't be acceptable.

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: cakana

........  So, the other law on the books is that a server can be held liable for knowingly serving alchohol to someone who is clearly intoxicated. I don't know the details of the law, but I think it might be a comparable analogy to the spay/neuter law.  If we can't trust that the general population to be responsible pet owners, then perhaps legislation it is a step in the right direction....just thinking outloud again []

But apparently we can trust the general population to be responsible pet owners, at least to the extent of spay/neuter. Something like 80 % of dogs and nearly 90 % of owned cats are already spayed/neutered according to vet records in CA. And not all those remaining unspayed pets are breeding indiscriminantly.

Where is the source of this information? Can you supply a link, because it sounds like it is very inaccurate.  

But apparently we can trust the general population to be responsible pet owners, at least to the extent of spay/neuter. Something like 80 % of dogs and nearly 90 % of owned cats are already spayed/neutered according to vet records in CA

 
These stats seem pretty high to me too.  Seems that if this many dogs/cats were spayed or neutered (and you didn't leave out breeders), then we shouldn't have a problem with all these animals in the shelters. 

These stats seem pretty high to me too. Seems that if this many dogs/cats were spayed or neutered (and you didn't leave out breeders), then we shouldn't have a problem with all these animals in the shelters.

 
 
Actually it is not that high. 
 
 
Here are some numbers.
 

The following statistics were compiled from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) 2005-2006 National Pet Owners Survey.
Dogs

• There are approximately 73 million owned dogs in the United States
  
• Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog
  
• Most owners (60 percent) own one dog
  
• Twenty-five percent of owners own two dogs
  
• Fourteen percent of owners own three or more dogs
  
• On average, owners have almost two dogs (1.7)
  
• The proportion of male to female dogs is about even
  
• Sixteen percent of owned dogs were adopted from an animal shelter
  
• On average, dog owners spent $211 on veterinary visits (vaccine, well visits) annually
  
• More than seventy percent of owned dogs are spayed or neutered

Cats

• There are approximately 90 million owned cats in the United States
  
• Thirty-four percent of U.S. households (or 37.7 million) own at least one cat
  
• Fifty percent of owners own more than one cat
  
• On average, owners have two cats (2.4)
  
• Slightly more female cats are owned than male cats (66 percent vs. 64 ercent respectively)
  
• Fifteen percent of owned cats were adopted from an animal shelter
  
• Cat owners spent an average of $179 on routine veterinary visits
  
• Eighty-four percent of owned cats are spayed or neutered

For additional information on pet ownership statistics, contact the APPMA at 255 Glenville Rd., Greenwich, CT 06831, 800-452-1225, or visit their website at [linkhttp://www.appma.org/]www.appma.org[/link].  

In the Sacramento Bee today there are 573 advertisements for ets for sale. In this week's Penny Saver there are 433. A quick glance shows that about 85 percent are puppies, with an extremely small number of ads claiming OFA certified etc. Many little designer mixed breeds. A few speutered older dogs and cats. With multiple puppies it looks like there may be about 2,500 poorly bred puppies that are being sold just for profit. That's a lot of profit and a lot of suffering further down the road.
 
Something needs to be done. Sure a spay/neuter law won't stop everyone, but the vast majority of these people need a knock on the door from an animal control officer complete with a stiff fine.
 
Breeders and show people need to work with legislators to target this excess. Complete opposition reminds me of the NRA and armor piercing bullets. I understand that it will raise the price of decently bred dogs, but if folks are willing to pay $750. for Doodles, finding buyers willing to pay for well bred dogs shouldn't be a problem.

ORIGINAL: timsdat

These stats seem pretty high to me too. Seems that if this many dogs/cats were spayed or neutered (and you didn't leave out breeders), then we shouldn't have a problem with all these animals in the shelters.

Actually it is not that high. 


Here are some numbers.


The following statistics were compiled from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) 2005-2006 National Pet Owners Survey.
Dogs

• There are approximately 73 million owned dogs in the United States
  
• Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog
  
• Most owners (60 percent) own one dog
  
• Twenty-five percent of owners own two dogs
  
• Fourteen percent of owners own three or more dogs
  
• On average, owners have almost two dogs (1.7)
  
• The proportion of male to female dogs is about even
  
• Sixteen percent of owned dogs were adopted from an animal shelter
  
• On average, dog owners spent $211 on veterinary visits (vaccine, well visits) annually
  
• More than seventy percent of owned dogs are spayed or neutered

Cats

• There are approximately 90 million owned cats in the United States
  
• Thirty-four percent of U.S. households (or 37.7 million) own at least one cat
  
• Fifty percent of owners own more than one cat
  
• On average, owners have two cats (2.4)
  
• Slightly more female cats are owned than male cats (66 percent vs. 64 ercent respectively)
  
• Fifteen percent of owned cats were adopted from an animal shelter
  
• Cat owners spent an average of $179 on routine veterinary visits
  
• Eighty-four percent of owned cats are spayed or neutered

For additional information on pet ownership statistics, contact the APPMA at 255 Glenville Rd., Greenwich, CT 06831, 800-452-1225, or visit their website at [linkhttp://www.appma.org/]www.appma.org[/link].  

I think the people that are more likely to respond to this survey, are people that would be more likely to S/N their pets. It is a survey, and therefore the accuracy depends on who is selected to get the survey in the mail.  This is more for marketing of products than anything else.

ORIGINAL: Stacita

In the Sacramento Bee today there are 573 advertisements for ets for sale. In this week's Penny Saver there are 433. A quick glance shows that about 85 percent are puppies, with an extremely small number of ads claiming OFA certified etc. Many little designer mixed breeds. A few speutered older dogs and cats. With multiple puppies it looks like there may be about 2,500 poorly bred puppies that are being sold just for profit. That's a lot of profit and a lot of suffering further down the road.

Something needs to be done. Sure a spay/neuter law won't stop everyone, but the vast majority of these people need a knock on the door from an animal control officer complete with a stiff fine.

Breeders and show people need to work with legislators to target this excess. Complete opposition reminds me of the NRA and armor piercing bullets. I understand that it will raise the price of decently bred dogs, but if folks are willing to pay $750. for Doodles, finding buyers willing to pay for well bred dogs shouldn't be a problem.

I stopped at a Target store this afternoon to pick up something, and a boy about 12 or 13 was in the lobby with a laundry basket filled with kittens. He was just handing them to people, and usually the person handed the kitten back.  I asked him where he got the kittens, and he said "his cat" had them a few weeks ago...  That is just beyond sad.....

I think the people that are more likely to respond to this survey, are people that would be more likely to S/N their pets. It is a survey, and therefore the accuracy depends on who is selected to get the survey in the mail. This is more for marketing of products than anything else.

 
The numbers are used by the HSUS.
 
[linkhttp://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/us_pet_ownership_statistics.html]http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/us_pet_ownership_statistics.html[/link]

 

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: Stacita

In the Sacramento Bee today there are 573 advertisements for ets for sale. In this week's Penny Saver there are 433. A quick glance shows that about 85 percent are puppies, with an extremely small number of ads claiming OFA certified etc. Many little designer mixed breeds. A few speutered older dogs and cats. With multiple puppies it looks like there may be about 2,500 poorly bred puppies that are being sold just for profit. That's a lot of profit and a lot of suffering further down the road.

Something needs to be done. Sure a spay/neuter law won't stop everyone, but the vast majority of these people need a knock on the door from an animal control officer complete with a stiff fine.

Breeders and show people need to work with legislators to target this excess. Complete opposition reminds me of the NRA and armor piercing bullets. I understand that it will raise the price of decently bred dogs, but if folks are willing to pay $750. for Doodles, finding buyers willing to pay for well bred dogs shouldn't be a problem.

I stopped at a Target store this afternoon to pick up something, and a boy about 12 or 13 was in the lobby with a laundry basket filled with kittens. He was just handing them to people, and usually the person handed the kitten back.  I asked him where he got the kittens, and he said "his cat" had them a few weeks ago...  That is just beyond sad.....

Awe kittens.  How sad the boy didnt know any better nor his parents.  But then again, who said these were great breeders?

Note the difference in pets and show/working dogs/cats... 

D'OH....lol. Thanks for pointing that out, Steve. Ironic.