Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

[MaggieDog]

Here's something that might surprise some people: I work at a shelter and I don't support MSN laws!

 

Rather than making things mandatory that we then can't enforce without a dramatic increase in funding for Animal Control staffing, I'd be far more in favor of national and/or statewide subsidized s/n. New Hampshire did that for cats and it has dramatically reduced intake of felines at shelters in the state.

 

In addition to subsidized spay/neuter, I'd be *very* in favor of nationwide humane education requirements in schools that talk about everything from s/n to the costs of pet ownership, to animal abuse, and on.

 

MSN laws have waaay too many potential pitfalls to make implementation and enforcement reliable and fair imo.

[Guest LJS1993]

Well, this is a subject I'm really interested in right now, thanks to the CA bill and the way it played out, and I tend to think discussion, debate and even argument (conducted with civility, of course ) all help you get at the truth of a subject. At the least, you get clarity on what someone else is saying, and at best you get to see what positions stand up to analysis and what ones don't.

 

BTW, what the HECK are you doing to that dog?

 

 

She was running after me and in turn I would dodge and evade her. She looks wild but we were just playing.

[Guest Freckles LaLa Mom]

Nah, she saw me right when I woke up...she was scared

[Brandon M]

I think the main problem is who would make the determination that someone was competent and would be a responsible breeder, and what criteria would they use. It would be pretty expensive to administer if it was taken seriously and not just a matter of people checking the "right answer" ("I want to improve the breed" or whatever) on a form. It would be good if breeding could be limited to those that would do it right, but I guess I just don't have enough faith in the knowledge and judgment of the people who would be making the decision. I kinda doubt they would have the same priorities that I would have.

 

Yeah, that is the big downfall of that idea. The people deciding who does and who doesn't get to breed wouldn't have a personal interest in the matter, most likely.

[OurBoys]

"BTW, what the HECK are you doing to that dog?"

 

 

It looks like Freckles is saying "OMG!!! You want me to do what?!?!?!"

[Brandon M]

I think shes saying "if he doesn't release me I may have to call up my wolfen powers and chew his arm off!".

[Guest WoobiesMom]

I think if legislators could form a working alliance with organizations such as AKC (yeah, i know, bad word around these parts) and others (I'm not up on working stockdog organizations but them too) to work WITH localities to help evaluate the reputable breeders rather than the two camps working against each other, alot of progress could be made. Perhaps if the reputable dog organizations could volunteer to help with the screening and evaluating for exemptions, the support for "more stringent S/N legislation" (I'm think the word mandatory is too open to different interpretations) would be more widespread.

[JLP]

I would not be in favor of a mandatory spay/neuter bill. I think that would definatly infridge on someones rights. It seems to me that alot of folks think go after the breeders and puppy millers. I dont think that is where one should head for legislation at all. Bottom line the dog overpopulation problem is simply from unresponsible pet owners. If legislation is going to go after anyone it should be the pet owner. How, will this might be a bit simple but I think it would be effective. Have a chip implanted in every dog that is sold or given away. The chip would store the owners name,address etc. When that dog turns up at the pound you call that owner to come pick up their dog from scanning the chip. If he ends up at the pound so many times you fine them. If they dont come pick up the dog you fine them. The problem with pet over population is the pet owner isnt responsible, crack down on them and thats the best way to handle it. Its not a breeder problem imo!

[MrSnappy]

I was under the impression this would be more of an open thread of ideas and thoughts. I didn't think it was meant for debate and argument. Of course I could be mistaken.

 

By their very nature, open threads of ideas and thoughts create debate. Confusing debate with argument is a defensive position. And all discussion amongst individuals, unless you want a group hug in its place, involves some level of disagreement or discord of thought or opinion, ergo, debate. You needn't create a divide between thoughts and ideas and debate, nor do you need to equate debate with argument. One can vigorously disagree with someone in a debate, but that doesn't mean they are arguing with them. Any individual who presents a thought or opinion should have the ability and the right to back it up, clarify and expand on it when questions for clarification. I wish more people understood that.

 

"Casual" breeders, or BYBs, or idiots who "let" their dog have one litter are like people who don't pick up dog crap. They think it's just them, and it won't hurt. But in one dog park, a thousand of them will do it thinking it's "just them" and it "won't hurt" and the next thing you know the dog park is taken away from ALL its users because of the unholy amount of dog crap lying around. No ever thinks it's THEIR fault. It's unbelievably selfish. And every time we condone it, or tell them they are just one person and aren't responsible for all the dog crap, we're enabling them and everyone like them. And then we are just as responsible as they are.

 

The problems with MSNs are they punish the people who don't deserve to be punished, and don't touch the people who really don't think it applies to them because hey, they are "just one person." As someone who refuses, even, to license my dogs I am the sort of person who thinks that arbitrary laws are ridiculous. But the longer I am involved in rescue and the rescue community, the more I start to wonder if the needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few. Its really difficult to wrap your mind around hundreds of thousands of dogs killed annually. It's just a statistic. Except it isn't. So officially, I have no stance on MSN. I can't unravel all the pieces of the subject objectively enough to take a position. Because any rescuer, and any breeder, has a stake in it - no matter what they claim. And their stake colours their opinion. Not that most of them would admit it.

 

RDM

[bexie]

I think I am against mandatory spay and neuter laws, which actually sorta surprises me. But things I've been reading and thinking about in the past several months have taught me a lot. First, I've learned that it is a whole lot easier to keep an intact dog from breeding than I thought. Okay, an intact bitch can be quite messy (especially when she hates underwear and keeps taking them off), but it is so easy to keep her away from males. So why deprive her of all her hormones and the way she works naturally? Just because a dog is intact doesn't mean it has to be a parent. It's about responsibility and you can't really legislate that.

 

It would be great if you could say anyone who has 2 or more accidental litters is no longer allowed to own intact dogs. Any intact dog found out of its owner's control more than once in mandatorily sterilized (allow once for freak things). Things like that. Take action when the owners are found negligent. But the first one is hard to prove. Also that breeding more than 2 litters in a 10 year period (for example) puts someone into a breeder category and they then have to meet some other standard (working dogs, sport dogs, proof of competent homing, something that says "i am not a puppy mill"). But general no intact dogs just bothers me.

 

Think about horses. We don't go around spaying all the mares. We just keep them away from the stallions. This is despite the fact that mares have a much shorter cycle than dogs and have a reputation for being moody and difficult when in season. Of course mares only produce one or maybe two offsping per breeding, but still.

 

If Molly proved a good reliable working dog (don't attack me here, this a theoretical discussion) and we had people interested in pups and could find a good reliable and compatible working dog to sire a litter, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to produce _1_ litter on her when she was grown and ready. The same as if my mare turns out to be a good reliable horse, it wouldn't be a bad thing to put one or several foals in her from a compatible stallion if I had good potential for selling them to reliable homes. I shouldn't be required by law to eliminate all the options at an early age and risk the animal's health and happiness as well when I can so easily _manage my bitch responsibly_.

 

The problem isn't responsible people with intact animals managed responsibly that are never bred or bred rarely once they've proved to be good breeding stock. The problem is haphazard breeding by people who say "Oh, Princess Mary got a BC. Now I'm going to get one. All my neighbors want one too so I'll breed my girl to the dog down the street and sell them for a fortune" or the ones who just don't pay attention and suddenly have a litter or three on their laps.

 

Just a few thoughts.

And no, we don't plan to breed Molly. We plan to keep her intact and manage her responsibly. If something somehow happened by accident, she'd be taken to the vet for treatment or a spay. I'm just discussing theories here. People with working dogs with potential shouldn't have to eliminate the possibility before they even have a chance to know if their animals might be good breeding stock that can help the breed develop in the directions it is meant to go. Good breeding stock can be stock good for one litter or two. Not mass production that then sires a half a generation.

[bexie]

I just want to add that I agree with RDM that not every dog should have just one litter. I'm talking about working breeds where you can continue to produce working dogs. I'm not talking about everyone with random mix or even purebred X that isn't a show dog. You shouldn't think about breeding a dog unless you have at least reservations for the average number of pups before breeding. And you have to be prepared for the risk that your dog produces extraordinary number of pups!

 

I really don't think I will ever be in favor of breeding Molly. I doubt she'd become spectacular enough of a working dog to talk me into it because I've been here long enough to know that she'd have to be pretty darn good for me to think she's worth much to BCs as a breed.

[MrSnappy]

The problem with pet over population is the pet owner isnt responsible, crack down on them and thats the best way to handle it. Its not a breeder problem imo!

 

Pet overpopulation and dogs in shelters are all part of the same package. We don't have too many dogs in the world because too many people lose their dogs and don't come collect them from the shelter. This is a fairly precise example of a complete and utter misunderstanding of the problem. In fact, if you look at the statistics, the vast majority of the dogs (it's slightly different for cats) in shelters are owner relinquished. That means the owner put them there on purpose. So what you've just proposed actually has nothing at all to do with addressing the problem of pet overpopulation.

 

The problem is breeding AND irresponsible owners alike. Breeders like to foist all the responsibility of dog ownership onto the buyer. You see it even here, in past discussions where 'reputable' stockdog breeders say it's not their place to make breeding decisions for their buyers (i.e. by having spay/neuter clauses in their sales contracts). And that's how we have flyball breeders with "champion CBCA herding stock" in their kennels, and ABCA registered dogs "going back to Wiston Cap" in mills. Because no one wants to take responsibility for anything and they blame everyone else for everything.

 

You can't mandate common sense, and that's the problem. The reason MSNs keep getting proposed is because people can't seem to take responsibility for their own actions, and even when they do, they can't agree on what "responsible" is. Even as a rescuer, I take flack from all-breed rescues for only taking purebred or high content mixes. No one can agree on anything. MSNs get proposed precisely because of this.

 

It's a fine mess our dogs are in, with no clear way out.

 

RDM

[JLP]

In fact, if you look at the statistics, the vast majority of the dogs (it's slightly different for cats) in shelters are owner relinquished.

 

Well the people that do that should not be able to. They bought or had the dog given to them by choice its theres or should be to the dog dies. Plan and simple in my oppinion. People that relinquish dogs should never be able to own another pet. They should forfeit that right when they relinquish a pet. You have to go after the dog owner, not the breeder in my oppinion. People should be responsible for there own actions when they make a choice.

[MrSnappy]

I understand, however I don't feel the need to constantly prove my intellectual prowess on this discussion board. However I do feel there are plenty of pseudo-intellectuals who DO feel the need to do so. Passion is great, however it is pointless if it is masked behind accusations and "intel-banter". Peace.

 

Do you have anything to say on the topic or do you only participate to tell people how to post and insult them? Just curious, because I've seen no indication of the former. What's your opinion on MSNs?

 

JLP said: Well the people that do that should not be able to. They bought or had the dog given to them by choice its theres or should be to the dog dies. Plan and simple in my oppinion.

 

But that doesn't take into account so many factors. Is it better for a border collie, as an example, to live with someone who has patently decided they dislike the dog and have it locked up outside in a 4 X 4 pen with no exercise or interaction, because the law says they have to keep a dog once they get it, for the remainder of its life? Or is it better that the dog be surrendered to a shelter where it can find an appropriate home? Don't you think such a law, or rule, would be punitive to the dog, which is the life we are trying to consider in this? If owners are forced to keep dogs for life, how would we enforce, or even justify, having laws that allow authorities to seize animals who are being abused?

 

You have to go after the dog owner, not the breeder in my oppinion.

 

But I don't understand why it has to be one or the other - why can't we admit that both parties are complicit in the overall problem? Dog breeders ARE dog owners too. You can't just separate them into distinct categories.

 

People that relinquish dogs should never be able to own another pet. They should forfeit that right when they relinquish a pet.

 

In an earlier thread the point was repeatedly brought up that people make mistakes and shouldn't be chastized for them, but should be able to learn from. So where does the forgiveness start and end? Who decides what mistakes are forgivable and which aren't? It's just not that black and white. There are people who surrender pets to me that are VERY good owners, but got the wrong dog. That's why MSNs aren't necessarily fair - nothing is that simple, I think.

 

RDM

[IronHorse]

Eileen;

Great topic which deserves discussion,debate,thoughts and ideas.

 

After a very long and tiring day of fence work and execising dogs I am not feeling very long winded at this hour but I am sure I will have my fair share of thoughts on this subject after my sun fuzzed brain gets some rest.

Hopefully the topic stays on track,I look forward to it.

For now so that my position is known I will make this opening statement,

 

You can't legislate common sense and good morals.

[RaisingRiver]

People that relinquish dogs should never be able to own another pet. They should forfeit that right when they relinquish a pet. You have to go after the dog owner, not the breeder in my oppinion. People should be responsible for there own actions when they make a choice.

 

I have relinquished a dog. I adopted a shy dog and it was unknowingly a fear biter. With 3 small children at the time, keeping the dog was not an option I was willing to risk and it was returned (I drove 4 hours, BTW) to the rescue where I got him from.

 

However, I am exactly the kind of person you want to adopt to. I have a lot of dog knowledge, esp in basic training and take exceptional care of my dogs. I am also a multi dog owner (what better then have a great dog owner take in more then one!) and 2 of my 3 dogs are rescues.

 

Like RDM said, I'd rather have someone turn in a dog then subject it to a life less desired or for myself, subject my family to a possible threat.

 

Good concept, but not really viable.

[Brandon M]

You can't legislate common sense and good morals.

 

I believe thats the whole point of making it a law. To impose consequences on those that disregard or have no common sense when it comes to their dog and dog breeding in general. And on those that could care less about their animals once they are relinquished, and the money that comes from donations, tax dollars, etc. It's not making common sense and good morals mandatory, it's making the lack thereof punishable. I think the only thing in question here is what the exceptions should be.

[Dixie_Girl]

The following is hypothetical.

I have a great Border Collie. He is everything a BC should be. Great health. Excellent temperment. Works sheep at trial or on my ranch like they were puppets on his string. I know a fella that has a bitch of the same qualities. We decide to breed them. All the ranching and trialing people we know are lined up to get one of these pups. 6 pups are born and 4 are sold. The other two, I and the bitch's owner keep. The people who took the 4 dogs are going to work these pups, and are hoping they are as good as their parents. And if they are, WHY would I have a s/n contract on them? That just doesn't make sense. Working lines need to be spread out, not concentrated. Those pups will (if they prove themselves) be a great contributor to the gene pool. If I were in the above situation, and sold my pup to a home I knew would never work the pup, I would ask that the pup be s/n. That makes sense. (of course, if the above were true, I wouldn't sell a pup to a non-working home, but that is just my own personal feelings)

 

Someone brought up drunk driving. At one time, even if a death occured, DD was treated as an "oh, well, these things happen." A slap on the wrist. Then came MADD and others to bring to light the horrors caused by this. We didn't outlaw cars. We didn't outlaw alcohol. We stiffened fines, but more importantly, we EDUCATED the public. The only way to cut down on the animals brought into the "system", is to educate people. Educate, fine, dictate, no. They can't force some to s/n and not others. If the above situation were true, and I was "exempt" from the hypothetical s/n law, and my neighbor down the street wasn't, that won't sit too well with them. That's just human nature. Then there will be rioting, burning of buildings, little, underground breeding rooms, puppies sold on the black market, children giving up their education to get into the covert breeding gig that brings in $1,000's of dollars......................................................

[Dixie_Girl]

Grrrrrrrr. I hate my puter mouse!

[Brandon M]

Then there will be rioting, burning of buildings, little, underground breeding rooms, puppies sold on the black market, children giving up their education to get into the covert breeding gig that brings in $1,000's of dollars......................................................

 

lol. that is definitely a bad thing. Glad I dont live near any breeders lol.

[Bill Fosher]

If dogs with gonads are outlawed, only outlaws will have dogs with gonads.

 

That's the main problem with mandatory spay/neuter laws as I see it.

 

The people who are least likely to cause the problem will obey the law. The ones who are causing the problems now will not. Even those in favor of AB 1634 in California admitted that they wouldn't be able to enforce it consistently.

[Bill Fosher]

Dixie Girl,

 

I agree with you 100 percent: if I breed a litter and sell the pups with a spay/neuter contract, what does that say about my breeding? In my opinion, if you're selling puppies that you think should not be bred, you shouldn't have produced the puppies.

[JLP]

Mr. Snappy said- But that doesn't take into account so many factors. Is it better for a border collie, as an example, to live with someone who has patently decided they dislike the dog and have it locked up outside in a 4 X 4 pen with no exercise or interaction, because the law says they have to keep a dog once they get it, for the remainder of its life? Or is it better that the dog be surrendered to a shelter where it can find an appropriate home? Don't you think such a law, or rule, would be punitive to the dog, which is the life we are trying to consider in this? If owners are forced to keep dogs for life, how would we enforce, or even justify, having laws that allow authorities to seize animals who are being abused?

Factors to me is excuses.If you choose to take a animal you choose to be the caretaker till it dies or you find a new home for it. People that decide they dont like a dog for whatever reason after they have said yes I want that dog or animal, should either find it a new home or decide to take it to a humane society. If they chose to take it to a humane society they should pay the bill for the spay/neuter and pay for the upkeep of the dog until it is placed. That in my oppinion would be the course. I dont like paying tax dollars for urresponsible people. There is already laws on the books in the U.S. for authorities to seize animals. So they are already in place here, if someone is mistreating a dog. I mean I know there would be legimate reasons for giving up a dog, perhaps granny dies and the dog has no place to go, that would be a legimate excuse. The dog has overrealming medical bills and I am sure the list can go on. But what I am saying is for the people that think they have throw away pets they shouldnt be able to just take and dump them on someone else.

 

But I don't understand why it has to be one or the other - why can't we admit that both parties are complicit in the overall problem? Dog breeders ARE dog owners too. You can't just separate them into distinct categories.

I think you can seperate them into 2 categories. It would be responsible and iresponsible. If a breeder has pups and sells or gives them away, The person now solely responsible is the party that agreed to take on responsibility for the animal. Thats the problem right there, people wont take responsibility for their decisions. We should stop giving excuses for others changing there mind are not doing right morally.

 

In an earlier thread the point was repeatedly brought up that people make mistakes and shouldn't be chastized for them, but should be able to learn from. So where does the forgiveness start and end? Who decides what mistakes are forgivable and which aren't? It's just not that black and white. There are people who surrender pets to me that are VERY good owners, but got the wrong dog. That's why MSNs aren't necessarily fair - nothing is that simple, I think.

People that surrender pets shoulds have to pay for the upkeep of the dog until it gets placed. Thats where responsibility comes in. I should'nt have to pay for someone else's mistake in tax dollars. I have made many mistakes in life so yes I know there should be forgiveness in life. So if they foot the bill they are forgiven.

[sandra s.]

People that surrender pets shoulds have to pay for the upkeep of the dog until it gets placed.

 

I agree, but don't you think many would just dump them then? If you're capable of turning around and walking away, leaving your dog at a kill shelter, it can't be all that much harder to dump him by the roadside and drive off, telling yourself he'll find a home by himself (or whatever they do tell themselves).

[JLP]

I agree, but don't you think many would just dump them then? If you're capable of turning around and walking away, leaving your dog at a kill shelter, it can't be all that much harder to dump him by the roadside and drive off, telling yourself he'll find a home by himself (or whatever they do tell themselves).

 

Well that is why I suggested that everyone that buys or has a dog given to them have a chip implanted with the owners name,address,phone number. Scan the chip when the dog is picked up and then hold the owner responsible.