Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

[sandra s.]

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.

 

Yes, that's true. Since they don't plan to dump them at that point, the probably wouldn't mind having them chipped (at least as long as it's cheap or for free).

[Guest pax]

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.

 

 

Well, this part is true, but I think the number of people who keep intact stallions is pretty small. Gelding your colt is pretty much axiomatic unless you're planning to race it or it's bloodlines are so fabulous you let it test itself out before doing it. Also, a stallion on the move for a mare in heat is likely to kill you if you get in his way, and male dogs just jump your fence and run. So people are more responsible with gelding stallions, I think. They are just a bigger management nightmare.

 

I have had done ovarectomies in two mares to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It was an interesting thing to follow.

 

And we've been doing Norplant or somesuch in mares for a long time. Can you do that in bitches?

 

 

Anyway, no. I do not believe in MSN. I would be happy, however, to have my community offer spay/neuter incentives. Big ones.

[juliepoudrier]

I do not believe in MSN. I would be happy, however, to have my community offer spay/neuter incentives. Big ones.

I agree. With the need to spay or neuter several dogs, I have called around pricing the procedure. Low- and fixed-inclome folks don't stand a chance of being able to afford S/N of their animals. Having one of mine spayed and a small lump removed from the mammary chain cost me well in excess of $300. That's a lot. I know some shelters give out vouchers and some low-cost (and even income-based) S/N clinics exist in this area. I think a public education campaign and lots more PR for these programs would help. Around here, the low-cost clinics aren't always easily accessible, so perhaps use funds (obtained how?) to finance and furnish more mobile low-cost clinics (I'd like to see the same be done for rabies vaccines by the way. In the county I just moved from, paying a dog tax was tied to getting a rabies vaccine--a DISINCENTIVE to getting one's dog vaccinated against rabies if ever there was one--what are legislators thinking when they establish such laws? But I digress). I kind of like JLP's "big brotherish" ID of chipping all dogs and then holding the owner financially responsible for those dogs if they wind up somewhere they shouldn't be (even if it's dead in a ditch, since road clean up crews have to take care of that too and in general they get paid salaries). I don't have any great answers to the pet overpopulation problem, and the answers that make sense are rather intrusive on our personal liberties. I'd love to go after the puppy mills, but I imagine the states in which they are big business (and therefore bring lots of $$ to state coffers) aren't likely to want to stop those geese that are laying all those golden eggs.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

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.

 

Nobody likes paying tax dollars for irresponsible people, but there's no way to avoid it. If you require people to pay spay/neuter costs and upkeep costs (forever, if the dog isn't adopted?) when they relinquish a dog to a shelter, I think few people will go that route. They will either keep a dog they don't like and don't want (Is that good for the dog?) or they will dump it. Then your tax dollars pay for picking up the dog, checking the microchip (if there were even a practical way to ensure that people microchip dogs before they sell them or give them away), and tracking down the owner. Then he either keeps the dog that he now hates even more, or dumps it again, or refuses to pay. Your tax dollars are spent bringing legal proceedings against him for the money, which he may not have anyway. Multiply this by the number of dogs relinquished each year and I just don't think this is a viable solution, even though I agree with you 100% that a lot of dog owners are irresponsible, and that society (and the dogs!) end up paying for their irresponsibility.

 

BTW, I really appreciate everyone's contributions to this thread, and willingness to offer ideas to be examined and pulled apart. The CA bill was stopped in this session of the legislature, but it will be coming back next January. I have been thinking that the best way to beat it is to introduce a better bill, and I've been wrestling with what that better bill should say. Hearing a lot of different ideas about possible approaches is really helpful.

[Root Beer]

I think that my biggest argument against this is: "Who is to say who actually has a legitimate right to breed and who doesn't?"

 

The biggest puppy-mill breeder in the world could be affiliated with an organization that is deemed a "right" one to have intact dogs for breeding and a farmer who needs to breed future generations of dogs for farm work might not. There are people who breed dogs for good reasons who are not affiliated with any set organization.

 

I agree that spay/neuter incentives are a much better way to go.

[Kyrasmom]

I'm going to reply before I read the thread because I don't want to respond to anything before I just say what I feeel.

 

I don't think mandatory spay/neuter laws will greatly affect the pet overpopulation problem as I think the real dangers are the mass puppymills who sell to stores which are USDA licensed and thus would continue to operate, and back yard breeders who will add having some sort of breeding permit to their list of 'qualifications".

 

I do think there should be consequences for allowing intact dogs to wander the street and produce litters. I do think there should be consequences for people who turn in ENTIRE litters of oops (or not) pups to animal control to be put to sleep because they couldn't be bothered to alter their dogs.

 

I don't know that legislation is the key, education probably is, but I do know (or feel) that something needs to be done.

 

As I've said, we've had this law in our county for about a year now and in all honesty, it's not really being enforced on anyone beyond people whose dogs are picked up as intact stray dogs. They're getting a fine, they're being made to alter their animal, and off they go. Is it helpful for our rural community that has lots of people with no fences and even less brains? Probably, we'll know more in a few years probably. Will it put a puppymill out of business? No. Will it stop our licensed backyard breeder rancher from breeding his pups? No. So I'm very torn.

 

Maria

[Kyrasmom]

People who get their breeding stock OFA certified and DNA tested surely can't complain about a higher licensing fee to contribute to the health of the animals they claim to love. But apparently they do.

 

And let's not forget that DNA and OFA testing are not necessarily signs of responsible breeding. Should it be a requirement? For me, yes. BUT a lot of people do all the right things, including treating their animals properly, but still should not be breeding the dogs they have.

 

If the type of care and home that did all of these things in addition to being willing to pay fees were what qualified breeders, then I would be a great breeder! Heck, I would even screen people within an inch of their lives. But my dogs, precious and brilliant and wonderful and well tempered as they may be, are not qualified to reproduce.

 

Plus I wouldn't do it...but that's a whole other topic.

 

Maria

[Kyrasmom]

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.

 

So, basically the breeder who has bred this litter, and sells it, places pups in homes that possibly aren't going to be permanent becuase he doesn't do HIS homework, has no responsibility at all??? And this should promote responsible breeding how?

 

Maria

[Kyrasmom]

And my last post, without a quote because I forgot who said it so many apologies, but somewhere along the line someone asked why anyone would ever want to keep an intact dog if it was never going to be bred.

 

Well, how about "my husband has testicle issues and it's a battle that needs to be fought carefully!"

 

Sounds ridiculous, I know, and with 7 male dogs we have one that is not neutered (I've found perfect excuses for all of the others). IT's HIS dog, the dog doesn't even know he has them except for the marking, and we're very responsible people and the dog will not reproduce. Will I get him neutered? yes...I'm getting closer to my goal, but sometimes there are completely innane reasons for not neutering a dog that have nothing to do with breeding and are used by extremely responsible people who will not add to the pet overpopulation problem. My AC knows about him, so I'm by all rights in an illegal situation, but I'm also not part of the problem...thus they don't care!

 

Maria

[painted_ponies]

Here's the part of this conundrum that troubles me - we worry, and rightly so, about the effect of MSN on working farm (and also hunting) dogs, whose owners couldn't avail themselves of the "show and trial dog" exception. But you know who fills up our rural shelters with unwanted BCs and BC crosses? Yep. Folks who have BCs to work their cattle/goats/hogs/turkeys/whathaveyou. They don't spay or neuter, partly due to cost and partly because they need to produce one or two more dogs for the work. They also tend not to confine their dogs, who roam the countryside encountering other unconfined animals and producing litters.

 

The first time I did an evaluation at a rural shelter here my head was spinning. I thought I was beginning to hallucinate from the stress and see BCs everywhere I looked. And ACD and Aussie crosses.

 

I wish this weren't so. When MSN is proposed here (and I bet it's only a matter of time) there probably won't be an exception for working stockdogs because many of them do contribute to shelter overpopulation. I don't know the best way to approach this problem, but I'd love to read any suggestions.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

There are those silicone implants. You could sneak him off and get him fixed and slip in the implants. Hubby would never know! LOL

 

I understand. That seems to be the reason alot of male dogs aren't neutered.

[kelpiegirl]

What about say, 100 lbs of free dog food if you spay/neuter your dog? Or, free shots for the rest of it's life? Or, something like that- tangible, so that the average Joe will see $$ coming in for this small act? Of course it would be nice if some large dog food corps got involved...

Julie

[Kyrasmom]

There are those silicone implants. You could sneak him off and get him fixed and slip in the implants. Hubby would never know! LOL

 

I understand. That seems to be the reason alot of male dogs aren't neutered.

 

LOL! I could make hubby happy and get Will really big implants! Just joking..it'll happen sooner or later, the neutering, not the implants! And it is a reason, a bad one actually, and one I'm not comfortable with for most owners.

 

Maria

[Rosanne]

I have always thought selling puppies in stores to be a despicable practice - what if that was outlawed? Wouldn't that help shut down puppy mills in a big way? They could make exceptions for things like "adopt a dog" day with the local rescue at Petco every 2nd Saturday, as long as it was only there one day and run by a 3rd party/registered non-profit group sort of thing. Is there any other legit reason to sell dogs in a retail store? Not that I'm aware of. . .

 

Also instead of a mandatory spay/neuter of the potential parent dog, why not work it somehow into a specific penalty/fine for litters? Perhaps if you were going to have a litter you would have to "register" it with the local goverment and obtain a permit stating the reason (working dog/show dog/whatever). No permit? $10,000 fine or something ridiculous like that, with some reasonable restrictions as to number of litters per year being allowed (like 5 or so? Would any working type of breeder need more than that?? I doubt it!)

 

That at leas doesn't penalize people for having intact dogs. I have an intact male who's going on 5. Is that in and of itself irresponsible? I like to think not. He certainly never leaves our fenced yard without me.

However there's a few cocker spaniels down the road that roam every few weeks or so. If one of those was a bitch in heat and snuck into my yard when my boy was out to play there's no guarantees (I don't ALWAYS watch my dogs in my backyard; I often let them out to potty for 5 minutes on their own). But should I be penalized for that, or should the owner of the wandering bitch who will now have a (bizarre) litter of border cockers?

 

I'm not here to debate! Just trying to think of other solutions!

It wouldn't be too hard even for the government to call and check "free puppy" ads to make sure they had permit numbers handy.

Just like most of the stuff we think up, it'll never happen.

[Eileen Stein]

But you know who fills up our rural shelters with unwanted BCs and BC crosses? Yep. Folks who have BCs to work their cattle/goats/hogs/turkeys/whathaveyou. They don't spay or neuter, partly due to cost and partly because they need to produce one or two more dogs for the work. They also tend not to confine their dogs, who roam the countryside encountering other unconfined animals and producing litters.

 

The farmers I know tend not to spay or neuter their working dogs, but they also don't let the dogs roam. (Hunting dogs are another story!) I have no problem believing that in some places they do, though, and that your account is accurate.

 

But isn't that just the whole problem in microcosm? In any category you choose, whether it's the whole spectrum of dog owners, or the narrow category of livestock farmers with working dogs, some are responsible and some are not. Everybody wants to impact only the irresponsible ones, but how do you do that with punitive legislation like MSN? If you exempt all dogs that work livestock from the law, you're letting the irresponsible people in that category continue as they are. If you don't exempt them, you're keeping the responsible people in that category from breeding their dogs, to the detriment of the gene pool and the people who need the next generation of working dogs. To try to make individual determinations on a case by case basis seems totally unfeasible -- who would make the judgments, and who would pay the huge costs of all these investigations and judgments. Maybe mandatory spay/neuter of any dog caught running loose more than once (to allow, as someone said, for the once-in-a-lifetime slipup) would be the best way of dealing with the people who let their dogs run loose. Doesn't address all the other ways of being irresponsible, of course.

[Eileen Stein]

I really like the idea of banning pet store sale of puppies. It won't solve the problem by any means, but unlike most of the other proposals I don't see how it could do any harm either. As Rosanne says, I can't think of any good reason to permit dogs to be sold this way. Almost by definition, good breeders don't consign pups to pet stores.

 

I am sure the pet store/high-volume breeder complex has powerful lobbies, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth trying to pass a law like this. Can anyone see a reason why it would be a bad thing to do, or would have bad results?

[Kyrasmom]

I really like the idea of banning pet store sale of puppies. It won't solve the problem by any means, but unlike most of the other proposals I don't see how it could do any harm either. As Rosanne says, I can't think of any good reason to permit dogs to be sold this way. Almost by definition, good breeders don't consign pups to pet stores.

 

I am sure the pet store/high-volume breeder complex has powerful lobbies, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth trying to pass a law like this. Can anyone see a reason why it would be a bad thing to do, or would have bad results?

 

No, I think that would be a very good law and would impact the high volume breeders who do furnish to pet stores. Don't some states already have this legislation? I'm pretty sure California does as I've not ever seen a pet store with a puppy...but I could be wrong.

 

Maria

[Rosanne]

Unfortunately Pennsylvania has no such law. Perhaps CA is just progressed enough that people don't WANT to buy pups from stores? Not prestigious enough?

 

Here in PA we have good ole' Lancaster County, home to the Amish (and Non-Amish) Puppy Farms. Lots of 'em. Ick.

Although many of our pet puppies come from MO, oddly enough. Just what a poorly bred, poorly vetted, poorly cared for pup needs, a ride from MO to PA at 7 weeks (or younger?) old.

I've seen pups languish in stores till 6-7 months old. Just wrong. So wrong.

I know someone who "bought" an almost-year-old BC from a pet store who just hadn't sold. She basically offered them some pathetic amount and said "Look, no one is going to buy this dog now, just give her to me and I'll take her off your hands". Poor thing barely knew how to walk/run she'd been in a cage so long

[IronHorse]

What about say, 100 lbs of free dog food if you spay/neuter your dog? Or, free shots for the rest of it's life? Or, something like that- tangible, so that the average Joe will see $$ coming in for this small act? Of course it would be nice if some large dog food corps got involved...

Julie

 

Sounds good but the problem is, no such thing as "free", somebody (taxpayers) will have to pick up the tab.

 

Large dog food producers would never support laws negatively effecting thier profits, in fact they would lobby strongly against any such law

[Bill Fosher]

I have always thought selling puppies in stores to be a despicable practice - what if that was outlawed? Wouldn't that help shut down puppy mills in a big way? They could make exceptions for things like "adopt a dog" day with the local rescue at Petco every 2nd Saturday, as long as it was only there one day and run by a 3rd party/registered non-profit group sort of thing. Is there any other legit reason to sell dogs in a retail store? Not that I'm aware of. . .

 

What about my local humane society, which doesn't have enough dogs to keep up with demand. It sends vans as far away as Virginia, buys up litters of puppies and puts them up for adoption at its shelter. Of course, these are called "rescue missions," not puppy buying runs. Is it running a pet store? I argue that it is.

 

It doesn't take all that much to register as a non-profit, and non-profits can (and do) have well-paid staff members. Folks could still make money selling puppies under the guise of "rescue" and non-profit status.

[Bill Fosher]

Can anyone see a reason why it would be a bad thing to do, or would have bad results?

 

In the absence of reduction of demand for puppies, it would simply shift buyers into other distribution channels. It might have a small effect on reducing the number of puppies bought on impulse, but I seriously doubt it would have any measurable effect on shelter overpopulation, where that is a problem.

 

As much as I dislike pet store sales of puppies, it would seem that these are not likely to be the ones that are ending up in shelters. They're bought and paid for (usually quite dearly).

[Guest pax]

What about my local humane society, which doesn't have enough dogs to keep up with demand. It sends vans as far away as Virginia, buys up litters of puppies and puts them up for adoption at its shelter. Of course, these are called "rescue missions," not puppy buying runs. Is it running a pet store? I argue that it is.

 

It doesn't take all that much to register as a non-profit, and non-profits can (and do) have well-paid staff members. Folks could still make money selling puppies under the guise of "rescue" and non-profit status.

 

 

It's funny you should say this, Bill. When I moved back to Virginia last year, I did what I always do, I started dropping off bags of dog food atthe closest shelter. It's what I do, right? I don't always have time but I am a great feed supply. Anyway, this dog shelter here is almost always empty. A few strays waiting to be reclaimed occasionally, but for the most part, not a dog in sight.

 

I always wondered about that. I stopped dropping dog food and started dropping cat food but I did wonder. Maybe mine is one of the ones your's raids, it wouldn't surprise me, we would probably be majority "purebred but outgrown" given the local economics.

 

I had no idea this was a norm, is it? Or is the Great White North just a great place to rehome animals?

[OurBoys]

The backyard breeder and puppymills love the idea of pet stores not selling their pups. They don't have to split the money. Where I use to live, the local pet stores were not selling puppies but I think it was a county thing because since moving to a different county, I have found a pet store selling them. But even in the county where I use to live, the county animal shelter was and still is overcrowded.

 

IMO, honest, legit breeders should not have to pay for the greediness of BYB/puppymills. I don't know about other states but in NC, puppymillls are illegal. How many illegal operations are going to admit they are illegal so they can be fined? Personally, I feel the best way to hit the puppymills in the pocketbook is to educate the public. Teach people how to recognize a puppymill. Teach them what to look for, what questions to ask. And if they feel they've discovered a puppymill, make them feel comfortable reporting it (or uncomfortable for not reporting it). Let the authorities investigate. If the authorities find it's actually a puppymill maybe giving the person who reported it a small reward??? But then again that might open up a new can of worms.

 

There's no way we will ever completely eliminate unwanted or abandoned dogs. (Even with DD laws and MADD, people still die from DD.) The best we can hope for is a reduction in numbers. Hopefully, we can reduce the numbers to one that is more manageable.

[Rosanne]

In the absence of reduction of demand for puppies, it would simply shift buyers into other distribution channels. It might have a small effect on reducing the number of puppies bought on impulse, but I seriously doubt it would have any measurable effect on shelter overpopulation, where that is a problem.

 

As much as I dislike pet store sales of puppies, it would seem that these are not likely to be the ones that are ending up in shelters. They're bought and paid for (usually quite dearly).

 

 

Well despite the cost the owners have paid at the outset, if vet costs, a move, divorce, etc come up and they are no longer willing to keep the dog, where else can they turn? There is no breeder or rescue to give the dog back to.

 

Anyway, my point was more to take away the main customer of puppy mills, and thus help to crack down on the larger, under-the-radar puppy producing 'farms' that have no purpose other than keeping many dogs to breed them. Trying to cut off one of the mass sources of poorly bred and planned litters, rather than trying to enforce MSN at dog owners one by one.

[Rosanne]

The backyard breeder and puppymills love the idea of pet stores not selling their pups. They don't have to split the money.

 

 

How would a puppymill sell all their pups to individuals? I think that's unlikely as it would require them to open up a retail front (no one's going to want to buy a pup from a dirty cage in dirty barn), incur advertising costs, etc. Selling wholesale to retail outlets take all further responsibility for that dog's life out of the miller's hands completely. If puppymills didn't sell to stores, I'd sure see a lot less puppymill-bred dogs around here, as I live in a very suburban bedroom-community half an hour in each direction from a booming business district. There are few farms left here and pretty much no where for puppymills to sell from. And where there ARE a lot of puppymills (an hour west of me) there are few buyers and more farms. So they do need a remote, retail outlet to market their "goods", just as most places wouldn't make money selling their own corn right off the farm either. . .

 

I would lay money there's at least one or two store bought pups who were sourced from a puppymill in my neighborhood right now. Would it be here without a store to sell it to the public in my area? Very likely not. And as Bill alluded to, stores are NOT cheap...