Monday, January 21, 2008
Unsurprisingly, the one entity that disagrees is the American Kennel Club (AKC). Time and again, the AKC acts to support irresponsible breeders, instead of accountable pet owners. Time and again, the AKC makes false accusations to protect their interests. They state: "If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by this bill would be detrimental to responsible dog breeders and owners while having no impact on any pet population issues."
Such a law would have no impact on pet population issues, or more specifically euthanization issues? A mandatory spay/neuter law most certainly would. Dog owners -- wake up -- the AKC hardly assists responsible dog owners. In fact, by continuously enabling irresponsible owners and breeders, they hurt good dog owners and ensure that many pets are killed.
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 1/22/2008 7:37 AM |
What many dog lovers don't understand is that the owners of dangerous breeds are quickly forcing communities to restrict and ban ALL dogs from public places. Thank the pit bull owners for the banning of dogs from public parks and recreation areas....the responsible breeders of non-aggressive breeds should stop supporting the anti-BSL movement, and realize that reasonable restrictions on breeds like pit bulls....microchip, mandatory spay and neuter of non show dogs.....is preferable to regulations on all breeds.
Unfortunately, now the breeders of Italian greyhounds and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels have to bear the burden the pit bull lobby has brought down on them.
| 1/22/2008 5:01 PM |
Gee, lamneth...here in the Northeast we have had great success with spay and neuter education; so great, in fact that Massachusetts and New Hampshire shelters are actually importing puppies from other parts of the country to fill the need. Check out the "Puppies Across America" program at the Northeast animal shelter in Salem, Ma.
We are even importing stray, feral street dogs from Puerto Rico to fill the demand for adoptable dogs...see the "Save a Sato" program.
Ironically, we still have a disproportionate amount of pit-bull type dogs ending up in shelters. Check the outrageous number of pit bull terriers and American Staffordshire terriers listed on Petfinder...and that doesn't even include the dogs listed as "terrier mixes" or "Boxer mixes", which are obviously pit mixes.
So, while voluntary spay and neuter education may work with the majority of the dog owning public, it has not been effective with the types of people who own and breed pit bulls. Thus the need for BREED SPECIFIC laws to control the pit bull population.
| 1/22/2008 5:53 PM |
spay neuter CAUSES health problems?
if it does, the avma isn't telling.
in fact, it states that for females it helps protect them from uterine infections and breast cancer.
and for males, it reduces the risk of prostate disease, testicular cancer and infections.
not to mention, reducing anxiety and aggression and other behavior problems which can lead to dumping the dogs at the shelter which can lead to euthanasia.
it makes no sense not force this.
| 1/23/2008 3:40 AM |
"Voluntary spay and neuter education may work with the majority of the dog owning public, it has not been effective with the types of people who own and breed pit bulls. Thus the need for BREED SPECIFIC laws to control the pit bull population."
Exactly! San Francisco enacted mandatory spay/neuter programs after first offering these services for FREE to put bull owners. The Bay Area is still suffering from an overpopulation of pit bulls. Nearby SF communities are still offering free "fix pit" programs as well...
| 1/23/2008 10:55 AM |
Uncensored information on the effects of spay/neuter are hard to find. But here are some of the studies on one of my pages:
Even with all of the information, spay/neuter is still usually the best option for the average pet owner. People should make an informed decision whether to alter their pets or not and accept the responsibility of their pet's actions. A one size fits all policy forcing all owners to spay/neuter their pets is not fair to those who are responsible and have personal reasons they do not want to alter. You don't have to agree with their opinions but some people see it as mutilation, unnecessary as long as you are responsible, traumatic to females, risky to certain breeds, detrimental to working ability/drive, may want to responsibly breed the dog, show in conformation...etc.
Irresponsible owners who let their pitts and rotts attack people do not license their pets and would not spay or neuter even if it was required. Even banning breeds is hard to enforce and if you could even make all of the pitts and rotts disappear you would still have the irresponsible owners. These people would just get another macho aggressive dog like a dobe, shepherd, Black Russian Terrier or Bouvier. Then what, ban dogs?
I don't want to live in a police state, supervision is not freedom. But freedom comes with responsibility. I really think charging people with manslaughter when their dogs kills the first time would make people think twice about what breed they get! Some states like VA allow a one free bite/attack/death...absurd! Owners should be held liable when their dog attacks no matter what breed it is.
| 1/24/2008 12:49 PM |
So, Lamneth...your solution is to wait until our neighbors dog mauls or kills us, then be happy the owner goes to jail? That's little comfort to the mother of a dead child. Or little help to the victim of a dog attack facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstructive surgery, or permanent disability. Many owners of pit bulls are judgement proof......no property, assets, or insurance. I'm all for criminal liability for serious dog attacks, but that alone won't prevent attacks.
The goal is prevention....there are already several cases of owners going to jail for allowing their dogs to kill someone, yet the death toll from dog attacks keeps rising. You say irresponsible owners won't s/n their dogs anyway, so why bother? Because the first time that Rott or pitt escapes the yard and charges through the neighborhood, terrorizing people, neighbors can call AC and have the dog removed IMMEDIATELY....and not returned until the owner pays for s/n. It gives AC and law enforcment a tool to legally remove a dog from an irresponsible owner BEFORE it attacks someone, and it will stop back yard breeders who are largely responsible for breeding unstable animals.
I'm sorry if there are a lot men out there who feel there is a direct correlation between their dogs testicles and their own virility. I'm sure we can protect the rights of working dogs and owners who are actually competing in dog sports/confirmation. If you are so concerned about the health issues surrounding S/N, we can craft a law that allows you to wait until the dog is a year old, until the bitch has one heat and the dogs growth plates close, but only with a note from your veterinarian showing an appointment scheduled. And if you "accidently" have a litter, you can get sacked with a big fat fine.
So really, there are no logical objections to mandatory s/n of companion animals, other than a lot of men's vanity over being seen walking a neutered dog.