U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2007, 11:21 AM
 
450 posts, read 1,840,544 times
Reputation: 303

Advertisements

I hope I am not opening up a real can of worms--but I feel this is a hot issue and will get even hotter. I know that it is often a good idea to perform this procedure because of overpopulation and crowed animal shelters. But put that aside for now and consider if the government has the right to tell you that your pet cannot remain "intact".

You know that our pets are family members. We should take precautions to make sure they do not contribute to the overpopulation problem. But should this not be voluntary and up to the individual owner--I hestitate to even say "owner" because although I am responsible for my pet I do not really "own" it. But the government has even less of a claim to ownership.

If you have a mongrel mutt or an alley cat the government wants mandatory sterilization. Only approved breeders could leave animals intact. What if I want to breed my mutt and find homes for the puppies? What if I think my cat is happier intact and I responsibly keep her from being exposed to the risk of having kittens. Oh, you will slip up, says the government bureaucrat.

Well, then I will take responsiblity for it. If I go on a swing set, trampoline, or rappel on a rock wall I take responsibility for it. Oh, that is next. Too much of risk. Not allowed.

Seriously, if you view your pet as a member of your family, how can you allow the government to decree mandatory sterilization? Now, you may have the procedure done, yourself, as a responsible "parent" to the pet. I don't object to that. But should the government no just butt out of it?

Whaddya all think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2007, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Tejas
7,551 posts, read 16,406,753 times
Reputation: 5092
If your animal roams, like cats or whatever. I think it needs to be neutered no matter what. If your animal is a house / yard animal that cannot get out, then it should be up to the owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 12:28 PM
 
1,210 posts, read 1,108,859 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt View Post
I hope I am not opening up a real can of worms--but I feel this is a hot issue and will get even hotter. I know that it is often a good idea to perform this procedure because of overpopulation and crowed animal shelters. But put that aside for now and consider if the government has the right to tell you that your pet cannot remain "intact".

You know that our pets are family members. We should take precautions to make sure they do not contribute to the overpopulation problem. But should this not be voluntary and up to the individual owner--I hestitate to even say "owner" because although I am responsible for my pet I do not really "own" it. But the government has even less of a claim to ownership.

If you have a mongrel mutt or an alley cat the government wants mandatory sterilization. Only approved breeders could leave animals intact. What if I want to breed my mutt and find homes for the puppies? What if I think my cat is happier intact and I responsibly keep her from being exposed to the risk of having kittens. Oh, you will slip up, says the government bureaucrat.

Well, then I will take responsiblity for it. If I go on a swing set, trampoline, or rappel on a rock wall I take responsibility for it. Oh, that is next. Too much of risk. Not allowed.

Seriously, if you view your pet as a member of your family, how can you allow the government to decree mandatory sterilization? Now, you may have the procedure done, yourself, as a responsible "parent" to the pet. I don't object to that. But should the government no just butt out of it?

Whaddya all think?
Sounds good to me..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Southeast Idaho
4,663 posts, read 15,800,456 times
Reputation: 2520
Coming from a point of view of health reasoning, I can't see why anyone would want to keep their pet intact. You're lower cancer risks in a large way when you spay/neuter.

To the OP, if you had your "mutt" and wanted to breed and give away the puppies, are you going to ask the new owners to spay/neuter? If not, then you can see where it becomes a problem with overpopulation. It's a given that there are not enough homes out there for the dogs and cats that are homeless, why add to it?

I can wholly understand breeding for the betterment for a breed and then also having the sire and dam under a vet's care and all health testing done on them, no problem there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Camano Island, WA
1,913 posts, read 8,244,021 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt View Post
I hope I am not opening up a real can of worms--but I feel this is a hot issue and will get even hotter. I know that it is often a good idea to perform this procedure because of overpopulation and crowed animal shelters. But put that aside for now and consider if the government has the right to tell you that your pet cannot remain "intact".

You know that our pets are family members. We should take precautions to make sure they do not contribute to the overpopulation problem. But should this not be voluntary and up to the individual owner--I hestitate to even say "owner" because although I am responsible for my pet I do not really "own" it. But the government has even less of a claim to ownership.

If you have a mongrel mutt or an alley cat the government wants mandatory sterilization. Only approved breeders could leave animals intact. What if I want to breed my mutt and find homes for the puppies? What if I think my cat is happier intact and I responsibly keep her from being exposed to the risk of having kittens. Oh, you will slip up, says the government bureaucrat.

Well, then I will take responsiblity for it. If I go on a swing set, trampoline, or rappel on a rock wall I take responsibility for it. Oh, that is next. Too much of risk. Not allowed.

Seriously, if you view your pet as a member of your family, how can you allow the government to decree mandatory sterilization? Now, you may have the procedure done, yourself, as a responsible "parent" to the pet. I don't object to that. But should the government no just butt out of it?

Whaddya all think?

Good topic, Kurt.
Just like BSL laws, once cities start passing laws such as BSL, it will only have a snowball effect with things like this.
In this case there will always be stray dogs and cats.
Even if it was a "law" there would still be people that would break it.
I say a firm, no to mandatory spay/neuter.

It'll be interesting to read what other opinions are shared here.

OP, how do you feel about the government with this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Tejas
7,551 posts, read 16,406,753 times
Reputation: 5092
I meant to say mandatory no, but it should be done anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Marion, IN
8,191 posts, read 28,143,932 times
Reputation: 7119
Agreed, it is much healthier for the animal to have the procedure. If I am not mistaken, breeders are exempt but they must be registered. Sometimes the government needs to step in when the populace needs a nudge in the right direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Camano Island, WA
1,913 posts, read 8,244,021 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
I meant to say mandatory no, but it should be done anyway.

Exactly. It should be done to prevent the thousands of homeless animals out there. But when the govt steps in and puts a fist down to say it's mandatory....that's where I have the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 01:54 PM
 
528 posts, read 2,233,421 times
Reputation: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleosmom View Post
Coming from a point of view of health reasoning, I can't see why anyone would want to keep their pet intact. You're lower cancer risks in a large way when you spay/neuter.

that's certainly true, but - in some cases or in some breeds, you may be heightening the risk:

"Research has linked early neutering and spaying before first cycle to significant increases in the risk of osteosarcoma in Rottweilers.
The researchers found that 14.8% of the Rottweilers studied developed appendicular bone cancer. The relative risk was 1.65 castrated males, 1.34 in spayed females and 1.03 in intact females. The risk of developing bone cancer was significantly higher in animals that were neutered at less than 1 year of age compared with intact animals."
(Dr. B. C. Beranek, Purdue University).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2007, 05:13 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
12,452 posts, read 31,583,379 times
Reputation: 8157
Is the manatory S/N Free? and what about the "breeders" that are "mixing" the breeds [sample: Cocker Poos, Lab poos, etc] ? That's not true breeding to improve any thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top