Should Spay/Neuter be Mandatory?
September 4, 2007
I followed an interesting thread on the Craig’s List Pet Forum tonight. Someone was polling the community on whether it should be mandatory that dogs and cats should be spayed or neutered. There was some discussion about breeding dogs, but assuming you could make exemptions for reputable breeders, what do you think?
Entry Filed under: In the News. .
8 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Cara | September 28, 2007 at 11:39 am
I think it should be made mandatory for dogs that aren’t intended for breeding. But it would be hard to prove that.
Plus, so many dogs at the dog park I go to are not fixed, and the boy ones pee on people to mark their territory. It’s a little obnoxious.
Fixing your dog can help make them calmer and less aggressive, which is good for all dogs. So if you aren’t intending on breeding them, why not?
What do the pro-life people say about this. Geesh.
2.
Debi | October 3, 2007 at 3:02 pm
As an owner of dogs all my life, and now involved in the Pet service industry, I am 100% in favor of mandatory spay/neuter of dogs and cats. There are far too many animals that are eventually euthanized because of un-responsible owners. Unless you are a breeder of pure breeds, and show dogs, then that would be an exception. I belong to a SPAY/NEUTER orgainazation, we encourage your pet to be “fixed” early on, and we also provide partial payment to help thoses who cannot afford the procedure. It is VERY MUCH an issue, and spay/neutering is the best way to go to ensure less killing of unwanted pets!
debi
3.
Jenn | October 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Oh I think it’s s great idea. No reason at all to not do it if not breeding. My husbands boss related a terrible story about his sweet female Sheperd mix.. had she been spayed, she would not have gotten uterine cancer. She’d still be alive now.
4.
Bobbi | October 26, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Mandatory spay/neuter is actually less effective than voluntary spay neuter - the compliance is significantly less, so few dogs are actually altered. Also, FYI, there are other legitimate reasons to breed dogs - hunting dogs, herding dogs, preservation of rare breeds, etc.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I absolutely agree that breeding a dog who can contribute to the breed — a dog who has desirable qualities of temperament, instinct and conformation — can be a good thing. And in a mandatory spay/neuter program, who gets to decide which dogs are suitable for breeding and which should not be bred? If a dog is deemed suitable for breeding, does that mean it must be bred? What if there is a dog who might be a great contributor to her breed, but because their are still homeless strays in shelters, she is spayed. Even if it were possible to enforce spay/neuter with all these considerations, what about strays and feral dogs? The whole mandatory spay/neuter idea may be a concept that makes us feel better concerning the pet overpopulation problem, but which — in practice — is unworkable.
5.
Darla | November 27, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Where did you get the statistics that “Mandatory spay/neuter is actually less effective than voluntary spay neuter - the compliance is significantly less”? That sounds irrational. Most people, even if they are irresponsible enough to breed non-purebred dogs, do not want to break the law. Why would passing a law make them less likely to neuter? These statements sound like they come from PETPAC, a front for dogfighters who pretend to be dog lovers.
6.
Bobbi | November 29, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Darla, you can look up the statistics on mandatory s/n at Best Friends Animal Society and the No Kill Advocacy Center, which both show that mandatory spay neuter is significantly less effective than voluntary. The reason is that mandatory s/n greatly decreases compliance, not just with s/n but also with licensing. It also increases relinquishments significantly.
PetPac is not a front for dogfighters. PetPac is a lobbying group formed of working dog people, purebred dog rescuers, show dog people, police dog people, herding dog people, and many others who got really mad about AB 1634 and hired a lobbyist.
I don’t have a strong opinion on PetPac one way or the other, but I probably know 50 people who have donated to them - and at least 45 of the 50 have helped us with rescue, and NONE of them are dog fighters. Several are nationally known working dog people (police dogs, herding dogs, etc.)
7.
Nancy | January 4, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I am not sure it should be manditory but I do aggree about people should have to work in the euthanasia room for a day.
That would be a very fitting punishment for what they do.
All of my dogs are spayed and neutered even my MH field champoin dogs are altered and will never be bred.
I work with a dog rescue and see so many perfectly great purebred dogs in rescue that even though mine have done everything they should have to be bred they will never be.
8.
kwing | April 27, 2008 at 1:46 pm
My thoughts on the issue is that it will affect the owners and reduce the pet population, but puppy millers will just get a permit and go on mass producing puppies legally. There needs to be a better system.