PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET
https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041

Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please help

Hunting/Farming/Taxidermy, any topic that may get heated debate.

WARNING things may get a bit rougher here than the other forums.

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
Silverstorm
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:31 am
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Silverstorm » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:28 am

In California, they're pushing for mandatory spay and neuter laws. They want to make it illegal to breed, raise and sell litters. Right now the main focus seems to be on our domestic dogs. Some proposals also include domestic cats. California already has dog limits in place. The limit varies from county to county. It's pretty messed up. We are always fighting stupid animal legislation. Within the past few years...it seems like an endless battle. -sighs-


I do not own any exotic animals but I've joined in on the recent battle with "The Big Cats Public Safety Act". I'm happy to join in on any other anti-animal laws. I support 100% responsible animal ownership. They don't have the right to take it away from us.
=(^-^)= Corina | Along with a Clan of Cats and a Pack of Dogs.
User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Nìmwey » Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:03 am

This thread is almost three years old, but I wonder, what happened with this?

Animal owners really need to be more organized. Currently I only have REXANO and the Feline Conservation Federation to point to in defense of exotics (but the latter is of course only about felines), and articles like those of Melissa Smith.

The animal "rights" people (anti-animal I call them) are very well organized, they're everywhere in the media and constantly pushing for bans.
Meanwhile, pet owners like to point fingers at each other.

"They shouldn't be able to own tigers, but I can keep my bobcat!"
"You shouldn't be able to own any wild cat, but I'll keep my bengal hybrids."
"Well, you shouldn't be able to own venomous snakes, but I like my big pythons!"
"You shouldn't be able to have any large constrictor, but I love my colubrids", and etcetera.
Always pointing fingers saying THOSE pet owners you can ban, just not me.

There needs to be more organization, pet owners need to be united. The question is, how?
In an ideal world, there would be an international organization for all pet owners, with as much power and media coverage as PeTA (but without the lies, violence and propaganda).
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.
User avatar
pat
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6508
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:25 pm
Location: pa
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby pat » Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:34 am

nimwey,

I feel like an idiot, I didn't even see "ATX Exotics" post then :red-face: it is hard for me to read thru all the post all the time.
dont' know how I overlooked it. but, she sure made a lot of sense, and I wish I would have followed thru with her suggestions.

I always felt we need to speak up and tell our side. no matter where or how, we need to do this.
otherwise, we will continue to get hit with more bans.

I just wish all the exotic owners would pull together, and voice their opinion everywhere. and tell the truth about peta/AR lies.

we also need to stress the point that if the game comm/dnr is going to regulate exotics, they should understand and learn more about them.

thank you for starting this issue again.
Pat (Sybil and Benny's Mom)

http://sybilsden.com Sybils Den
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Ash » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:39 pm

USARK is another great one. They are mostly out there for the reptiles--but I definitely get the sense that they are pretty pro everything else too. Like the other organizations you listed, they want fair regulation. I get updates from them all the time through my email.

They have also filed a lawsuit against the US Fish and Wildlife over the constrictor "ban."

They support the ownership of all reptiles. Big, small, harmless, poisonous, venomous, etc.

And like I said, I definitely get the vibe they are pro-exotic mammals too. But they do not focus specifically on that.

Right now, it's hard enough for them to unite the reptile community... Tons of hypocrites, like you said, who think their boa constrictor is okay, but someone's gaboon is not. USARK is trying to pull the reptile owners together.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
Alynn
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Alynn » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:37 pm

Forced spay-neuter is ridiculous and any and all pet owners should be PO'd over that. California is off their rocker completely from what I've noticed in political news surrounding them.
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:23 pm

Unfortunately, though, spay-neuter laws work in terms of bringing down stray pet populations if it is enforced correctly. Education about beneficial spaying and neutering works better, but tends to be costly and reaches very few individuals. California has had some luck reducing the need for euthanasia of healthy animals by putting these laws into effect in some areas.

And, as someone who lived in California, I can testify that they need it. Most county shelters have abysmal adoption to euthanasia ratios because of the lack of homes and overproduction of strays due to poor owner responsibility.

Just as an example: My grandmother's neighbor has had approximately 10 dogs (more if you count the puppies they've birthed) in the last 5 years, and all but the three that still currently live there have been hit because they allow them to wander the streets. It wouldn't be a big deal if they lived in a more rural area, but my grandmother lives essentially on a 4 lane highway. It's residential marked at 30, but people routinely go 60+ on it because it's not in the best area and cops don't patrol it. And, when they do, they are chasing someone at 80 miles an hour, hit the dip at the end of the road, and do this to my grandmother's neighbor across the street...

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x163 ... re1916.jpg

But, off of that tangent, if spay-neuter were enacted and enforced, our neighbors wouldn't be able to mill out their dogs the way they do. They have multiple litters a year, give away the puppies, and keep a few to replace the ones they lose. Inbred, irresponsible, and completely preventable.

Yes, it's bad to enact restrictions that keep people from owning pets, but spay-neuter laws aren't aimed at that. They're just aimed at reducing the animals bred by people that own animals irresponsibly. Will it completely solve the euthanasia problem? No, it won't, but isn't every animal that doesn't have to be euthanized worth it? And I am talking about healthy, adoptable animals not the ones put down due to aggression, etc.

And, to be honest, breeder's licenses are already enforced in some ways. Almost all cities in California have a 3-4 dog limit per household, and if you want to have more you have to get a license. They are not expensive, and to be frank, if getting a breeder's license that costs an extra $30 per year per dog drives a breeder out of the market, should they have been breeding in the first place? Breeding is expensive, and $30 isn't much. If they can't afford that, what else can't they afford that puts the pups well being in jeopardy? What happens if there is an emergency?

Shoot, I have to pay $20 per cat and $25 per dog each year just to legally own my animals in the county I'm currently in here in Florida, let alone breed them (and yes, the licenses here are adjusted down if your animals are spayed/neutered, it's $60 per year per dog/cat if they are not spayed/neutered). Just a few thoughts.

I'm all for letting people own whatever animals they want and however many they want, but personal responsibility needs to play a role in that. Like I've joked to Nathan a few times, anyone interested in a cat or a dog needs to fill out the same no-cost pet permit that Florida requires for exotics in Class 3. :roll:
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Ash » Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:36 pm

The last thing I want is the government infringing even more on our rights. They're stepping in more than ever to control what we are allowed to do in our lives.

Here's the thing: I do NOT believe in mandatory spay/neuter laws EVER. BUT I agree with fair regulation.

But that's the problem these days--any attempt to get fair legislation turns into an all-out mandatory rule or ban.

The government cannot solve the problems of the people, in my opinion. Change starts with the people. You will always have bad apples that ruin it for everyone, but the government stepping in usually only makes things worse for the good, responsible people.

If it is improving the situation in CA, that is nice to hear. But I do NOT feel it is worth it to take freedoms away from the good and responsible owners. And that's just what they did. It would be different if they allowed fair regulation/legislation, but they never do, it seems.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:11 pm

I think mandatory spay/neuter is a good compromise to a bad situation. It's not taking away the right of people to own the animals, they just have to take care of them properly.

For example, most people live in counties that require licensing. That doesn't take away the right of people to own animals, just makes them trackable. Does it work 100%? No, but it can help when animals get loose. Another example would be regulating the number of animals in a household in most cities. This is reasonable, because it prevents hoarding.

Every little regulation is a tap on some freedom or another for responsible owners. But just because people that are responsible wouldn't rob someone, doesn't mean it should be legally deregulated. If it prevents more harm than it does, then it's a good law in my opinion. In this case, it's working to the benefit of the animals that would otherwise be euthanized, even if some small scale breeders have to pay a small fee. Again, there is an exemption for breeders even on the smallest scale, and it is not expensive. No more of a regulation than having a fee on keeping an exotic in some midwest states with a permit. :)
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Juska » Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:22 pm

I think everyone should have to obtain a license of some sort to buy/own pets in general, regardless of what they are, for a start. Not a permit that's impossible to obtain, more like a driver's license. You can't run out and buy a car without a driver's license, and then crash it into a tree because you had no idea what you're doing. You shouldn't be able to just go out, buy a puppy/kitten/bird/reptile/any other pet and then bring it home with NO IDEA of how to train, feed or otherwise care for it other than what you've heard from other people or seen in movies. That way parents would have to actually learn about raising an animal before deciding to buy their kid a pet for Christmas with the mindset of "we'll just wing it and see what happens".

I don't think forced spay and neuter is the answer. Maybe something on the other side of the spectrum, like if you want to keep your dog intact, file for a permit that costs money and needs to be renewed, and requires a vet visit and approval. It costs money to breed dogs so if someone wants to just try and make a quick buck on it, or they want to breed their dog on the sole fact that "they're such a nice/pretty/good/calm dog", that might deter them. Or those idiots who think every female dog should be put through at least one estrous cycle and/or bred and have to endure a pregnancy and birth BEFORE they get spayed. If I ever met the person who made up that myth I'd knock their teeth out.

Conte isn't neutered because my parents "just never got around to it". Which I really, really resent that they were that lazy. He has marking issues that I have to deal with every day. I was 15 at the time we got him, so it's not like I could've driven him to the vet and paid to have him neutered by myself. Now he's 10 years old and I'm a little scared to have it done because of the anesthesia. If he was put under and passed away just because I wanted him neutered I would blame myself for being selfish and never forgive myself. When we got Emo (I was still in school) I insisted we get her spayed immediately and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Anyway, I wish there was a way to stop people from breeding their animals when they clearly don't need to, and to stop people who just shouldn't ever be given the responsibility of caring for another living thing from going out and buying a puppy from a mill or a backyard breeder, or worse, adopting from a shelter and then returning them when they find out it's "too hard". But unfortunately the law is a little too objective to correctly decide who that is and who that isn't every single time.

I think the best thing I can hope to do is provide my well-worded, calmly explained opinion on the matter (unlike the above paragraphs) to people who are willing to listen, and hope they take it to heart and believe it. Maybe that'll change some minds, and maybe reach others that I may not have been able to reach myself.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:01 am

Juska wrote:I don't think forced spay and neuter is the answer. Maybe something on the other side of the spectrum, like if you want to keep your dog intact, file for a permit that costs money and needs to be renewed, and requires a vet visit and approval. It costs money to breed dogs so if someone wants to just try and make a quick buck on it, or they want to breed their dog on the sole fact that "they're such a nice/pretty/good/calm dog", that might deter them. Or those idiots who think every female dog should be put through at least one estrous cycle and/or bred and have to endure a pregnancy and birth BEFORE they get spayed. If I ever met the person who made up that myth I'd knock their teeth out.


Just so you know, that's exactly what the CA spay/neuter mandate is, without the need for a vet visit. It essentially forces people who want to keep their animals intact to file for a license to do so, and it costs money.

I think the misnomer on mandate is that they take your animals away if you don't spay/neuter them. They don't. They just fine you with the cost of an intact pet "breeder" license if you don't fix them after several warnings. It also doesn't cost much in the areas that these are enforced. There are free petsnip programs in SF and LA, the two places where spay/neuter is mandated. So, it costs nothing to fix them, and a fee per year if you keep them intact.

Also, just so you know, there is a lot of evidence that shows a high correlation between early castration/hysterectomies and increased rates of osteosarcomas in all breeds of dog. It's not a myth. Most people that have dogs are not responsible enough to keep their dog from being bred on their first or second estrus, but responsible dog owners actually should keep their dogs intact until 1.5-2 years of age, and then should only have a hysterectomy done on females, not an ovario-hysterectomy which is what is commonly performed in the US (the former is common in Canada, Europe, etc, US vets just aren't taught it so they don't perform it usually)
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Ash » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:23 am

Okay, understanding the CA law makes me feel differently. I feel like as long as the fee isn't ridiculous, it is okay to do. As I said, I'm all for fair regulation, and that seems fair.

I do feel though in some places, however, that the laws are just... extreme and almost impossible to work around. Last city I lived in banned pitbulls and "look-alikes"--well, they didn't "ban" them, there were just so many rules around them that it made it unfair and in my opinion, wrong. Pitbulls couldn't leave your property EVER in city limits unless they had a muzzle... If they were outdoors (even in a FENCED backyard) they would have to be on leash with a muzzle. If kept outside, they had to be in a kennel with a specific gauge that had a top and a bottom on it. There were more rules too, but it was just over the top.

The same city limited the number of animals you could keep too, but there was nothing in the laws to make exceptions for people. Nothing. Just a flat-out mandatory rule that made no exceptions. Someone who lived close by had to give up one of their pets because they didn't know the rule. They had 2 dogs and got a 3rd one. Had to get rid of the third one. No permit, no exemption, couldn't have it.

There are few exotic animal owners that want NO legislation. Most of us know that would just be dumb. We DO want legislation. But we want it FAIR and REASONABLE and not infringing.

In general, I am against the spay/neuter laws though because I've seen quite a few places that do not put exemptions in place. But I admit that in some situations it is okay as long as there is a regulation in place that allows exemptions that's easy and cheap to get.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Juska » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:14 pm

Eh, I've never heard of some of those "risks" before in spayed/neutered dogs. I know it can effect their growth, in males, sometimes, but it's not a health issue really. When I get my Akita I will probably not neuter him until he's about a year old, but that's because I want him to grow as big and strong as he can get. But he will be neutered all the same, especially because I will be getting him from a breeder and most good breeders don't want you having one of their puppies unaltered as a pet. I have seen male dogs that ended up not growing to the size their breed normally dictates, but who knows if that was from neutering "too soon" or if they were just a smaller size to begin with.

I assume you read that stuff in this article: http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog-health ... efits.aspx

"On the positive side, neutering male dogs:
eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)

On the negative side, neutering male dogs:
if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) by a factor of 3.8; this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
triples the risk of hypothyroidism
increases the risk of geriatric cognitive impairment
triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems (which can be completely avoided through proper nutrition and exercise, I don't see how this is a medical risk factor)
quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer
doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers
increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations"

I wouldn't call that a "high correlation", and it's not in call cases. And it seems to only be in dogs whose breeds are already at risk for those things. This article seems biased, in my opinion.

In females it says "The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.

But then it goes on to say:

The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically mature, or (perhaps in the case of many male dogs) foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary (?). The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next. Across-the-board recommendations for all pet dogs do not appear to be supportable from findings in the veterinary medical literature."

So yeah, I still think the article was a little biased. This isn't the case in every dog. And you can't really prove if these things are caused by the spay/neuter or if the dog was just going to have those conditions one way or another anyway. I know some breeds are very predisposed to cancers and tumors. Labs and Goldens being some of them. But that's most likely from poor breeding practices...not neutering and spaying. It doesn't say anything about the origins of the dogs tested for said "study", but then again I didn't go through the study to see if they documented it. I wouldn't call one study a lot of evidence.

I really don't agree with the not neutering males altogether. Especially when they pick up that habit of marking. We have a 10 year old male that my parents never neutered and he marks EVERYWHERE, despite every form of training I've tried to get him to stop. And it annoys the hell out of me. My parents don't care because they're not the ones who have to clean up the mess every day.

You take a risk with every procedure you have done on your pet. I had Emo spayed when she was 7 months old, and she's 9 now. She recovered from it very well and she's never had a single health problem other than an ear infection and a bug bite.

Anyway, I don't think this is the issue we should be discussing here; we should be figuring out ways to explain and persuade (in a gentle way) others from being so upset and against exotic (and domestic) pet ownership, as well as laws pertaining to them.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10340
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:01 pm

Ash wrote:USARK is another great one. They are mostly out there for the reptiles--but I definitely get the sense that they are pretty pro everything else too.


Maybe... But when an exotic ban comes up that includes non-reptiles they do not say the law is bad they seem to always just say exempt the reptiles.

BB, um if they are breaking the law now, by letting their dogs run at large and no one is enforcing it, how is another law that they will ignore too going to change anything for their dogs?

Similarly the pet limit laws mean less good homes because even if I can care for an animal well I can't take any more in but that person with one dog on a chain fed once a week can get more. If I have 50 dogs and I care for them well like by hiring staff or something to help care for them how is that bad? Hording cases are not a problem due to number they are a problem due to neglect. There are laws against neglect. If the current laws against neglect do nothing to stop the neglect then how are new laws limiting the number of pets you can have going to stop the already illegal neglect? Will people magically start enforcing and obeying the new law where they haven't bothered to the old?

You can buy a car without a license, you just can't drive it on public streets. And now we are looking at giving dogs more protection than children. Of course the comeback to that is usually you should need a license to have a kid too. Okay but I don't want to live in the same country as you where everything is that tightly regulated by the government.

Beaker is not neutered and he has never impregnated anyone and he never will and he has no marking or aggression issues, he's the most submissive dog ever. I chose not to neuter him because I believe it is healthier. This is a medical procedure. The government should not be able to mandate I have a medical procedure done without having to pay large fees/fines. I mean people can opt out of having their kids vaccinated(not that I agree with that one) and they aren't fined. PS there are a lot of studies on the effects of spay neuter not just one.
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Juska » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:39 pm

You need a license to get married which is none of the government's business, but people don't throw a huge fit about that, do they? Why not apply for a license to have children and pets? At least have it on record of who owns/has what? And yes when I say marriage license and having one like it for children and pets I mean in that sense, not the driver's license thing.

And what I meant using the car analogy was that you can't buy a car and drive it immediately onto public roads without a license. You can't, because you shouldn't, and the law is there for your benefit and for others, not to hinder you from driving. The point was, some people have the money to buy a car, or an expensive animal, but they might not have the knowledge of what they're getting into. To be more specific you might have a driver's license and think you can handle a Porsche 918, when in reality you have no clue how a sports car handles or drives, and all the experience you've had is in your Toyota Prius. You may very well literally crash and burn.

Not to mention driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to earn the privilege to drive. Because once you're on the road you become not only responsible for yourself but the lives of other drivers on the road and everything around you. Which is why people comply with registration and inspection laws on their vehicles. I don't see why they can't do it with dogs as well. Maybe it's because people don't care about their animals like they do their cars, because they don't depend on their dog to get them to work, or maybe they just really don't care enough to spend the money on them. Which in my opinion means you shouldn't have a dog to begin with.

But then again, the people who sell sports cars are probably more likely to talk you out of buying one if you're not ready for one, because they don't want you wrecking such a nice car, when the used car dealer down the road from you will sell you a ticking time bomb as long as your check doesn't bounce.

Anyway. Dogs are not cars. Just an example of two things I know pretty well that fit an analogy.

Maybe what we should push for is more regulation sponsored by breeders that are selling them and NOT laws pertaining to individual ownership itself. Maybe push for puppy/other pet mills to get shut down completely and pet stores from selling those milled animals. I'm ashamed to live in the state that has the worst offending population of puppy mills in this country (Lancaster County, PA to be specific).

Perhaps starting at the source of the "problem" would be an easier target to set for ourselves. That way it would take the bickering about ownership morals out of the equation and people would stop uselessly arguing about semantics.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:22 pm

Juska wrote:Eh, I've never heard of some of those "risks" before in spayed/neutered dogs. I know it can effect their growth, in males, sometimes, but it's not a health issue really. When I get my Akita I will probably not neuter him until he's about a year old, but that's because I want him to grow as big and strong as he can get. But he will be neutered all the same, especially because I will be getting him from a breeder and most good breeders don't want you having one of their puppies unaltered as a pet. I have seen male dogs that ended up not growing to the size their breed normally dictates, but who knows if that was from neutering "too soon" or if they were just a smaller size to begin with.

I assume you read that stuff in this article: http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog-health ... efits.aspx

"On the positive side, neutering male dogs:
eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)

On the negative side, neutering male dogs:
if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) by a factor of 3.8; this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
triples the risk of hypothyroidism
increases the risk of geriatric cognitive impairment
triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems (which can be completely avoided through proper nutrition and exercise, I don't see how this is a medical risk factor)
quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer
doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers
increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations"

I wouldn't call that a "high correlation", and it's not in call cases. And it seems to only be in dogs whose breeds are already at risk for those things. This article seems biased, in my opinion.

In females it says "The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.

But then it goes on to say:

The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically mature, or (perhaps in the case of many male dogs) foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary (?). The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next. Across-the-board recommendations for all pet dogs do not appear to be supportable from findings in the veterinary medical literature."

So yeah, I still think the article was a little biased. This isn't the case in every dog. And you can't really prove if these things are caused by the spay/neuter or if the dog was just going to have those conditions one way or another anyway. I know some breeds are very predisposed to cancers and tumors. Labs and Goldens being some of them. But that's most likely from poor breeding practices...not neutering and spaying. It doesn't say anything about the origins of the dogs tested for said "study", but then again I didn't go through the study to see if they documented it. I wouldn't call one study a lot of evidence.

I really don't agree with the not neutering males altogether. Especially when they pick up that habit of marking. We have a 10 year old male that my parents never neutered and he marks EVERYWHERE, despite every form of training I've tried to get him to stop. And it annoys the hell out of me. My parents don't care because they're not the ones who have to clean up the mess every day.

You take a risk with every procedure you have done on your pet. I had Emo spayed when she was 7 months old, and she's 9 now. She recovered from it very well and she's never had a single health problem other than an ear infection and a bug bite.

Anyway, I don't think this is the issue we should be discussing here; we should be figuring out ways to explain and persuade (in a gentle way) others from being so upset and against exotic (and domestic) pet ownership, as well as laws pertaining to them.


Actually, I don't base my information on articles on unknown websites. It actually is a large issue recognized, and there is plenty of literature to support it.

I'm not sure how much you guys can see, I have college related access to online journals, but I'll try to excerpt the main points:

"Endogenous Gonadal Hormone Exposure and Bone Sarcoma Risk"
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434

"To determine whether there was an association between endogenous sex hormones and risk of bone sarcoma, relative risk (RR) of incidence rates and hazard ratios for bone sarcoma were calculated for dogs subdivided on the basis of lifetime gonadal hormone exposure. Bone sarcoma was diagnosed in 12.6% of dogs in this cohort during 71,004 dog-months follow-up. Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact [RR ±95% CI = 3.8 (1.5–9.2) for males; RR ±95% CI = 3.1 (1.1–8.3) for females]. χ2 test for trend showed a highly significant inverse dose-response relationship between duration of lifetime gonadal exposure and incidence rate of bone sarcoma (P = 0.008 for males, P = 0.006 for females). "

In other words, early spay/neuter on dogs under 1 year not only was more likely to cause bone cancer than those that were left intact for the rest of their lives, but also more than the average of the "control" dogs what were environmentally controlled. Early spay neuter resulted in ~25% chance of developing bone cancer, control was 12.6%, and those left intact for their lifetime were 3.8% and 3.1% for males and females respectively.

"Long-Term Health Effects of Neutering Dogs: Comparison of Labrador Retrievers with Golden Retrievers"
http://mw8xt6bj7r.search.serialssolutio ... dict=en-US

"The cancers examined were lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, mast cell tumor, and mammary cancer. The results for the Golden Retriever were similar to the previous study, but there were notable differences between breeds. In Labrador Retrievers, where about 5 percent of gonadally intact males and females had one or more joint disorders, neutering at <6 mo. doubled the incidence of one or more joint disorders in both sexes. In male and female Golden Retrievers, with the same 5 percent rate of joint disorders in intact dogs, neutering at <6 mo. increased the incidence of a joint disorder to 4–5 times that of intact dogs. The incidence of one or more cancers in female Labrador Retrievers increased slightly above the 3 percent level of intact females with neutering. In contrast, in female Golden Retrievers, with the same 3 percent rate of one or more cancers in intact females, neutering at all periods through 8 years of age increased the rate of at least one of the cancers by 3–4 times. In male Golden and Labrador Retrievers neutering had relatively minor effects in increasing the occurrence of cancers. Comparisons of cancers in the two breeds suggest that the occurrence of cancers in female Golden Retrievers is a reflection of particular vulnerability to gonadal hormone removal."

That's in pretty plain English, so I don't think there is much to translate from journal jargon. Neutering at less than 6 months is a huge increase in all cancers, and again, leaving the animal intact for it's lifetime is the lowest risk for ALL cancers including mammary cancer. This study builds on the following study of just Goldens:

"Neutering Dogs: Effects on Joint Disorders and Cancers in Golden Retrievers"
http://mw8xt6bj7r.search.serialssolutio ... dict=en-US

"Outcomes at the 5 percent level of significance are reported. Of early-neutered males, 10 percent were diagnosed with HD, double the occurrence in intact males. There were no cases of CCL diagnosed in intact males or females, but in early-neutered males and females the occurrences were 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Almost 10 percent of early-neutered males were diagnosed with LSA, 3 times more than intact males. The percentage of HSA cases in late-neutered females (about 8 percent) was 4 times more than intact and early-neutered females. There were no cases of MCT in intact females, but the occurrence was nearly 6 percent in late-neutered females. The results have health implications for Golden Retriever companion and service dogs, and for oncologists using dogs as models of cancers that occur in humans."

CCL=cruciate tear, HD= hip dysplasia, LSA=lymphosarcoma, HSA=hemangiosarcoma, MCT=mast cell tumor. Again, more cancer, more joint problems, best results are dogs left intact through their whole lives. in the case of HSA early neutering may be better, but that conflicts other data given previously.

Perhaps the most troubling study of all regarding the supposed benefit of early neutering on mammary tumors:

"The effect of neutering on the risk of mammary tumours in dogs – a systematic review"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy. ... x/abstract

"A commonly-stated advantage of neutering bitches is a significant reduction in the risk of mammary tumours, however the evidence for this has not previously been assessed by systematic review. The objectives of this study were to estimate the magnitude and strength of evidence for any effect of neutering, or age of neutering, on the risk of mammary tumours in bitches. A systematic review was conducted based on Cochrane guidelines. Peer-reviewed analytic journal articles in English were eligible and were assessed for risk of bias by two reviewers independently. Of 11,149 search results, 13 reports in English-language peer-reviewed journals addressed the association between neutering/age at neutering and mammary tumours. Nine were judged to have a high risk of bias. The remaining four were classified as having a moderate risk of bias. One study found an association between neutering and a reduced risk of mammary tumours. Two studies found no evidence of an association. One reported “some protective effect” of neutering on the risk of mammary tumours, but no numbers were presented. Due to the limited evidence available and the risk of bias in the published results, the evidence that neutering reduces the risk of mammary neoplasia, and the evidence that age at neutering has an effect, are judged to be weak and are not a sound basis for firm recommendations."

This systematic review looked at all of the available data, used a human medicine guideline to determine bias, and the results basically stated that there is too much bias to determine any information whatsoever and that a decreased risk of cancer was not shown in correlation with spaying females under a year, or even spaying them at all. So, actually, there is little to no evidence to suggest that spaying solves the mammary tumor problem.

Also, HSA, LSA, and OSA are all ridiculously common cancers, and almost always malignant. Mammary, Mast Cell, Prostate (all supposed benefits of spaying/neuter young) are rare to start with, and almost always benign. Just some food for thought.

TamanduaGirl wrote:BB, um if they are breaking the law now, by letting their dogs run at large and no one is enforcing it, how is another law that they will ignore too going to change anything for their dogs?

Similarly the pet limit laws mean less good homes because even if I can care for an animal well I can't take any more in but that person with one dog on a chain fed once a week can get more. If I have 50 dogs and I care for them well like by hiring staff or something to help care for them how is that bad? Hording cases are not a problem due to number they are a problem due to neglect. There are laws against neglect. If the current laws against neglect do nothing to stop the neglect then how are new laws limiting the number of pets you can have going to stop the already illegal neglect? Will people magically start enforcing and obeying the new law where they haven't bothered to the old?


That's why I specifically said that it needs to be enforced. Some areas enforce their stray dog laws, some don't. In the areas where the spay/neuter mandate is enforced, so are stray dog laws (usually, I can't say that's true for ALL of city limits in SF and LA). If it is enforced, it would help control. But again, I did mention it would not solve the problem 100%, but if it helps at all it's a good thing.

It's great that you are a good dog owner. While we're on the car analogy, I'm sure you're a great driver, too. But just because you are able to drive a car well and not break laws doesn't mean we don't need insurance, or cops to police, or a license to drive in the first place. Sure, it costs you a little bit of money to get a license, and probably a lot more to get insurance. But, it's better that way because people who do break the law get ticketed ("fined" in the case of an intact dog in a mandate area), and if they repeatedly break the law they lose their license. This latter step is not written into the CA law, but I do believe if the owner refuses to pay the "fine" they have x-amount of days to pay (usually 30), then they can have their dog impounded.

And, as Juska said, owning animals is a privilege, not a right. Same with having kids. If you neglect or mistreat them, they are taken away. No one has the "right" to anything unless they take care of it properly, which includes following laws. And in this case, taking care of them includes feeding, watering, housing, and spaying/neutering unless you obtain a license to do otherwise.
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys

Return to “Controversial ANIMAL Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest