Willem

I thought microchipping is mandatory?...obviously not. As a side note: I wonder whether eye scanners (like some mobile phones provide instead of finger print scanners) could be also used to identify dogs. If it would work there would be a database with the code each scan provides for each dog instead of the microchip number. The big advantage would be that you could identify any - registered dog - just via your mobile phone (if the phone has the feature)...might be handy...

:laugh: I totally love you Maddy. Hitler is dead, but his morbid ideologies wrt dissidents seems to live for ever... Eta: ...that might be actually the real cause why it is so hard to change things for the better....

...appreciate you post, and I have no problems if people - once informed about all the pro and cons - make their own decision. However it seems that recent studies about the negative impacts of de-sexing getting still ignored and I doubt that many owners of de-sexed dogs are aware of the potential health risks. I have some problems if terms like 'heating cycles', or even 'pregnancy' etc. is used in the same context like diseases - it is not a disease but a biological process mother nature designed for propagation!...and mother nature is usually pretty good with her designs...yes, there are associated risks, but I still believe more damage is done to dogs by feeding the wrong food than by letting a bitch having a normal heat cycle. I don't mind the 2-3 weeks bleeding - at least it will stop while spay incontinence might last a life time. And a bitch in season is absolutely manageable without having unwanted pregnancies. If someone thinks it is better for his/her dog to get de-sexed: I respect this, but I have problems if someone is telling me that I - or anyone else - have to de-sex the own dog too because it is the only 'ethical' thing to do.

I'm not a breeder and don't envisage to breed - conversely a breeder just breeding for money won't give a damn and if he / she really registers her bitch she/he will even try harder to get more puppies out of her to pay for the loss... Eta: just looked it up: a recognized breeder has to pay actually only AU$ 51 ...instead of the AU$ 188 I have to pay...which is ok - the problem seems to be the not registered ones, and the current approach doesn't do much to improve the situation.

...not really, I actually believe that the money I had to pay more will make a very good investment for the sake of my dog's health. However, I believe that there is something wrong if people think de-sexing is ok and needs to be promoted - and the same people would hit you with a hefty fine if you would crop the tail of your dog. As long as it doesn't cause any inconvenience for us we are pretty quick shouting 'that's animal cruelty'...but otherwise - despite significant health impacts - the majority is pretty keen to use surgical procedures to adapt animals to the needs of humans.

if you would have read the first sentence in my first post you would have recognised that this thread is not meant for you :) ...rehoming dogs to owners not able to address the needs (there are enough threads here on this forum giving evidence of owners who can't address the needs of rescue dogs) won't stop irresponsible breeding and will worsen the situation, and the more dogs you save the more they (the irresponsible breeders) will breed to replace the ones that just left the pounds...

How do they find their customers?...gumtree, newspapers I guess?...therefore they could be easily identified and made liable for future costings if the dog ends up in the pound. Or you could fine them straight on the spot if they are not registered breeders... wrt education: sometimes I get the impression that de-sexing is done to ease the search for new owners and not for preventing off-springs: it is sold as a no worry package ...no worries about the mess a bitch can make - she's de-sexed. Looks soooo easy to own a dog. And then the people find out that taking care of a dog is - despite that she is de-sexed - a lot of work: dog requires training, walks etc....dog gets neglected ...dog becomes problematic ...dog gets surrendered. People should be educated that it is not easy but a big responsibility and that they should think twice before they decide to get a dog! Yes, it will make it more difficult to rehome dogs but might lead to more responsible owners in the long term. It seems also hypocritical that we prohibit cropping of ears and tails (which has actually less negative impacts on the dog's health), but removing the uterus is not only ok, but even promoted to address our desire for convenience.

...so people who can't (or doesn't want) manage entire dogs get financial support, however owners who put a lot of effort into addressing the needs of entire dogs not?...maybe we should start with this somehow 'strange reward system' regarding required changes. I just renewed my driver licence and was positively surprised that I only had to pay half due to my driving records. If the RTA would adopt the dog registration fee scheme I guess the ones with a lot of demerit points would have to pay less so they can pay their fines...

interesting figures...assuming an average life span of 10 years, registered pure dog breeders count for just approx. 15% of the total dog population in Australia!...I guess their impact is indeed minimal...leaves: 1.unregistered back-yard breeders 2.puppy mills 3.mass production via registered breeders 4.owners who let their dog have 'this one litter'...or two... 5.accidents from dogs not de-sexed

...that's an interesting one: http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/fact-sheets/pets/pet-road-tests/dog-dumpage/#.VzKsdo9OJhE

that's the big question!...you need a licence to drive a car, a different licence to drive a bus...but no licence to marry or to own a dog ...or having kids... :D ... If there are so many irresponsible owners out there (if these are really the ones causing all the problems for the pounds), then we have to raise the question why it is so easy for them to become a dog owner?

without papers classification of any dog can be somehow dodgy; wrt 'irresponsible owners': you might be right, I still would like to see some stats disclosing from where all these dogs in the pounds are coming from. However, I believe it is more important to investigate why countries with only a small percentage of de-sexed dogs and countries like Norway where de-sexing is prohibited (exceptions are life threatening conditions) don't have this problem with overloaded pounds and straying dogs.

...take it with a pinch of sarcasm :) ...if it would be up to some members here dog owners wouldn't have a choice at all regarding de-sexing.

That is poor management on your part. If an owner is educated and responsible there will be no issues in managing entire dogs. Desexing is purely for the benefit of people who cannot adequately manage bitches in season. I am not sure how a phantom pregnancy could be distressing for you?? yeah, ...and that (poor management of other dog owners) is one of the reasons why I have to pay nearly 4 times more when I registered my dog :) ...a bitch doesn't come into heat over night, there are obvious signs!!!...it puzzles me that some dog owners use their incompetence regarding handling entire dogs to justify de-sexing!...what's next?...amputating 2 legs if the dog is too fast?

pyometra is an infection caused by bacteria and can be linked to a weakened immune system...it is no coincidence that it occurs much more often in older dogs: normal aging and heat cycles play a part, but also the devastating impact over-vaccination has on the immune system. I'm still waiting to see a study that assess the possible impact of over-vaccination on pyometra....saying this, I never saw it in our dogs and the last bitch was 17 years old when she died. Drugs (especially steroids) and the loose use of ABs seem to play a role too. I'm not saying that it is preventable in every case, but if it really should happen one day the chances for survival for my dog are much better than the chances she would have with cancer! Eta:... ...italic text...

As outlined in the title, this is a thread for the 'unethical' (but responsible) dog owner who doesn't de-sex his dog, and I'm aware that this is a very small minority here on this forum. I'm one of these 'unethical' dog owners who doesn't get their dog de-sexed. Not only do I have to defend my decision sometimes, I also get fined, e.g. where I live the registration fees are a multiple higher for entire dogs compared to de-sexed dogs: I had to pay AU$ 188 while the fee for a de-sexed dog was AU$51. Why????...I registered my dog as a responsible owner, I walk my dog, I pick up, I do obedience with her ...why do I have to pay nearly 4 times more? I'm well aware of the arguments for promoting neutering - but if we look a little bit closer, where are all the dogs in the pounds are coming from? unregistered back-yard breeders puppy mills mass production via registered breeders owners who let their dog have 'this one litter'...or two... accidents from dogs not de-sexed While there are no reliable statistics available, I would put quite some money on the assumption, that the last item in the above list is actually the one with the smallest impact. We had our first entire bitch 40 years ago and never had an 'accident'! ...we just used and still use 'Common Sense' (for the younger readers: no, 'Common Sense' is not an app you can download on your smart phone). Furthermore, it is very likely that actually the desperate efforts, trying to rescue every dog possible, contributes heavily to the indeed unethical breeding culture: as long as there are some kind of takers, irresponsible breeders will keep on going fueling the market!...in other words: the more dogs you save, the more they breed... The approach of addressing the overproduction via enforced de-sexing is IMO not only the wrong approach, but entails severe health risks: there is enough scientific evidence showing that more than 1 out of 10 de-sexed dogs will die due to cancer (and there are further significant, but non fatal, health issues associated with spaying). Ad the significant side effects due to over-vaccination and the 12-month heartworm shot with Moxidectin to the equation and it is not surprising that we see rising numbers of sad stories about dogs with severe health issues here in this forum. Another argument for de-sexing regarding behaviour improvement is also partly rebutted: while de-sexing can decrease aggression in male dogs, recent studies show that females actually will likely become more aggressive after spaying. In other countries de-sexing without necessity is animal cruelty: 'The Norwegian Animal Welfare Act makes it clear that surgical procedures are not to be used to adapt animals to the needs of humans, unless strictly necessary.' And despite such an opposing approach the Vikings don't have problems with overfilled pounds or straying dogs! Unfortunately, scientific evidence will always be beaten by the temptations of convenience, and how convenient is it not having to address the needs of an entire bitch once or twice a year?...however, the oh so highly rated convenience achieved via de-sexing might be short-lived once the health issues start.

@OP: did you change the cat food recently?...cat poo can be very attractive to dogs and a change in the cat's diet or change in the metabolism (e.g. due to age or medical condition) might make the cat poo (and the places where it can be found) even more attractive...

that's a shame, I'm really for making obedience training mandatory for all dog owners, but then of course the offered training has to address the needs of all dogs, not only the easy-to-train ones. Trigger zones are crucial for any dog and if the need for a bigger distance can't be addressed we (clubs, schools, trainers and the mortal dog owner) are doing something wrong. One dog in our class is muzzled (I assume for a reason), but that didn't hinder our or other participants training. Conversely I believe that 'more challenging dogs' in a class provide also better learning opportunities for my own dog - I don't want to train just with 'decoys', but want to prepare my dog for real world scenarios.

wrt graduating to the next class: for obedience we don't have fixed 'exam days' - if the instructor believes that you / your dog ticks all the required criteria he/she will send you to the next class. I believe this is a pretty good system - you don't fail a test, but you / your dogs gets rewarded for learning / progress. Sometimes I could recognize that the instructor focused a little bit on me and my dog, so I new he / she checked us out whether we were ready for the next level. Conversely for agility there is a fixed exam for the graduation to the next level, however the tests are not too difficult.

might be a little bit off-topic: are there agreed standards for obedience classes / levels or does every club / dog school develop own criteria?...in our club wrt obedience they offer: Beginners: focus is on socialisation, how does dog (and owner) respond to other dogs etc. Class 1: basic obedience (sit, drop)...all on-leash with occasional leash-outs at the end of the training. Class 2: more serious, more off-leash work ...heel with a lot of passing dogs and owners, longer stays (sit and drop), recalls...stand exam (it seems it doesn't have to be perfect or 100%). Class 3: refining stand exam, a lot of off-leash work, even longer stays - greater distance, more complex passing / weaving around dogs and people...recalls...recalls... in agility it is Bronze / Beginner: basic handling skills, basic jumps, tunnels...a lot of training with wobbling boards, low tables - most of it can be done with leash; Silver: introduction of weavers (only 4), chute, ...more jumps incl. tire jump and more complicated jump arrangements, low dog walk...more off-leash work; Gold:...all the other stuff... is this similar to other clubs / schools? wrt 'reactive dogs': I guess it becomes challenging when the focus on passing exercises and off-leash work increases? Eta:...all the instructors I had through the agility and obedience classes so far did and do a great job!

off course...another idea (referring to the thread title): if you are member of a club that has agility equipment you could ask to setup a group that supports reactive dogs with special agility equipment arrangements considering: a) bigger distances between obstacles, and b) equipment that allows using the lead (no tunnels, no tyre, reduced jumps etc...) such a setup would still challenge the dogs, but would allow to maintain the control via the leash...I could imagine that could be an interesting and beneficial exercise for reactive dogs...

the fun factor can be heavily compromised if you have a reactive dog trying to do agility as - conversely to other training / dog sports - it will require a lot of off-leash training. A reactive dog, nervous and easily distracted and then off-leash...seems to be a not such a good recipe for me. If I would own a reactive dog I would aim for exercises that would require less off-leash work.

...for me group training, other dogs and owners, are part of the training. At home in my backyard without distractions I know I have a perfect dog :D ...

...the judge?...I thought that most dogs and owners require some training before they are ready to compete :) and during the training there are always other dogs around, sometimes 5 dogs (with the owners) are working on different stations / sections of the course, hence there can be some kind of interference. For me the most important question would be whether the dog will still have fun during the training, or whether he is too nervous or has other conditions causing him (and the owner) too much stress, thus compromising his focus on the obstacles. Agility should be fun for all dogs and owners during the training. ETA: considering the topic 'Exercising Reactive Dog Thread' I hope this is not too off-topic; furthermore I believe that agility training isn't an exercise that would suit a lot of reactive dogs at the start of their training.