Frankston Council (vic)

[Steve]

Cats have a different life cycle and they dont pose the same issues as dogs when they wander and unless someone is breeding cats in my opinion they should be desexed.

However, I dont think people sholud have no choices in whether they want to desex. I dont think the council should drum up business for Vic dogs and I think the solution is to fine them.

First time if the dog is chipped and registered give them a free ride home and counsel them about what they need to do to ensure it doesnt happen again. If it does happen again fine them.

If the dog isnt chipped and registered either return them with a fine and counsel them about what to do to prevent it happening again

including recommend desexing or if its unclaimed rehome desexed.

If council warned people they were coming and then paid 2 Rangers to go house to house to check dogs making sure they were registered and chipped and that the fencing was adequate for the type of dog they owned and spoke with them about what they need to know to put their act together life would be much better for all dogs.Thats a much better preventative approach.

Desexing DOES have side efects and taking away an animals hormones which CAN lead to health issues should be a decision a person gets to make about their own dog based on what they feel is right for that dog in conjunction with their vet REGARDLESS of what breed or part thereof and definitely regardless of whether they are registered with Vic dogs!

[BJean]

I don't believe there is a dog over population problem but i do think there is a cat over population problem.

What do you think about mandatory cat desexing?

I dont know enough about the nuances of cats or cat ownership to assert what other people should be doing with them.

I don't think the aim should be to reduce the number of companion animals- but i do think changes that redirect the source of such animals is very important and i don't see how this law punishes reponsible owners who have also purchased their dog from appropriate sources and registered the dog with the local council.

who defines 'appropriate'? see Steve's post re other registering bodies

I actually agree with many of your points Lilli- particularly relating to the community attitude problem. I think this legislation stops those people with the attitude problem who don't want to be educated, from breeding their dogs.

unfortunately it also removes basic rights of EVERY dog owner.

This is the kind of thing that was spoken about by Frankston council at the conference i attended- they weren't talking about over population as the reason, (except cats) they were talking about BYB and this being a way to try to stop it.

Making all residents of Frankston desex their dogs was the best solution that the conference brains trust came up with? golly gosh.

Do they realise that dogs can be sourced outside of Frankston???

Seems to me if they wanted to impact byb in frankston, they would make it a legal requirement that you be a registered breeder with a recognised association, just as it is a legal requirement that the dogs be registered.

Frankston council doesnt want members of their public to own entire dogs, and it seems most respondants agree.

Just remember that when you are happy with infrastructure in place that determines what type of dog you can own, and how you shall keep that dog to the point of surgical alteration, it does not give you much room to move when they then tell you nope only DAMs can own entire dogs.

Im surprised with not only the ease with which mandatory legistlation was passed, but the passive compliance and supine endorsement from supporters - particularly when such impacting legistlation is not specifically directed at its supposed byb target.

Notwithstanding that most supportors cite strays and unwanted pets as the reason why they support mandatory desexing, when mandatory desexing wont prevent cats/dogs from being unwanted So why support mandatory desexing? .

You all like to be forced to desex you dogs and all revel at the opporutnity to force other owners to desex their dogs,

yet there is no rational, strategic reason why.

stupendous

oh well!

have a great Friday and weekend!

Edited January 22, 2010 by lilli

[gareth]

If you don't plan on mating your dog then there's no reason not to desex it.

Such a naive statement.

Desexing DOES have side efects and taking away an animals hormones which CAN lead to health issues should be a decision a person gets to make about their own dog based on what they feel is right for that dog in conjunction with their vet REGARDLESS of what breed or part thereof and definitely regardless of whether they are registered with Vic dogs!

Thanks Steve.

[Cosmolo]

I am hardly revelling at owners being forced to desex their dogs Lilli. I am looking at the big picture and trying to explore others ideas about responsible owners being disadvantaged. I don't live in the area either so the legislation does not affect me as yet, i am just a person with an opinion that differs to yours.

The legislation was already in force before the conference i attended so no its not the best the conference came up with. With regards to forcing people to be registered with a governing association- who determines what an appropriate governing body is? The same issue as who decides on 'appropriate sources' will exist here.

I am genuinely interested in what issues people have with such legislation as i had not seen a problem with it and struggled to think of an alternative. However the alternative Steve mentioned would be ideal- but would need to be done regularly to be effective.

I guess the problem with who defines 'appropriate sources' is never going to be clear cut. Lets say you opened it up to dogs that have their own registries- would people then complain about the oodles with registries being allowed to continue breeding? I think its very important to be able to trace dogs to point of sale- perhaps this kind of focus would be beneficial in some way.

I have a question for Steve- on the Frankston website, there are 3 different bodies that allow exemptions for cats and only one for dogs. Has the MDBA approached the council in relation to being added onto the exemption list? Or is that something that could be done in future? Would that resolve concerns to a satisfactory degree?

[BJean]

I am hardly revelling at owners being forced to desex their dogs Lilli. I am looking at the big picture and trying to explore others ideas about responsible owners being disadvantaged. I don't live in the area either so the legislation does not affect me as yet, i am just a person with an opinion that differs to yours.

Apologies Cosmolo I was referring to the generic of 'all supporters' with 'you all'

and it was not intended as a direct reference to yourself

[Steve]

The MDBA approached the Victorian Government to have exemptions for our members. Some of our members breed and own animals which are not recognised as breeds with the ANKC and some are working toward breed recognition but have a way to go yet.

The legislation has a clause in it which only allows exemption for registries for the dogs not for the people.As we dont keep a regsitry of our members dogs we dont qualify.

But it goes further than that - EVERYone should have equal rights in our society and if someone wants to breed their dog or if they want to keep it entire that should be their choice.Its disgraceful that an owner only has the right to choose if its a purebred which has come from a registered breeder.

Many of our pet owner members own dogs which are not purebred but they have agreed to a code of conduct which is an acknowledgment that they know the issues and that they will ensure their dogs dont wander .Given that desexing a male dog especially before he is 12 months old increases the risks of HD by 73% and a whole bunch of other stuff caused by no testosterone or estrogen affects dogs for the rest of their lives it shouldnt come down to whether or not its registered as a breedding dog with Vicdogs before an owner has the right to choose whats best for their dog.

You cant have it both ways. You cant educate people on being responsible and their animals not being at large and upsetting people but not on being knowledgeable about desexing issues.

This is basic Magna Carter stuff - Basic property right .We own our dogs and as long as they are being well treated and not causing a problem we should have the right to decide on whether we want to yank out their organs.That should not rely on whether they were bred by registered purebred breeders and especially not as to whether they are registered in the owners name on Vic Dogs registry.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Steve

[BJean]

I guess the problem with who defines 'appropriate sources' is never going to be clear cut. Lets say you opened it up to dogs that have their own registries- would people then complain about the oodles with registries being allowed to continue breeding? I think its very important to be able to trace dogs to point of sale- perhaps this kind of focus would be beneficial in some way.

There is already a move to have the Pet Breeders Association (or similar) officially recognised so mandatory desexing wil not impact the breeding of cross breds.

The Pet Breeders Association will and should get recognition - the former because cross breeds/non-closed-pedigree dogs are regarded by the rspca as being better for animal wefare, and the later because if people wish to breed a cross breds, they should have the right to do so.

Edited January 22, 2010 by lilli

[Steve]

I guess the problem with who defines 'appropriate sources' is never going to be clear cut. Lets say you opened it up to dogs that have their own registries- would people then complain about the oodles with registries being allowed to continue breeding? I think its very important to be able to trace dogs to point of sale- perhaps this kind of focus would be beneficial in some way.

There is already a move to have the Pet Breeders Association (or similar) officially recognised so mandatory desexing wil not impact the breeding of cross breds.

The Pet Breeders Association will and should get recognition - the former because cross breeds/non-closed-pedigree dogs are regarded by the rspca as being better for animal wefare, and the later because if people wish to breed a cross breds, imo they should have the right to do so.

I also agree that there should be equality in the law which is not based on breed.

When they wake up that its not about the dogs but rather about the people life will be much simpler.

[Cosmolo]

OT but Steve can you give me the link with regards to the increased risk of HD in dogs desexed early. Interested as i have a dog with HD and ED who was desexed early as he was adopted from a shelter.

I see the points you're making and now i fall in the middle I still think this legislation has some merit, BUT i also see that it lays focus on dogs not people- which is far from ideal.

Such a complicated set of issues- i don't think there is one right answer, rather a number of strategies need to be implemented. I do hope that legislation like this does not mean other programs, enforcement and education fall away or aren't deemed necessary.

[Steve]

there are several studies which show a greater risk of HD in males which are desexed I cant dig out the references as my computer blew up and this one has none of my research data on it.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHea...euterInDogs.pdf

Orthopedic Disorders

In a study of beagles, surgical removal of the ovaries (as happens in spaying) caused an increase in the rate

of remodeling of the ilium (pelvic bone)48, suggesting an increased risk of hip dysplasia with spaying.

Spaying was also found to cause a net loss of bone mass in the spine 49.

Spay/neuter of immature dogs delays the closure of the growth plates in bones that are still growing,

causing those bones to end up significantly longer than in intact dogs or those spay/neutered after

maturity50. Since the growth plates in various bones close at different times, spay/neuter that is done after

some growth plates have closed but before other growth plates have closed might result in a dog with

unnatural proportions, possibly impacting performance and long term durability of the joints.

Spay/neuter is associated with a two fold increased risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture51. Perhaps this

is associated with the increased risk of obesity30.

Spay/neuter before 5 ½ months of age is associated with a 70% increased aged-adjusted risk of hip

dysplasia compared to dogs spayed/neutered after 5 ½ months of age, though there were some indications

that the former may have had a lower severity manifestation of the disease42. The researchers suggest “it

is possible that the increase in bone length that results from early-age gonadectomy results in changes in

joint conformation, which could lead to a diagnosis of hip dysplasia.”

Page 9 of 12

In a breed health survey study of Airedales, spay/neuter dogs were significantly more likely to suffer hip

dysplasia as well as “any musculoskeletal disorder”, compared to intact dogs52, however possible

confounding factors were not controlled for, such as the possibility that some dogs might have been

spayed/neutered because they had hip dysplasia or other musculoskeletal disorders.

Compared to intact dogs, another study found that dogs neutered six months prior to a diagnosis of hip

dysplasia were 1.5 times as likely to develop clinical hip dysplasia.53

Compared to intact dogs, spayed/neutered dogs were found to have a 3.1 fold higher risk of patellar

luxation.54

[Natsu chan]

I think one of the issues with this sort of thing is the refusal to register baby puppies until they're desexed. Most vets won't desex before 6 months but puppies must be registered at 3 or 4 months where does that leave people? Damned if they do damed if they don't and that's health issues aside. They can't get the pup desexed because the vet won't and the council won't accept the registration unless they've been done, so then they face fines for having an unregistered dog. How is that going to encourage responsible owners?

[Steve]

I think one of the issues with this sort of thing is the refusal to register baby puppies until they're desexed. Most vets won't desex before 6 months but puppies must be registered at 3 or 4 months where does that leave people? Damned if they do damed if they don't and that's health issues aside. They can't get the pup desexed because the vet won't and the council won't accept the registration unless they've been done, so then they face fines for having an unregistered dog. How is that going to encourage responsible owners?

The issues for me are that they are only exempting dogs which are registered with Vic dogs.That dog owners only get to decide what they think is best for their dogs based on Vicdogs membership.

That they are not working at policing laws already at their disposal and that they dont do enough work on prevention.

Amost daily on this forum people are upset about not being able to walk their dogs because of dogs off leash and at large - its a huge problem that not many of us havent been touched by.Its a bit stupid to believe that all of those dogs are desexed or Vic dogs regsitered.

[Natsu chan]

I agree with you Steve but that particular bit just jumped out at me. Most pet people I know desex as early as the vets will do them and as the compulsory registration age use to be 6 months then that was fine but doing it this way whether intentioned or not looks like just another way to get more money out of people via fines.

I think there are much better ways of dealing with these things but the government isn't interested in it. Everything combined just seems geared toward removing dogs and cats from suburbia which isn't such as surprise given the number of dog related complains most councils get.

[Jed]

Is anyone who lives in Frankston council area aware that if owned dogs and cats are impounded, they will not be released until they are desexed?

It is illegal.

NO. Check 84M of the Domestic Animal Act 1994.

Is over-ridden by property etc laws.

There is a lot of evidence out there against early age desexing.

[BigDaz]

there are several studies which show a greater risk of HD in males which are desexed I cant dig out the references as my computer blew up and this one has none of my

But isnt this a risk worth taking, getting 95% of the dogs away from the scum that just want to use them for BYB, worth the unfortunate 5% that may have future issues. ( my stats are not accurate, just an example)

Remebering that the number grows exponentially, 95 BYB dogs quickly turns in to 1000 puppies, sold to scum.............. for the same purpose. The 5 that may have developed HD are still only 5.

[Steve]

I still think if its my dog its my choice as to whether I will remove its hormones.And breed or who bred it shouldnt come into it.

You cant expect me or anyone else to be forced to do things with our dogs whcih we dont think is in their best interest because there are some people who get it wrong.Why should any dog have to suffer because of who bred it?

[BigDaz]

I still think if its my dog its my choice as to whether I will remove its hormones.And breed or who bred it shouldnt come into it.

You cant expect me or anyone else to be forced to do things with our dogs whcih we dont think is in their best interest because there are some people who get it wrong.Why should any dog have to suffer because of who bred it?

No offence but I do think you are looking at this through your personal point of view, you are probably a responsible dog owner, but you need to understand that puts you in the minority.

There is a lot of bad stuff happening to dogs out there and I think anything that can be done to stop these people having dogs is a good thing.

[BJean]

It wouldn't matter if the vet did write a letter unless his letter was of a valid medical nature. Just writting a letter because the owner doesn't want the animal desexed is not enough. There must be a reason the animal can not under go the surgery such as age, heart murmur etc. Something that means the animal is high risk for desexing.

If nothing else, dog owners can stop their pet being desexed too young, and get a letter to waive the desexing requirement until the dog matures and/or another suitable age.

Lol wouldn't it be funny if there was a council rule that said no dog will be registered or released unless it has its tail docked -

oops how cruel of me!!!

As far as I know desexing a dog too young won't kill it. And if it is under 12 weeks old it would be released unregistered anyway. Most shelters do inmature desexing so the council wouldn't accept a letter from a vet stating that the dog needs to mature first. There has to be a life threatening reason.

Please do not disseminate false information. Shelter vets are not the yardstick for best veterinary practise.

Furthermore Council will not overule a professional veterinary diagnosis and assement on an animals health and welfare.

nb: tell a poster in the health forum that their stump pyometra from a desexing procedure is not a "life threatening reason".

[Erny]

I still think if its my dog its my choice as to whether I will remove its hormones.And breed or who bred it shouldnt come into it.

You cant expect me or anyone else to be forced to do things with our dogs whcih we dont think is in their best interest because there are some people who get it wrong.Why should any dog have to suffer because of who bred it?

No offence but I do think you are looking at this through your personal point of view, you are probably a responsible dog owner, but you need to understand that puts you in the minority.

There is a lot of bad stuff happening to dogs out there and I think anything that can be done to stop these people having dogs is a good thing.

I agree with what Steve has written.

How do you figure that a law that insists on desexing before release if an unregistered dog is impounded will stop "these people" having dogs? Genuine question - I don't see your point clearly.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Erny

[BigDaz]

I still think if its my dog its my choice as to whether I will remove its hormones.And breed or who bred it shouldnt come into it.

You cant expect me or anyone else to be forced to do things with our dogs whcih we dont think is in their best interest because there are some people who get it wrong.Why should any dog have to suffer because of who bred it?

No offence but I do think you are looking at this through your personal point of view, you are probably a responsible dog owner, but you need to understand that puts you in the minority.

There is a lot of bad stuff happening to dogs out there and I think anything that can be done to stop these people having dogs is a good thing.

I agree with what Steve has written.

How do you figure that a law that insists on desexing before release if an unregistered dog is impounded will stop "these people" having dogs? Genuine question - I don't see your point clearly.

My theory could be flawed, but I figure some of these people at least only have the dogs for breeding purposes, taking away the breeding ability means they wont re-claim them. Yes, they may just get another breeding dog, but instead of making it easy for them we can make it a bit harder.

Even if it doesnt stop then having dogs, it stops their dogs from going out an re-producing a litter of unwanted (or wanted) puppies.

Its possible I am not explaining myself very well, it seems pretty clear in my head