De-sexing Debate

[Diva]

And is that fair? Then I should pay a lot more to have entire dogs because there are some people with dogs that don't even know what dog is?

It could be argued that price is never completely 'fair' as a public policy tool. But it is very often both effective and efficient in changing behaviour - depending on the elasticity of demand in the particular instance. Any other alternative that worked would be fine with me too. And I do support education as well as my first post clearly indicated. However education alone is often insufficient or is very slooooow in making an impact.

Now I really must not debate, it's becoming an addiction :p . No more of this thread for me

Edited May 7, 2010 by Diva

[Abigail]

Medically of course a dog will be exempt its without question. If the law was to stand I'm sure medical and other exemptions would be first on the list.

i dont agree. once the legislators get their hands on anything we have little chance of it making sense or staying true to the original intent.

I agree! Things can get out of hand. Ideally it sounds great, it would eradicate the number of poor animals that are put down due to overbreeding but I wouldn't want australia to resemble Russia more and more every day.

[BJean]

Medically of course a dog will be exempt its without question. If the law was to stand I'm sure medical and other exemptions would be first on the list.

i dont agree. once the legislators get their hands on anything we have little chance of it making sense or staying true to the original intent.

I agree! Things can get out of hand. Ideally it sounds great, it would eradicate the number of poor animals that are put down due to overbreeding but I wouldn't want australia to resemble Russia more and more every day.

Er excuse me

but I think Russia today has more freedom for the individual than in Australia.

There is no such thing as rules about what breed you can own and when to desex

even speeding cameras are considered undemocratic.

You can do whatever you like as long as (you're not a journalist) and you dont upset Lord Putin :p

And not to mention Russia has many kennels full of gawgeous dogs - for Australia to resemble Russia's choice of dogs - I wouldn't mind that!

Edited May 7, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

And with this new legislative gem from Victoria,

I rest my case

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=195414

Edited May 7, 2010 by lilli

[Rysup]

It already costs more to Lifetime register entire dogs in NSW. Yes breeders (that is members of Dogs NSW or the two cat societies) get a special price too, but for your average pet owner, its a BIG difference between entire price vs desexed price. And working dogs & greyhounds are exempt from having to be lifetime registered too.

[IngeK]

Its more expensive here already as well but then if your animal is chipped you get a discount again.

I think what you get if they make it more expensive in registration is that people just dont register anymore.

Offtopic

Lilli your post about the comparison with Russia is great! I left Europe partly for the rules and regulations but they are worse here. Love your country Australia though so dont tell me to get back :p

[Steve]

Absolutely not, perish the thought. I think its an outrage that people try and stand over pet owners and carry on about how they must de-sex their dogs :p

Most people don't even know what they are talking about, they just repeat the same thing they heard some other guy say.

My own dog is de-sexed. I had my reasons. I am not against de-sexing obviously in some circumstances, medical or otherwise, but I am strictly against the attitude of routine de-sexing.

[Steve]

I believe it's MY dog and his health and decisions related to his health, is MY responsibility. If I choose to keep him entire because I don't see any medical benefits to desexing a male dog, that's my choice and should be.

Yep

[Steve]

Medically of course a dog will be exempt its without question. If the law was to stand I'm sure medical and other exemptions would be first on the list.

i dont agree. once the legislators get their hands on anything we have little chance of it making sense or staying true to the original intent.

I agree! Things can get out of hand. Ideally it sounds great, it would eradicate the number of poor animals that are put down due to overbreeding but I wouldn't want australia to resemble Russia more and more every day.

It wouldn't eradicate the numbers put down because of over breeding because if you stop more accidental litters then large scale puppy farmers breed more to fill the demand.

No one has a hard time getting puppies sold and some rescue even specialize in taking pregnant dogs because they know they can find homes for the pups. Pups are rarely dumped and if they are they find homes dogs are dumped. Introduce mandatory desexing and all that will happen is that more desexed dogs will be dumped not that less dogs over all will be dumped bacause the demand is still the same.

[Abigail]

Medically of course a dog will be exempt its without question. If the law was to stand I'm sure medical and other exemptions would be first on the list.

i dont agree. once the legislators get their hands on anything we have little chance of it making sense or staying true to the original intent.

I agree! Things can get out of hand. Ideally it sounds great, it would eradicate the number of poor animals that are put down due to overbreeding but I wouldn't want australia to resemble Russia more and more every day.

It wouldn't eradicate the numbers put down because of over breeding because if you stop more accidental litters then large scale puppy farmers breed more to fill the demand.

No one has a hard time getting puppies sold and some rescue even specialize in taking pregnant dogs because they know they can find homes for the pups. Pups are rarely dumped and if they are they find homes dogs are dumped. Introduce mandatory desexing and all that will happen is that more desexed dogs will be dumped not that less dogs over all will be dumped bacause the demand is still the same.

If the demand is the same then why are so many pups and kittens destroyed? Puppy farming should become extinct as they breed large scale and keep them in shocking conditions. I dont agree in mandatory desexing though.

[Steve]

Personally I'd rather see 100 dog owners having a litter now and then and raising them in their back yards - a litter at a time by accident than watching one puppy farmer pump out a couple of thousand a year.

[Steve]

Medically of course a dog will be exempt its without question. If the law was to stand I'm sure medical and other exemptions would be first on the list.

i dont agree. once the legislators get their hands on anything we have little chance of it making sense or staying true to the original intent.

I agree! Things can get out of hand. Ideally it sounds great, it would eradicate the number of poor animals that are put down due to overbreeding but I wouldn't want australia to resemble Russia more and more every day.

It wouldn't eradicate the numbers put down because of over breeding because if you stop more accidental litters then large scale puppy farmers breed more to fill the demand.

No one has a hard time getting puppies sold and some rescue even specialize in taking pregnant dogs because they know they can find homes for the pups. Pups are rarely dumped and if they are they find homes dogs are dumped. Introduce mandatory desexing and all that will happen is that more desexed dogs will be dumped not that less dogs over all will be dumped bacause the demand is still the same.

If the demand is the same then why are so many pups and kittens destroyed? Puppy farming should become extinct as they breed large scale and keep them in shocking conditions. I dont agree in mandatory desexing though.

Lots of kittens are destroyed but few pups are. Adult dogs are not babies.

[~Anne~]

There is no such thing as overbreeding causing welfare issue in Australia. How can anyone throw this statement out there where there is adequate evidence to show unequivocably that the number of animals per capita is on a downward trend. Overpopulation would suggest a trend in the opposite direction.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I'm in favour of the system the ACT has (and a number of other jurisdictions). That is, a price on registering (ie legally keeping) an entire dog that exceeds the cost of desexing with an exemption for people who are committed enough to dog sports and conformation to be a member of their relevant canine control organisation.

Where the system falls down is enforcement rather than design IMO. The people who are responsible enough to register their dog, participate in dog sport etc are subject to the regime and the people who are not responsible enough to register or otherwise give a shit live outside the system pretty easily. The former are more likely to desex anyway and the latter are more likely to breed an unwanted dog.

[Steve]

I'm in favour of the system the ACT has (and a number of other jurisdictions). That is, a price on registering (ie legally keeping) an entire dog that exceeds the cost of desexing with an exemption for people who are committed enough to dog sports and conformation to be a member of their relevant canine control organisation.

Where the system falls down is enforcement rather than design IMO. The people who are responsible enough to register their dog, participate in dog sport etc are subject to the regime and the people who are not responsible enough to register or otherwise give a shit live outside the system pretty easily. The former are more likely to desex anyway and the latter are more likely to breed an unwanted dog.

How can they enforce a law which tells people they cant do as they please with their own property?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

How can they enforce a law which tells people they cant do as they please with their own property?

Don't know the answer to that as I'm not familiar with case law around animals and property.

However, presumably the authorities could issue a demand for payment for the cost of the appropriate registration for an entire dog and pursue non-payment through debt recovery action? So I'm not suggesting that people be forced to desex, just that they be required to pay the appropriate price on keeping an entire animal. Whether that price is paid in cash at the council office OR in blood, sweat, tears and hours at the track, the yard, the trial ring or the show ring.

Look, I don't like desexing for a range of reasons and mine aren't desexed. But a recent incident at home reminded me that even me, control freak extraordinaire, can't control everything all the time. I am quite happy to pay for the privilege of keeping undesexed dogs and I choose to pay it by being an active and paid up member of my canine control.

In considering my response to this issue I'm thinking particularly of a dog I saw recently, an ill-favoured mixed brown bull breed adopted from a shelter which should have known better. It had serious issues that its stressed out owners were totally ill-equipped to handle. I doubt the person who bred that dog paid either of the prices I describe above. I've thought of that dog often since I last saw it. It's a crying shame. Literally. The people who owned it would have been far better off with a dog from a reputable breeder or rescue who could peg what they were capable of and give them the right dog. Without wishing to be harsh, the dog itself would have been better off never having been born.

[jackie_a1]

Whoa massive thread haven't checked it since posting last night so give me time to read.

In regards to people getting defensive and trying to question me. RELAX. I HAVE NOT WRITTEN A LEGISLATION OR GONE ABOUT THINKING ABOUT ONE. I am just asking should desexing be legal legislation. To everyone asking me about cross breeds etc I am not a politician I would not know how they would write an act up. For me the question was for pet owners your average joe blow.I don't know how they'll distinguish between breeders, or sport dogs, or show dogs etc I DO NOT KNOW.

So relax stop getting worked up and enjoy the debate.

[jackie_a1]

So 50 % voted yes and 41 % voted no.... interesting..

To the other voters thankyou for specifying

In regards to overpopulation in pounds and shelters, have you guys looked at the link Bec posted showing the documentary earthlings? It's clearly stated there that overpopulation due to undesexed pets is a massive factor.

I think education is the key ok. BUT sometimes people don't always get it they watch a video about euthanasia etc but come home see Fluffy and seriously change their mind and want to breed from her.

I think if they did bring in mandatory desexing, MEDICAL, SPORTING, BREEDING, SHOW and WORKING (drug detection, disabled assistance dogs) should be exempt. OBVIOUSLY this won't happen but it's something we should all think about because give it time we will be legislated on breathing.

[sandgrubber]

I voted yes. I think breeders who are serial offenders of ethical standards should loose their right to keep entire dogs.

I'm about to move to Santa Cruz County, California, where you are required to get a permit to keep an entire dog. It's not expensive, but requires annual renewal . . . renewal requires a vet exam . .. people with multiple infringements of dog laws may loose their breeders' permits. They also do a lot of subsidised spey neuter. The laws have been in place for a decade or so, maybe more. It has helped keep the shelter populaton down, despite the fact that enforcement is pretty lax (lots of people live in the mountains on rural properties. The county only bothers them if neighbours complain).

[Lhok]

Voted other

Mainly because I see benefits for both and I personally don't believe the government should be telling me what is best for the dog I know so well. The Doco Earthlings from what I saw holds the peta line of mandatory spay and neuter and also from what I saw it was using footage taken from USA shelters which doesn't really apply here.

Just my two cents

--Lhok