De-sexing Debate

[Black Bronson]

I voted yes.

Mainly because the pups I currently have will be sterilised prior to being placed in their new homes. Note I said sterilised - not desexed. The boys will be having a vasectomy and the girls will be having tubal ligation. This maintains the pups hormone levels through those first 12 months of development. At 12 months of age I suggest that the owners then have them fully desexed.

I dont want any of my limit registered pups contributing to the cross breeding or backyard breeding world and I dont want my large breed to suffer from any developmental issues due to lack of hormones and sterilisation is the best option. To be honest I'm surprised more breeders dont do it.

What purpose would you suggest a male with a vasectomy be desexed at 12 months

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I voted yes.

Mainly because the pups I currently have will be sterilised prior to being placed in their new homes. Note I said sterilised - not desexed. The boys will be having a vasectomy and the girls will be having tubal ligation. This maintains the pups hormone levels through those first 12 months of development. At 12 months of age I suggest that the owners then have them fully desexed.

I dont want any of my limit registered pups contributing to the cross breeding or backyard breeding world and I dont want my large breed to suffer from any developmental issues due to lack of hormones and sterilisation is the best option. To be honest I'm surprised more breeders dont do it.

What purpose would you suggest a male with a vasectomy be desexed at 12 months

The last male rescue I had was neutered rather than getting a vasectomy because his new owners would have had a hard time with their council when it comes to registering a dog who had a vasectomy.

The vasectomy deals with the breeders concerns about unwanted litters and their lines being used inappropriately. Neutering OTOH, is the obvious fix that is clearly visible to anyone. Once a dog is finished his critical growth period I can see it would be easier in a range of situations if he was obviously missing his balls.

I don't have an answer when it comes to bitches.

[BJean]

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.

oooh well it must be true then.

Perhaps best to check your Australian stats and facts about overpopulation Vs the unwanted problem

do a search you'll find facts stats and discussions in the resuce and news forum.

its a popular theme of late.

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.

well that's your perogative.

if you want to react to emotive docs of all kinds and not check your facts before you go into cause and effect

you're likely to be a yayster and vote in anything.

Edited May 7, 2010 by lilli

[furballs]

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.

I watched Earthlings through to the end of part 1 (pets). It's absolutely disgusting how selfish human beings can be. However, desexing shouldn't be about the stupid, ignorant humans that "own" dogs, it should be about what is in the best interest of each individual dog. Unfortunately most people don't care what is in the best interest of their dog but there are those of us who do. The only consideration in the decision to desex should be health. If you are not a breeder, then you should not allow your dog to breed. It's not that hard to keep a bitch on heat inside for 3 weeks and away from males.

Rather than putting our beloved dogs through an operation which will possibly cause many health issues throughout its life, we should be doing as the Earthlings documentary says and seeing animals as equals and respecting their right to life just as we respect ours.

If all the selfish idiots in the world could be PTS instead of the innocent animals they have produced would this not solve the problem?

[Shaar]

I voted 'other'

I would type out my reasons but they pretty much coincide with everything furballs has said above.

It wouldn't solve the problem anyway.

It's the same as BSL... ban the breed and you will just get black market dogs.

Make spay/neuter a legal requirement and you will just get people hiding dogs in their basements pumping puppies out of them. And there will still be irresponsible people who will buy them.

It won't solve anything.

[Steve]

I resent being judged a moron because other people who own a dog might be morons.

If I ensure my entire dog is looked after and kept responsibly then me and my dog shouldn't be punished and our rights removed in case we are not.

Laws wont make any difference as they cant be policed and only responsible people follow the laws any way .

The ACCC wont allow them to UP HOLD a law where only members of the ANKC are exempt as people who own any dog ANKC registered or not have a right to free trade and cant be made to join and pay money to any one group to do so. If laws which are in place now for example in some areas in Victoria are ever tested against federal laws where a government basically recruits members for an org which has a monopoly on purebred canine registrations things may change and its only a matter of time before that happens.

The MDBA currently has approx 1000 members with approx 680 of these responsible pet owner members,rescue and professional members who have no desire or intent to breed,Some of these have elected to keep their dogs entire. These people voluntarily agree to a code of conduct and demonstrate they know whats required of them to be a responsible pet owner regardless of whether they own a purebred or not or if they want to keep an entire dog never intended for breeding. The MDBA does not register dogs or pedigrees and as such in some states our members cannot get the same exemptions as owners of dogs which are registered with the ANKC whether they are responsible owners or not. Yet.

[redangel]

other...showing not breeding

...desexing ensures many health issues dont crop up later in life.

..I think certain breeds need be entire till they are physically mature...I believe mandatory desexing is done as young as possible.

[Dame Aussie]

No. I fought against proposed laws for mandatory desexing, because I believe the owner should have the right of choice.

there is a body of evidence out there which shows that early desexing can lead to problems, there is also evidence that desexing at any age leads to problems. There is also evidence that not desexing leads to problems.

I think that pet owners should make their own decisions.

Mandatory desexing assumes that pet owners are all cretins who aren't able to manage their dog's sexuality. This is not the case, most dog owners are responsible. It is the irresponsible few who are the problem, and it is highly unlikely that they would either register the dog, or desex it, no matter what the law is.

Desexing can have an adverse effect on coats as well as a few other things.

Desexing does not cause huge temperament changes - ie, dogs becoming quieter, less dog agressive etc. These are socialisation and training problems, not sexual problems.

Most of my puppy buyers desex. A few didn't, and I knew that when they bought the pup. I respected their decision (which had nothing to do with breeding, or the man thing of "ouch"), and none of these dogs have reproduced.

In the long term, mandatory desexing for all but registered dogs will mean there will be NO cross bred dogs. None at all. I am happily a purebred snob, although I do own a cross bred dog, but I don't think the people who would like a cross bred dog should have to buy a purebred because there is no choice.

The long term future with no cross bred dogs at all is quite frightening.

Education, encouragement to desex, and putting pups into lifetime homes is the answer to the numbers in the pounds.

There is no oversupply of pups, according to studies by bodies such as AVA, but there is an oversupply of juvenile and older dogs.

to reduce numbers in pounds, we need to reduce the numbers of people deciding they don't want/can't keep the dog. Making pups harder, or impossible to obtain will not stop that.

In short, mandatory desexing removes the right of people to choose what is best for their pet, and will not reduce numbers in the pounds.

And mandatory desexing laws in shires in Victoria have proved to be a nightmare for pet owners, and look like being tested in court.

Great post Jed, I agree entirely and also voted No.

[Erny]

I resent being judged a moron because other people who own a dog might be morons.

If I ensure my entire dog is looked after and kept responsibly then me and my dog shouldn't be punished and our rights removed in case we are not.

Laws wont make any difference as they cant be policed and only responsible people follow the laws any way .

The ACCC wont allow them to UP HOLD a law where only members of the ANKC are exempt as people who own any dog ANKC registered or not have a right to free trade and cant be made to join and pay money to any one group to do so. If laws which are in place now for example in some areas in Victoria are ever tested against federal laws where a government basically recruits members for an org which has a monopoly on purebred canine registrations things may change and its only a matter of time before that happens.

The MDBA currently has approx 1000 members with approx 680 of these responsible pet owner members,rescue and professional members who have no desire or intent to breed,Some of these have elected to keep their dogs entire. These people voluntarily agree to a code of conduct and demonstrate they know whats required of them to be a responsible pet owner regardless of whether they own a purebred or not or if they want to keep an entire dog never intended for breeding. The MDBA does not register dogs or pedigrees and as such in some states our members cannot get the same exemptions as owners of dogs which are registered with the ANKC whether they are responsible owners or not. Yet.

Great post.

Great insights.

Go Julie/MDBA

[jackie_a1]

Lilli

One word relax. Don't judge me you don't know me or anything about me. Don't get defensive either this is a debate not a debate on if you're superior in facts.

oooh well it must be true then.

Perhaps best to check your Australian stats and facts about overpopulation Vs the unwanted problem

do a search you'll find facts stats and discussions in the resuce and news forum.

its a popular theme of late.

I said it was a massive factor NOT the only factor. You cannot deny non desexed pets are a contributing factor to the over population of shelters and pounds both in the U.S and Aus. Of course because people here are dog fanciers and dog obsessed they feel themselves responsible enough to own an entire pet however as I continuously keep stating the general public do not have the same knowledge or information regarding entire pets or the benefits of having a desexed or an entire pet. Keep in mind that most of you here have been dealing with dogs since the dawn of time and to you this knowledge is second nature don't assume everyone knows the same as you.

well that's your perogative.

if you want to react to emotive docs of all kinds and not check your facts before you go into cause and effect

you're likely to be a yayster and vote in anything.

Like I previously stated. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me. So don't make conclusions based on YOUR assumptions.

[sandgrubber]

I believe the record shows that mandatory desexing can work, even where enforcement isn't strong.

Below is text relating to the administration of the Santa Cruz law . . . note, Santa Cruz has no BSL and looks like free spey/neuter is available to most anybody who would have trouble coming up with the dosh. Sometimes we have to accept some regulation of our actions to allow enforcement of laws against irresponsible or outright vicious people.

6.10.050 Unaltered animal certification; administration.

A. The director of animal control services shall administer a certification program to allow for unaltered animals over the age of six months when the director of animal control services determines that the following conditions have been met:

1. The animal is examined annually by a licensed veterinarian and is following the preventative health care program recommended by the veterinarian;

2. The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of the following offenses within the preceding twenty-four months:

a. County Code Section 6.12.100 (harassment, threat or injury by dog),

b. County Code Section 6.12.110 (dog killing domesticated animal),

c. County Code Section 6.12.130 (dog threatening or injuring livestock or wild game),

d. County Code Section 6.12.140 (unrestrained vicious animal),

e. County Code Section 6.16.020 (failure to acquire permit for a kennel/pet shop),

f. County Code Section 6.20.030 E (refusing demand to produce animal),

g. County Code Section 6.24.060 (failure to provide requested information),

h. County Code Section 6.24.080 (interference with director of animal control services),

i. Health and Safety Code Section 121705 (concealing bite information),

j. Penal Code Section 286.5 (sexual assault on animal),

k. Penal Code Section 596 (poisoning of animal),

l. Penal Code Section 597 (animal cruelty),

m. Penal Code Section 597.5 (fighting dogs),

n. Penal Code Section 599aa (seizure of fighting dogs),

o. Penal Code Sections 487e, 487f, or 487g (theft of animal);

3. The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of the following offenses involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, within the preceding twenty-four months:

a. County Code Section 6.12.010 (dog at large),

b. County Code Section 6.12.020 (dog off leash);

c. County Code Section 6.08.020 (vaccination required);

4. Within the preceding twenty-four months, the owner has not received a director of animal control services order involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, pursuant to:

a. County Code Section 6.04.100 A (quarantine a dog for biting a person),

b. County Code Section 6.04.100 C (impounding a dog for nonconfinement),

c. County Code Section 6.20.020 D (impounding a vicious animal without notice,); and such determination has not been expressly overturned by the animal nuisance abatement appeals commission;

5. The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, has not been determined by the director of animal control services to be a “vicious animal” pursuant to County Code Section 6.24.070, unless such determination has been expressly overturned by the animal nuisance abatement appeals commission;

6. The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:

a. The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water,

b. The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to stand up, turn around, and lay down without laying in his/her feces. That the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and disinfected,

c. If the animal is a dog, it must be fully contained on the owner’s property and be provided appropriate exercise,

d. The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state law concerning the care and housing of animals;

7. The owner furnishes the director of animal control services with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:

a. The female unaltered animal will have no more than one litter per year, unless the owner furnishes the director of animal control services in advance of any breeding, a written statement from a licensed veterinarian recommending that the female feline be allowed to have up to two litters per year. This written recommendation may result from the annual examination required pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section,

b. Offspring of the unaltered animal will not be sold or adopted until they are at least seven weeks of age,

c. Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were produced and who adopted or purchased them;

8. The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought is currently licensed as required by Chapter 6.08 of this code.

B. Any person advertising to the public, the availability of any dog or cat subject to certification pursuant to this chapter, for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display his or her unaltered animal certification number in the advertisement. The certification number shall also be provided to any person adopting or purchasing any dog or cat subject to certification pursuant to this chapter, that is bred in the unincorporated area of the county.

C. Any owner of an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat who has been cited for failing to obtain an unaltered animal certification shall have his or her citation dismissed if they are subsequently issued an unaltered animal certification, or if there is proof that the animal has been spayed or neutered within thirty days of the issuance of the citation.

D. Any owner who is denied an unaltered animal certification or whose certification is revoked by the director of animal control services for failure to comply with the requirements of this section may appeal such denial or revocation to the nuisance abatement appeals commission pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.66 of this code. (Ord. 4490 § 3 (part), 1998: Ord. 4409 § 1, 1996: Ord. 4305 § 1 (part), 1994)

Edited May 8, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

I believe the record shows that mandatory desexing can work, even though enforcement isn't strong.

6.10.050 Unaltered animal certification; administration.

A. The director of animal control services shall administer a certification program to allow for unaltered animals over the age of six months when the director of animal control services determines that the following conditions have been met:

1. The animal is examined annually by a licensed veterinarian and is following the preventative health care program recommended by the veterinarian;

2. The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of the following offenses within the preceding twenty-four months:

a. County Code Section 6.12.100 (harassment, threat or injury by dog),

b. County Code Section 6.12.110 (dog killing domesticated animal),

c. County Code Section 6.12.130 (dog threatening or injuring livestock or wild game),

d. County Code Section 6.12.140 (unrestrained vicious animal),

e. County Code Section 6.16.020 (failure to acquire permit for a kennel/pet shop),

f. County Code Section 6.20.030 E (refusing demand to produce animal),

g. County Code Section 6.24.060 (failure to provide requested information),

h. County Code Section 6.24.080 (interference with director of animal control services),

i. Health and Safety Code Section 121705 (concealing bite information),

j. Penal Code Section 286.5 (sexual assault on animal),

k. Penal Code Section 596 (poisoning of animal),

l. Penal Code Section 597 (animal cruelty),

m. Penal Code Section 597.5 (fighting dogs),

n. Penal Code Section 599aa (seizure of fighting dogs),

o. Penal Code Sections 487e, 487f, or 487g (theft of animal);

3. The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of the following offenses involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, within the preceding twenty-four months:

a. County Code Section 6.12.010 (dog at large),

b. County Code Section 6.12.020 (dog off leash);

c. County Code Section 6.08.020 (vaccination required);

4. Within the preceding twenty-four months, the owner has not received a director of animal control services order involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, pursuant to:

a. County Code Section 6.04.100 A (quarantine a dog for biting a person),

b. County Code Section 6.04.100 C (impounding a dog for nonconfinement),

c. County Code Section 6.20.020 D (impounding a vicious animal without notice,); and such determination has not been expressly overturned by the animal nuisance abatement appeals commission;

5. The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, has not been determined by the director of animal control services to be a “vicious animal” pursuant to County Code Section 6.24.070, unless such determination has been expressly overturned by the animal nuisance abatement appeals commission;

6. The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:

a. The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water,

b. The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to stand up, turn around, and lay down without laying in his/her feces. That the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and disinfected,

c. If the animal is a dog, it must be fully contained on the owner’s property and be provided appropriate exercise,

d. The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state law concerning the care and housing of animals;

7. The owner furnishes the director of animal control services with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:

a. The female unaltered animal will have no more than one litter per year, unless the owner furnishes the director of animal control services in advance of any breeding, a written statement from a licensed veterinarian recommending that the female feline be allowed to have up to two litters per year. This written recommendation may result from the annual examination required pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section,

b. Offspring of the unaltered animal will not be sold or adopted until they are at least seven weeks of age,

c. Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were produced and who adopted or purchased them;

8. The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought is currently licensed as required by Chapter 6.08 of this code.

B. Any person advertising to the public, the availability of any dog or cat subject to certification pursuant to this chapter, for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display his or her unaltered animal certification number in the advertisement. The certification number shall also be provided to any person adopting or purchasing any dog or cat subject to certification pursuant to this chapter, that is bred in the unincorporated area of the county.

C. Any owner of an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat who has been cited for failing to obtain an unaltered animal certification shall have his or her citation dismissed if they are subsequently issued an unaltered animal certification, or if there is proof that the animal has been spayed or neutered within thirty days of the issuance of the citation.

D. Any owner who is denied an unaltered animal certification or whose certification is revoked by the director of animal control services for failure to comply with the requirements of this section may appeal such denial or revocation to the nuisance abatement appeals commission pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.66 of this code. (Ord. 4490 § 3 (part), 1998: Ord. 4409 § 1, 1996: Ord. 4305 § 1 (part), 1994)

Where is this from?

[Steve]

Quote - examples in San Mateo County, California in 1991 where the introduction of compulsory desexing saw cat deaths in shelters increase 86%.

In the city of Los Angeles where they passed one of the most draconian mandatory spay/neuter laws in America (requiring virtually every dog and cat in the city to be sterilized by the age of 4 months), they saw their kill numbers go up 31%, after more than five years of steady decline in shelter killing.

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2010/03/scien...es-in-victoria/

[~Anne~]

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.

Jackie - can I send you on a little research. For arguments sake, go to the bureau of stats site and look at the population figures for Australia over the last 20 years. Then look at the same site for pet ownership figures for the same time period, and back this up by looking at the Pet Advisory website also. You will note that while the population of Australia has increased by a large amount, animal ownership has risen by only a tiny amount.

Edited May 8, 2010 by ~Anne~

[Teebs]

I voted No

Atlas was only desexed because of health reasons, Kaos was done because when I got her, Atlas was still entire and I had no way of keeping them apart, so she was desexed before her first season

PERSONALLY, i will not desex a male unless there is a reason to do so, I can keep my dogs safe and in their yards and do not feel i need to have them desexed - Females I would get done, but only because I dont want the fuss of them being in season

BUT

at the same time I can see why people agree to it, I see so many people out there breeding litter after litter who are just in it for money....

I almost have my SIL and her Hubby talked into not breeding, they are getting a bitch and want puppies, they wouldnt listen to me at first, but over time I have mentioned a few things and had a huge chat to the Hubby about it, and he had no idea about BSL, or how many dogs were PTS each day...

Netball next week, I will have another go at it then

[Jed]

jackie al

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.

That is an opinion only - I haven't seen it - but I doubt that it is backed by any studies at all. Studies show that there is no over population there is actually an undersupply of pups, whilst adult dogs are keeping the pound numbers up.

the figures steve posted are interesting too.

Vote for mandatory desexing, and I think you vote for no cross bred dogs at all in time.

I wont want one in 20 years time, but maybe you will, and there wont be any available.

Desexed out of existence.

[PeiPei]

Yes...they should have to be de-sexed!!!!

Working as a rescue group there are already so many dogs needing homes.

Why should people who have no knowledge about breeding be allowed to back yard breed?

Im sick of hearing of people who think it would be good to have a litter to:

• Teach the kids about puppies
  
• Because it would be interesting to see what my dog's puppies would look like
  
• It would be cute to have puppies
  
• Because some mates would like a dog like mine
  
• To make some extra cash
  

and the list goes on....

Leave breeding to the professionals

The only option should be adoption

www.wheredopuppiescomefrom.com is a great site to visit

[Steve]

Yes...they should have to be de-sexed!!!!

Working as a rescue group there are already so many dogs needing homes.

Why should people who have no knowledge about breeding be allowed to back yard breed?

Im sick of hearing of people who think it would be good to have a litter to:

• Teach the kids about puppies
  
• Because it would be interesting to see what my dog's puppies would look like
  
• It would be cute to have puppies
  
• Because some mates would like a dog like mine
  
• To make some extra cash
  

and the list goes on....

Leave breeding to the professionals

The only option should be adoption

www.wheredopuppiescomefrom.com is a great site to visit

Who are the professionals? Registered breeders who in the main don't know diddly about breeding dogs when they start out or people who breed thousands each year without a care for the dogs?

[PeiPei]

Yes...they should have to be de-sexed!!!!

Working as a rescue group there are already so many dogs needing homes.

Why should people who have no knowledge about breeding be allowed to back yard breed?

Im sick of hearing of people who think it would be good to have a litter to:

• Teach the kids about puppies
  
• Because it would be interesting to see what my dog's puppies would look like
  
• It would be cute to have puppies
  
• Because some mates would like a dog like mine
  
• To make some extra cash
  

and the list goes on....

Leave breeding to the professionals

The only option should be adoption

www.wheredopuppiescomefrom.com is a great site to visit

Who are the professionals? Registered breeders who in the main don't know diddly about breeding dogs when they start out or people who breed thousands each year without a care for the dogs?

and the every day backyard breeder does?????? I hardly think so.......You can argue the point until you are blue in the face but the shelter, euthanasia and unwanted numbers speak for themselves.

[furballs]

Yes...they should have to be de-sexed!!!!

Working as a rescue group there are already so many dogs needing homes.

Why should people who have no knowledge about breeding be allowed to back yard breed?

Im sick of hearing of people who think it would be good to have a litter to:

• Teach the kids about puppies
  
• Because it would be interesting to see what my dog's puppies would look like
  
• It would be cute to have puppies
  
• Because some mates would like a dog like mine
  
• To make some extra cash
  

and the list goes on....

Leave breeding to the professionals

The only option should be adoption

www.wheredopuppiescomefrom.com is a great site to visit

Not everyone who keeps their dogs entire uses them for backyard breeding. Have you read all of the previous posts?