Shouldn't Be Suprised.

[KaiGSD&Cav]

http://frankston-leader.whereilive.com.au/...oses-his-fight/

A man in Frankston refuses to desex his xbred so it can be registered, local law says that all dogs must be desexed in order to be registered, unless a pedigree.

Not only do his comments baffle me, some of the reader comments are just wierd....

"The dog is good breeding stock"??

:p

;) :mad :mad

:D

ETA: I can't make the link work, try copy and paste into browser, sorry

Edited May 29, 2010 by KaiserGSD

[GeckoTree]

link dosnt work.

[DNB]

I think this man is silly not wanting to desex his dog, afterall there are far too many cute dogs in pounds and shelters needing homes.

By the same token I honestly think that councils have far too much power and should not have the right to force people to do it especially to any dog under 6 months of age.

My OH took our Chihuaha to the vet a couple of years back for his yearly injection and this female vet suggested that he have Giz desexed.

My OH replied "God I'm glad your not my dentist"

Vet " Why"

OH " Because if I came to you with a toothache you'd want to cut my nuts off"

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

“This is the best dog I’ve ever had. I love my dog. I believe my dog has the right to experience motherhood"

This guy is definitely missing a few brain cells or is extremely uninformed about the doggy risks associated with pregnacy and parenthood.

It's a SWF. Sheesh.

I also think it's a bit over the top for council to require mandatory desexing. They should just up the cost of rego to reflect the price of homing/PTS 8 to 12 puppies a year, or the price of desexing. Ie you can desex the dog or you can pay rego plus the average price vets charge to desex a dog of that gender.

[Adnil444]

“This is the best dog I’ve ever had. I love my dog. I believe my dog has the right to experience motherhood"

This guy is definitely missing a few brain cells or is extremely uninformed about the doggy risks associated with pregnacy and parenthood.

It's a SWF. Sheesh.

I also think it's a bit over the top for council to require mandatory desexing. They should just up the cost of rego to reflect the price of homing/PTS 8 to 12 puppies a year, or the price of desexing. Ie you can desex the dog or you can pay rego plus the average price vets charge to desex a dog of that gender.

But then won't people not register their dogs with the council if the price is too high? I'm all for mandatory desexing - only registered breeders should be breeding. The rescue sites and pounds are full of purebreds and cross breeds and many will not finds homes and will be pts. A responsible dog owner factors in the price of desexing, registering, vets etc. If you can't, then possibly those people should not have a dog.

[poodlemum]

What do you expect - it IS Frankston - not exactly MENSA territory

[greytdog]

Up the price of rego....to what? Let's say $1000 a year for an undesexed dog, unless the dog and owner are registered with the appropriate club???

How much is enough?

ETA: just saw the post above re overpriced = not registered. Then what?

Edited May 30, 2010 by greytdog

[Alyosha]

But then won't people not register their dogs with the council if the price is too high?

But that is exactly what this guy did. Rangers evidently caught up with him, walking the dog offleash and caught him out as being unregistered. Enforcement is what matters.

[Black Bronson]

What a fool What I don't understand, why did he tell the rangers who he was.........could have been a visitor from Perth for all they knew, just a bloke walking a dog in a public place

Edited May 30, 2010 by Black Bronson

[tdierikx]

I don't believe in mandatory desexing of dogs across the board... but I also don't think that all owners realise the implications of having a litter of pups...

I do believe in mandatory desexing of any dog sourced from a pound, shelter, or rescue though - done before the new owner takes it home.

T.

[Adnil444]

I don't believe in mandatory desexing of dogs across the board... but I also don't think that all owners realise the implications of having a litter of pups...

I do believe in mandatory desexing of any dog sourced from a pound, shelter, or rescue though - done before the new owner takes it home.

T.

Hi, can I ask why? If you're not a registered breeder, then why would you need to have a dog that is undesexed? What is the difference for a pound/rescue dog being desexed before it goes home with new owner (which I agree with) and the purebred pet that is purchased from a registered breeder - surely that pup should also be desexed (when old enough) as well. There are just as many purebreeds in the pounds and shelters as crossbreeds.

[Mum to Emma]

I don't believe in mandatory desexing of dogs across the board... but I also don't think that all owners realise the implications of having a litter of pups...

I do believe in mandatory desexing of any dog sourced from a pound, shelter, or rescue though - done before the new owner takes it home.

T.

Hi, can I ask why? If you're not a registered breeder, then why would you need to have a dog that is undesexed? What is the difference for a pound/rescue dog being desexed before it goes home with new owner (which I agree with) and the purebred pet that is purchased from a registered breeder - surely that pup should also be desexed (when old enough) as well. There are just as many purebreeds in the pounds and shelters as crossbreeds.

Do you honestly believe that 'pure bred' puppies raised in puppy farms are better pets than x-breeds raised in a family environment??

The Frankston bylaw is horrendous. An extreme breach of civil liberties. If they want to minimise the number of puppies born, increase registration fees for non-desexed dogs to $1,000+. That way people who seriously wanted to keep their animals entire would have an option (albeit and expensive one) and these so-called wonderful registered breeders would be able to tax-deduct the cost of registration (as it's an expense incurred in generating income).

[Crisovar]

The majority of registered breeders do not claim any expenses, what they do is not a business it is a hobby, albeit one they take very seriously.

[becks]

I don't believe in mandatory desexing of dogs across the board... but I also don't think that all owners realise the implications of having a litter of pups...

I do believe in mandatory desexing of any dog sourced from a pound, shelter, or rescue though - done before the new owner takes it home.

T.

Hi, can I ask why? If you're not a registered breeder, then why would you need to have a dog that is undesexed? What is the difference for a pound/rescue dog being desexed before it goes home with new owner (which I agree with) and the purebred pet that is purchased from a registered breeder - surely that pup should also be desexed (when old enough) as well. There are just as many purebreeds in the pounds and shelters as crossbreeds.

Do you honestly believe that 'pure bred' puppies raised in puppy farms are better pets than x-breeds raised in a family environment??

The Frankston bylaw is horrendous. An extreme breach of civil liberties. If they want to minimise the number of puppies born, increase registration fees for non-desexed dogs to $1,000+. That way people who seriously wanted to keep their animals entire would have an option (albeit and expensive one) and these so-called wonderful registered breeders would be able to tax-deduct the cost of registration (as it's an expense incurred in generating income).

Charge that much and you encorage people to breed just to get the money back!

[Guest Tess32]

I don't believe in mandatory desexing of dogs across the board... but I also don't think that all owners realise the implications of having a litter of pups...

I do believe in mandatory desexing of any dog sourced from a pound, shelter, or rescue though - done before the new owner takes it home.

T.

Hi, can I ask why? If you're not a registered breeder, then why would you need to have a dog that is undesexed? What is the difference for a pound/rescue dog being desexed before it goes home with new owner (which I agree with) and the purebred pet that is purchased from a registered breeder - surely that pup should also be desexed (when old enough) as well. There are just as many purebreeds in the pounds and shelters as crossbreeds.

I choose to keep my male entire because I see no medical benefit in desexing him. Why should I be forced to desex him?

[Red Fox]

I don't believe in mandatory desexing of dogs across the board... but I also don't think that all owners realise the implications of having a litter of pups...

I do believe in mandatory desexing of any dog sourced from a pound, shelter, or rescue though - done before the new owner takes it home.

T.

Hi, can I ask why? If you're not a registered breeder, then why would you need to have a dog that is undesexed? What is the difference for a pound/rescue dog being desexed before it goes home with new owner (which I agree with) and the purebred pet that is purchased from a registered breeder - surely that pup should also be desexed (when old enough) as well. There are just as many purebreeds in the pounds and shelters as crossbreeds.

I choose to keep my male entire because I see no medical benefit in desexing him. Why should I be forced to desex him?

Agreed. Not everyone agrees that desexing is always in the best interests of their dog.

The issue here is more to do with unregistered breeding than it is to do with keeping entire animals.

Upping the rego fees to rediculously high amounts will encourage two things - breeding to recover money and un-registered dogs. Both already huge problems in society so why would you want to increase them?

Crack down on the BYB's. If there were huge fines for this then people would be more likely to desex their pets to avoid any 'accidents' and resulting fines and responsible owners would have nothing to worry about.

Mandatory desexing of shelter/pound animals is about breaking the cycle and is highly warranted in that case, but mandatory desexing of ALL animals regardless of who owns them or where they came from is a violation of rights IMO.

[angelsun]

Continued education is a big part of this. I hear too many breeders (registered) that sell a pup and tell them, it's your dog, do what you wish..if you want to desex, it's up to you and others that state clearly, if you want to breed with it, it's up to you...you paid for the dog, it's yours. Sorry, disagree beyond belief with this one!

Breeders should be giving the desex lecture as to why it's best in the long term, not giving a bunch of pet owners who decide their bitch needs to be a mother (and who cares who the father is because it didn't cost me anything to get her pregnant and I can make a few dollars off the mongrels she produces) or that they want exactly the same as their dog (didn't know we could clone successfully all aspects of this yet)

I push the desex topic hard with my puppy buyers for good reason. I came from a country with a HUGE puppy mill in my breed and the beginnings of them starting to mix the GP with other stuff. A mill that didn't test anything and would not take back sick dogs (of which there were many) nor back the owners in any form if they were unfortunate enough to get the ones that were not well.

In my opinion, there is NO reason to keep a canine entire if they are not to be used to reproduce. People can banter around all the stats as to why it could be healthier to get a dog desexed, but that aside, it simply is not necessary to keep testicals on a male who is or has been classified as a pet because of some structural issue that does not conform to the breed standard, simply because the owner needs to see two balls bounce around as the dog walks away and it for some reason keeps (in most cases) the male of the house happy. As for bitches, for those that own large breeds that bleed like stuck pigs twice a year or better, sure it's easy to toss them outside and keep the carpet and furniture clean, and say that since there isn't a male in the house, no worries....do they realize that a bitch will go looking for a male as much as a male will come skulking around and find a crack in the fence if possible? What about those dozen pups that come from such a rendevous.....will one of them be exactly like the mother and fulfill the owners desire to get another dog just like this one? What about the bitch that hasn't any milk, or the bitch that looks at these wiggly things and says...mmmmm....dinner, or simply....what the hell are these and NO I"m not looking after them! What about those dozen pups that end up in the shelter and the vicious circle begins yet again because someone adopts what looks to be one breed, falls in love with it and decides that they want another just the same....here we go again.

yes I rant about desexing and the need to do it, and I have always and will always continue to rant. I ranted as a pet owner before I started breeding and I rant even moreso now as a breeder....is it because I don't want competition? Puleeze...I've made it my goal for over a decade in my current breed, to mentor and bring people under my wing so we HAVE more good breeders.....I practice what I preach....my girls who give me a couple litters and I retire, are quickly spayed....the boys are either collected where possible and castrated or simply castrated when they do not appear to have the need for their jewels any longer.

There are some out there that say that I have no right to insist that my pups are desexed...but I disagree....besides, by the time I screen people and explain my reasons, I find there are no issues. If the potential buyers flat out refuse to desex, they simply don't get a pup of mine...end of subject.

This is how I personally break the cycle.

[BJean]

http://frankston-leader.whereilive.com.au/...oses-his-fight/

A man in Frankston refuses to desex his xbred so it can be registered, local law says that all dogs must be desexed in order to be registered, unless a pedigree.

Not only do his comments baffle me, some of the reader comments are just wierd....

"The dog is good breeding stock"??

:rofl: :D

:D :D :) ;)

:D ;)

ETA: I can't make the link work, try copy and paste into browser, sorry :D

imo the issue is that of MANDATORY desexing.

Not what breed or cross breed of dog the man owns.

Good on him for standing up for his rights as a pet owner.

Desexing is NOT the panacea that it is purported to be.

[BJean]

Agreed. Not everyone agrees that desexing is always in the best interests of their dog.

The issue here is more to do with unregistered breeding than it is to do with keeping entire animals.

Upping the rego fees to rediculously high amounts will encourage two things - breeding to recover money and un-registered dogs. Both already huge problems in society so why would you want to increase them?

Crack down on the BYB's. If there were huge fines for this then people would be more likely to desex their pets to avoid any 'accidents' and resulting fines and responsible owners would have nothing to worry about.

Mandatory desexing of shelter/pound animals is about breaking the cycle and is highly warranted in that case, but mandatory desexing of ALL animals regardless of who owns them or where they came from is a violation of rights IMO.

Scare mongering will not help owners make better choices for their pets.

The information regarding whether owners should desex their pet or not, has become a mantra on ethos

not what is the best interest for the individual pet owner and their dog.

[BJean]

In my opinion, there is NO reason to keep a canine entire if they are not to be used to reproduce. People can banter around all the stats as to why it could be healthier to get a dog desexed, but that aside, it simply is not necessary to keep testicals on a male who is or has been classified as a pet because of some structural issue that does not conform to the breed standard, simply because the owner needs to see two balls bounce around as the dog walks away and it for some reason keeps (in most cases) the male of the house happy. As for bitches, for those that own large breeds that bleed like stuck pigs twice a year or better, sure it's easy to toss them outside and keep the carpet and furniture clean, and say that since there isn't a male in the house, no worries....do they realize that a bitch will go looking for a male as much as a male will come skulking around and find a crack in the fence if possible? What about those dozen pups that come from such a rendevous.....will one of them be exactly like the mother and fulfill the owners desire to get another dog just like this one? What about the bitch that hasn't any milk, or the bitch that looks at these wiggly things and says...mmmmm....dinner, or simply....what the hell are these and NO I"m not looking after them! What about those dozen pups that end up in the shelter and the vicious circle begins yet again because someone adopts what looks to be one breed, falls in love with it and decides that they want another just the same....here we go again.

Which is why in a democracy you are allowed to determine what you believe is best for your dogs.

Other owners like myself, have equally valid concerns as to why they do not want to desex,

and/or when they decide to desex, it is based on reasoning relevant to the individual dog/bitch.

imo your summation of why not to desex is simplistic and perhaps a little dramatic :D

I do not consider the long term health of my dogs or dogs of my breeding should be put aside for any reason.

There are so many unknowns with how certain cancers and other issues (ie auto immune) come into play, that until canine development is fully understood and how this relates to the expression of certain health concerns, I will not advocate blanket desexing that does not take into account the individual dog/bitch and the informed opinion / choice of the owner.

Edited June 8, 2010 by lilli