Here We Go Mandatory Desexing For All Pet Puppies.

[Steve]

In a one year period in ACT about 140 dogs are PTS - The only reasons given for that are medical and behavioural - there is no animal recorded which was PTS because there was not enough room at the inn or they couldnt find homes for. Now how is making baby puppies have their reproductive bits taken out at point of sale going to make a single bit of difference to those figures ? And at least some of those in that figure would have to be because shelters and pounds are often used as an alternative for legitimate euthanasia of an animal. It is widely accepted that many pet owners use shelters and pounds as an alternative to a veterinarian when seeking euthanasia of an old, sick or dangerous animal.

[bernym]

What bothers me the most about domestic pets in Australia is that over 100,000 of them are euthanised every year, not because they are sick, bad, or dangerous - but because they are unwanted.

Yet there are so many more being deliberately and accidentally bred to add to this amount. None of it makes sense to me.

Desexing really is the only thing that can stop this.

I sadly doubt, laws or not, that I will ever see this society getting to the point where we stop euthanising good animals simply because we have over-bred.

Alright Ill bite how will desexing stop this? The demand for puppies is still the same so eliminating oops litters simply means someone else will breed them.

Thisis irresponsible breeding problem is an irresponsible owner problem and all this does is ensure we have more sick desexed dogs and more sick desexed dogs coming into pounds.

But we can blame the breeder for that too.

I think you answered your first sentence with your second sentence. The problem is there are too many people allowing litters to be bred when there are already too many. Somone wouldn't be able to just go the next peron to get a pup, if the next person's dog was also desexed. If we are euthanising animals then clearly we have too many - the supply is greater than the demand - so why do people keep breeding? Puppies do get euthanised, so there clearly isn't a demand that justifies the current rate of breeding. A desexed animal cannot breed or contribute to the future over-supply of animals. Neither can a euthanised animal.

All my pets have been desexed before 12 months old, including several on the advice of the breeder, and I haven't even heard of most of the medical conditions you mentioned in the earlier post, let alone had a pet suffer from one. I'm not saying they don't exist, or it doesn't happen, but desexing a dog before 12 months is not necessarily a guarantee they will suffer more sickness. My two pedigree dogs suffer from more medical issues than any other pet I have owned, and these conditions have nothing to do with early desexing. Still, I don't blame the breeders for it, just bad luck.

Current laws don't stop people from drink-driving, committing murder, theft etc, so it is unlikely these new laws will be entirely effective in getting people to desex their pets. But if it stops enough people then we might eventually gain some type of control over the numbers of unwanted pets, or at least not have to kill so many which is probably the intent behind this legislation.

[Steve]

What bothers me the most about domestic pets in Australia is that over 100,000 of them are euthanised every year, not because they are sick, bad, or dangerous - but because they are unwanted.

Yet there are so many more being deliberately and accidentally bred to add to this amount. None of it makes sense to me.

Desexing really is the only thing that can stop this.

I sadly doubt, laws or not, that I will ever see this society getting to the point where we stop euthanising good animals simply because we have over-bred.

Alright Ill bite how will desexing stop this? The demand for puppies is still the same so eliminating oops litters simply means someone else will breed them.

Thisis irresponsible breeding problem is an irresponsible owner problem and all this does is ensure we have more sick desexed dogs and more sick desexed dogs coming into pounds.

But we can blame the breeder for that too.

I think you answered your first sentence with your second sentence. The problem is there are too many people allowing litters to be bred when there are already too many. Somone wouldn't be able to just go the next peron to get a pup, if the next person's dog was also desexed. If we are euthanising animals then clearly we have too many - the supply is greater than the demand - so why do people keep breeding? Puppies do get euthanised, so there clearly isn't a demand that justifies the current rate of breeding. A desexed animal cannot breed or contribute to the future over-supply of animals. Neither can a euthanised animal.

All my pets have been desexed before 12 months old, including several on the advice of the breeder, and I haven't even heard of most of the medical conditions you mentioned in the earlier post, let alone had a pet suffer from one. I'm not saying they don't exist, or it doesn't happen, but desexing a dog before 12 months is not necessarily a guarantee they will suffer more sickness. My two pedigree dogs suffer from more medical issues than any other pet I have owned, and these conditions have nothing to do with early desexing. Still, I don't blame the breeders for it, just bad luck.

Current laws don't stop people from drink-driving, committing murder, theft etc, so it is unlikely these new laws will be entirely effective in getting people to desex their pets. But if it stops enough people then we might eventually gain some type of control over the numbers of unwanted pets, or at least not have to kill so many which is probably the intent behind this legislation.

We are not bumping off dogs because there are too many we are doing that because they are sick or nasty. There is not one single dog listed as being killed by RSPCA ACT because there are too many of them. If you can provide ANY evidence that there is a canine over population problem and dogs are being put down because there are simply not enough homes for them in the ACT then I would be interested to see this.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Steve

[bernym]

What bothers me the most about domestic pets in Australia is that over 100,000 of them are euthanised every year, not because they are sick, bad, or dangerous - but because they are unwanted.

Yet there are so many more being deliberately and accidentally bred to add to this amount. None of it makes sense to me.

Desexing really is the only thing that can stop this.

I sadly doubt, laws or not, that I will ever see this society getting to the point where we stop euthanising good animals simply because we have over-bred.

Alright Ill bite how will desexing stop this? The demand for puppies is still the same so eliminating oops litters simply means someone else will breed them.

Thisis irresponsible breeding problem is an irresponsible owner problem and all this does is ensure we have more sick desexed dogs and more sick desexed dogs coming into pounds.

But we can blame the breeder for that too.

I think you answered your first sentence with your second sentence. The problem is there are too many people allowing litters to be bred when there are already too many. Somone wouldn't be able to just go the next peron to get a pup, if the next person's dog was also desexed. If we are euthanising animals then clearly we have too many - the supply is greater than the demand - so why do people keep breeding? Puppies do get euthanised, so there clearly isn't a demand that justifies the current rate of breeding. A desexed animal cannot breed or contribute to the future over-supply of animals. Neither can a euthanised animal.

All my pets have been desexed before 12 months old, including several on the advice of the breeder, and I haven't even heard of most of the medical conditions you mentioned in the earlier post, let alone had a pet suffer from one. I'm not saying they don't exist, or it doesn't happen, but desexing a dog before 12 months is not necessarily a guarantee they will suffer more sickness. My two pedigree dogs suffer from more medical issues than any other pet I have owned, and these conditions have nothing to do with early desexing. Still, I don't blame the breeders for it, just bad luck.

Current laws don't stop people from drink-driving, committing murder, theft etc, so it is unlikely these new laws will be entirely effective in getting people to desex their pets. But if it stops enough people then we might eventually gain some type of control over the numbers of unwanted pets, or at least not have to kill so many which is probably the intent behind this legislation.

We are not bumping off dogs because there are too many we are doing that because they are sick or nasty. There is not one single dog listed as being killed by RSPCA ACT because there are too many of them. If you can provide ANY evidence that there is an canine over population problem and dogs are being put down because there are simply not enough homes for them in the ACT then I would be interested to see this.

Go into the past rescue threads here on DOL and look under the ACT DAS threads and see how many dogs that are both healthy and nice that have been killed, including some that have been transferred from the RSPCA. It is a myth that only sick or nasty dogs are being put to sleep. That is all I will say on that topic on a public forum

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

[quote name='bernym' post='5013258' date='10th

We are not bumping off dogs because there are too many we are doing that because they are sick or nasty. There is not one single dog listed as being killed by RSPCA ACT because there are too many of them. If you can provide ANY evidence that there is an canine over population problem and dogs are being put down because there are simply not enough homes for them in the ACT then I would be interested to see this.

Go into the past rescue threads here on DOL and look under the ACT DAS threads and see how many dogs that are both healthy and nice that have been killed, including some that have been transferred from the RSPCA. It is a myth that only sick or nasty dogs are being put to sleep. That is all I will say on that topic on a public forum

whether you want to discuss on a public forum or not you have started the discussion and i think it is only fair you provide stats to back up your assertions.

[Steve]

Out of almost 400 puppies which came through or were born at the ACT RSPCA all but 22 found homes and they were PTS because of medical or behavioural issues.

People keep breeding because the demand far out weights the supply.The only thing we have an over supply of is irresponsible owners.

When rescue stop allowing pregnant dogs of unknown parentage to have puppies under the banner of saving them because there are not enough homes for them there maybe an argument for over supply.

[Steve]

What bothers me the most about domestic pets in Australia is that over 100,000 of them are euthanised every year, not because they are sick, bad, or dangerous - but because they are unwanted.

Yet there are so many more being deliberately and accidentally bred to add to this amount. None of it makes sense to me.

Desexing really is the only thing that can stop this.

I sadly doubt, laws or not, that I will ever see this society getting to the point where we stop euthanising good animals simply because we have over-bred.

Alright Ill bite how will desexing stop this? The demand for puppies is still the same so eliminating oops litters simply means someone else will breed them.

Thisis irresponsible breeding problem is an irresponsible owner problem and all this does is ensure we have more sick desexed dogs and more sick desexed dogs coming into pounds.

But we can blame the breeder for that too.

I think you answered your first sentence with your second sentence. The problem is there are too many people allowing litters to be bred when there are already too many. Somone wouldn't be able to just go the next peron to get a pup, if the next person's dog was also desexed. If we are euthanising animals then clearly we have too many - the supply is greater than the demand - so why do people keep breeding? Puppies do get euthanised, so there clearly isn't a demand that justifies the current rate of breeding. A desexed animal cannot breed or contribute to the future over-supply of animals. Neither can a euthanised animal.

All my pets have been desexed before 12 months old, including several on the advice of the breeder, and I haven't even heard of most of the medical conditions you mentioned in the earlier post, let alone had a pet suffer from one. I'm not saying they don't exist, or it doesn't happen, but desexing a dog before 12 months is not necessarily a guarantee they will suffer more sickness. My two pedigree dogs suffer from more medical issues than any other pet I have owned, and these conditions have nothing to do with early desexing. Still, I don't blame the breeders for it, just bad luck.

Current laws don't stop people from drink-driving, committing murder, theft etc, so it is unlikely these new laws will be entirely effective in getting people to desex their pets. But if it stops enough people then we might eventually gain some type of control over the numbers of unwanted pets, or at least not have to kill so many which is probably the intent behind this legislation.

We are not bumping off dogs because there are too many we are doing that because they are sick or nasty. There is not one single dog listed as being killed by RSPCA ACT because there are too many of them. If you can provide ANY evidence that there is an canine over population problem and dogs are being put down because there are simply not enough homes for them in the ACT then I would be interested to see this.

Go into the past rescue threads here on DOL and look under the ACT DAS threads and see how many dogs that are both healthy and nice that have been killed, including some that have been transferred from the RSPCA. It is a myth that only sick or nasty dogs are being put to sleep. That is all I will say on that topic on a public forum

If you have evidence to support a claim that the figures published by a charity which takes public donations to do what they say they are doing are not correct that is a serious accusation.One which I am certainly not prepared to believe without evidence. Until such time as any of us can see such things we have no choice but to go by what the figures which are published say. There is no over supply in the ACT. Mandatory desexing has not made any difference - unless you want to count a variability of 7 dogs as a difference and there is NO justification or viable argument to introduce even more laws for point of sale for breeders. There are scientific and credible studies to support abolishing all mandatory desexing laws rather than making current ones tougher. All over the world ststs show that less laws make for less kill rates.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

If we're going to go all nanny state on this, why not require pet owners to apply for a licence which requires passing at least a theory test that shows they understand what is required to care for the animal of their choice.

And no licence to anyone under the age of 16 (or 18).

And pet shop may not sell to anyone who doesn't have a licence. And pet shop may not grant licences.

And resources should be allocated to enforing the rule. Ie undercover inspectors should try to buy from sellers without a licence and if the seller - sells without sighting the licence - then they should be shut down and their animals removed and rehomed.

And a different licence (like the difference between family car and truck licences) should be granted by passing theory and practical (breeding site inspection) test for those who want to breed pets.

It does seem over the top if the kill rate for the ACT is correct.

Sometimes I wish propective parents should be required to pass a test and get a licence too. Sigh. Imagine if they tried to implement the same rules to prevent over population and pressure on our welfare systems by humans this way? Or is that just wrong but it's ok to apply the rule to pets?

[Staranais]

Doesn't matter what laws they pass if they don't bother enforcing them.

ETA, I mean that in the sense that, I don't think any new laws will do any good anyway.

They could pass those laws, but I reckon that 99% of the people who the law should target (the people that don't desex due to apathy or because they might want to have just one litter with an unhealth-tested fluffy) won't be caught. It will be just like the current dog laws - since they don't enforce the dog laws effectively, it's only the responsible, law abiding people that are affected by the laws, and they're not usually the people who are the problem.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Staranais

[Steve]

Doesn't matter what laws they pass if they don't bother enforcing them.

except idiots like me wont break the law so its me an mine who pay for them and theirs. That doesnt stop one dog from suffering.

[Staranais]

Doesn't matter what laws they pass if they don't bother enforcing them.

except idiots like me wont break the law so its me an mine who pay for them and theirs. That doesnt stop one dog from suffering.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. The laws will only affect law abiding people - and we're not usually the problem.

[raz]

Go into the past rescue threads here on DOL and look under the ACT DAS threads and see how many dogs that are both healthy and nice that have been killed, including some that have been transferred from the RSPCA. It is a myth that only sick or nasty dogs are being put to sleep. That is all I will say on that topic on a public forum

Where's your link to the stats? Dogs are being killed because owners dump them.

[Steve]

Go into the past rescue threads here on DOL and look under the ACT DAS threads and see how many dogs that are both healthy and nice that have been killed, including some that have been transferred from the RSPCA. It is a myth that only sick or nasty dogs are being put to sleep. That is all I will say on that topic on a public forum

Where's your link to the stats? Dogs are being killed because owners dump them.

Not at RSPCA ACT they are killed because they are sick or nasty thats it.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Steve

[Zombie Bait]

Its a bit ridiculous isn't it?

I own two dogs, both desexed at a young age. Brembo was an RSPCA special that was desexed at 8 weeks, Sierra a purebred RR desexed at 5.5 months old. I will never desex before sexual maturity again given the choice.

Whilst I have had no major health concerns that can be linked to their desexing at an early age, they are only 4 and 3 respectfully, so who knows what the future holds. I do know that Sierra is massively over sized for her breed and I do feel that some of this is attributed to desexing before her first season. She is abnormally tall and very fine boned for a RR and whilst some of this is linked to my poor breeder choice, much of the onus falls back to me and having her desexed at a very young age.

My partner and I have discussed our future breeds - I wish to have a male Great Dane and he wishes to have another female RR. Neither will be getting desexed before 18 months of age.

I totally back desexing of rescue dogs before being sold - does this make me somewhat of a hypocrite?

[espinay2]

Perhaps the confusion is that The RSPCA ACT and ACT DAS are two separate organisations and facilities. ACT DAS is the 'council pound' so to speak. While they IMO do a better job than many working with rescuers, they are not a rescue or rehoming organisation. Their job is dog control and policing of ACT Government legislation. The stats are very likely to be different between the two.

[Aussienot]

Does the RSPCA in ACT also act as the pound? Or are they private submissions only? If they only take privates, they can turn dogs away if they are full, thus not having to show this on their incoming or their euth statistics. You'd also have to look at any pound stats to get a full picture of the over all number of incoming animals.

Speaking from my experience at AWL, which was private surrenders only, we rarely were at over-capacity with dogs and puppies. When we were, we tried our other shelter, our branches and foster carers. If all else failed, we told the owners that we were full, told them what that meant for their dog and allowed them to make the decision. But with dogs, it rarely came up.

Cats, every single day we euthed dozens only because there were too many.

We also asked on surrender where they obtained the animal orginally, and if Pets Purgatory stopped selling live animals it would reduce the number surrendered significantly. And if you had a be a canine council registered breeder to advertise in the Trading Post or Gumtree, that would help heaps too. If byb's can't cheaply advertise it will be harder to sell their pups, and some will stop if it is not profitable.

Getting responsible law abiding pet owners to desex their animals won't significantly reduce the number of unwanted animals , because the kind of people who will obey this law tend to be the more responsible ones who are unlikely to let them breed.

[Steve]

Does the RSPCA in ACT also act as the pound? Or are they private submissions only? If they only take privates, they can turn dogs away if they are full, thus not having to show this on their incoming or their euth statistics. You'd also have to look at any pound stats to get a full picture of the over all number of incoming animals.

Speaking from my experience at AWL, which was private surrenders only, we rarely were at over-capacity with dogs and puppies. When we were, we tried our other shelter, our branches and foster carers. If all else failed, we told the owners that we were full, told them what that meant for their dog and allowed them to make the decision. But with dogs, it rarely came up.

Cats, every single day we euthed dozens only because there were too many.

We also asked on surrender where they obtained the animal orginally, and if Pets Purgatory stopped selling live animals it would reduce the number surrendered significantly. And if you had a be a canine council registered breeder to advertise in the Trading Post or Gumtree, that would help heaps too. If byb's can't cheaply advertise it will be harder to sell their pups, and some will stop if it is not profitable.

Getting responsible law abiding pet owners to desex their animals won't significantly reduce the number of unwanted animals , because the kind of people who will obey this law tend to be the more responsible ones who are unlikely to let them breed.

But either way all of what you say is about social issues not health or the rights of the owner to make informed decisions about what should be done for their pet in conjunction with their vet. I am a responsible person and clearly the majority of dog owners are and I shouldnt have to be told what to do with my dog in case someone else is an idiot. Why call for more laws if there are already laws in place which force pet owners to desex before the animal is able to reproduce anyway? It makes no sense.

[RuralPug]

I recently heard of a vet who was doing tubal ligations (irreversible) in female puppies and vasectomies (irreversible) in male puppies. Hormone production not affected, females still come on heat, they still need desexing when their growth is finished to lessen hormonal drives (although I would imagine some habits would be ingrained by then...).

But - they cannot produce puppies, accidentally or on purpose. Putting aside the Big Brother aspect (which I will admit bothers me) would this be a possible answer to the hormone problem while still ensuring a huge drop in accidental/unplanned litters?

One of the reasons that I haven't bred a litter in decades now is the problem of ensuring absolutely that nothing I breed will end up in the hands of BYB's or pf's. (who knows why my breed is a target for them - it is a hard breed to whelp).

The tubal severance is something I intend to research further and it may be an option that I would personally choose for non-breeding quality puppies. I don't want a law that says I have to desex young if this surgery is a better option.

Has anyone used this method?

[Tralee]

Why not simply have a mandatory code for pet shops and leave breeders alone.

Yes but that makes too much sense, Steve.

Is it really possible to make too much sense?

If the way forward can be seen clearly, if it just shines with truth, then that is the direction we must take.

[bernym]

Out of almost 400 puppies which came through or were born at the ACT RSPCA all but 22 found homes and they were PTS because of medical or behavioural issues.

People keep breeding because the demand far out weights the supply.The only thing we have an over supply of is irresponsible owners.

When rescue stop allowing pregnant dogs of unknown parentage to have puppies under the banner of saving them because there are not enough homes for them there maybe an argument for over supply.

http://issuu.com/cre8ive/docs/rspca_act_an...2010/1?mode=a_p

Here is the link to the RSPCA's last annual report. The canine figures are on page 22 for those interested. Take note there is no explanation for the fate of the 255 dogs they transferred to DAS, but a check of the rescue threads here on DOL show what happen to some of them. http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showforum=47

No oversupply of dogs?? Keep checking the rescue threads and then come back and say that.