Mass Desexing Now, Rspca

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

You will get my vote Poodlefan!

You won't need to vote for me.. :p

Spoken like a true revolutionary :D

[persephone]

Killing by shelters/vets is not 'cruelty' in my book.

if the killing of over ( well over some say) 250.000 dogs and cats each year isnt cruelty, then what is?.

Leaving pets ( often desexed) on short chains, or in bare yards, with no food/training/warmth.... THAT is cruel.

Mixing up breeds ,producing pups with mismatched bodyparts /coats... that can be cruel.

dogs housed in cages at puppy factories- THAT is cruel.

leaving a cute little fluffy dog until its coat is so matted that the dog cannot see properly, or walk comfortably ...THAT is cruelty.

Mass desexing will do NOTHING to stop humans treating pets badly ..and THAT is cruelty.

[poodlefan]

I used to really like politics but now I do not like the sameness from all parties. We now live in a world where 5%-10% of voters (swinging ones) call all the shots..so much for democracy.

:D I think I should start a campaign in my electorate where all even number households for Liberal, and the odd numbers vote Labor. Nothing like a very close poll and a marginal electorate to attract lots of political attention/govt funding. :p

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I used to really like politics but now I do not like the sameness from all parties. We now live in a world where 5%-10% of voters (swinging ones) call all the shots..so much for democracy.

:p I think I should start a campaign in my electorate where all even number households for Liberal, and the odd numbers vote Labor. Nothing like a very close poll and a marginal electorate to attract lots of political attention/govt funding.

;)

I think we are ready for this :D

Look at how many hung parliaments or close margins are across Australian states and the Commonwealth....the electorate is sending a very big message

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Killing by shelters/vets is not 'cruelty' in my book.

if the killing of over ( well over some say) 250.000 dogs and cats each year isnt cruelty, then what is?.

Leaving pets ( often desexed) on short chains, or in bare yards, with no food/training/warmth.... THAT is cruel.

Mixing up breeds ,producing pups with mismatched bodyparts /coats... that can be cruel.

dogs housed in cages at puppy factories- THAT is cruel.

leaving a cute little fluffy dog until its coat is so matted that the dog cannot see properly, or walk comfortably ...THAT is cruelty.

Mass desexing will do NOTHING to stop humans treating pets badly ..and THAT is cruelty.

Exactly.

[Steve]

Most dogs in shelters are adults. I had a hard time finding a puppy when I wanted one (although admittedly it wasn't puppy season). The problem isn't too many animals, it's a lack of responsible ownership. Most dogs in shelters came from good homes, and were given up due to divorce, moving or work commitments. (Or just because the owner didn't bother training the dog and decided the badly behaved adult dog was too much work). They weren't picked up as strays on the street.

So there aren't too many animals, there are too many irresponsible owners.

Responsible ownership encompasses desexing unless one is a reputable registered breeder. The vast majority of dogs ending up in the Canberra dog pound are not desexed. And it's a bit of a stretch to say that in your experience, pound dogs come from good homes, when in the next breath you say they were given up due to divorce, moving or work commitments. None of those are good reasons for abandoning a dog in my view - they should not be treated as dispensible commodities.

Responsible dog ownership encompasses making informed decisions for what is best for your pet in conjunction with your vet. If you choose not to desex that doesnt make you less responsible.

Interesting that the vast majority of dogs in the Canberra dog pound are not desexed when mandatory desexing has been in that state for so long.

Pound dogs come from all sorts of homes for all sorts of reasons and sometimes people have to choose the lesser of two evils to survive.

[Curlybert]

Responsible dog ownership encompasses making informed decisions for what is best for your pet in conjunction with your vet. If you choose not to desex that doesnt make you less responsible.

Interesting that the vast majority of dogs in the Canberra dog pound are not desexed when mandatory desexing has been in that state for so long.

Pound dogs come from all sorts of homes for all sorts of reasons and sometimes people have to choose the lesser of two evils to survive.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I can't think of any circumstances where it would be appropriate not to desex, apart from the one I outlined in my earlier post. Or maybe where a rescued animal is already very old. I think it is unfair to leave a dog entire, with all its natural urges unfulfilled. Desexing helps to eliminate that problem. Perthaps you can outline some reasons why desexing of pets should be optional.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Curlybert

[persephone]

with all its natural urges unfulfilled.

Gosh...

I may be wrong, but in wild populations of any animal...not EVERY animal gets to 'fulfil' ALL its urges . Only the best /fittest will mate , and only the healthiest will rear young and live to a ripe old age.

sex drive is only ONE of the urges- albeit a powerful one.

Entire dogs can still, with the right owner, run/dig/sniff/bark/chew bones/hunt .. all 'natural urges' which can be adequately catered for :D

Being entire and not breeding is certainly not the worst that can happen to a dog :p An entire animal , with lots to occupy it , and who has never had a breeding opportunity is certainly not doomed to a life full of frustration!

Growing up, none of our farm dogs were desexed .. puppies were only bred from the select few , occasionally , and the dogs were certainly not lacking in excitement/exercise/fulfilment .

Edited April 7, 2011 by persephone

[Keira&Phoenix]

I think maybe a better petition would be to get the RSPCA to offer free desexing to the public. I also think the RSPCA raises huge amounts of revenue and could be doing more to help out but mass desexing???

Just give the option of a cheap or free desexing to those in the public who want it and you will have more desexed animals because people who can't afford to go to the vet can afford to go to the rspca...?

[Diva]

Responsible dog ownership encompasses making informed decisions for what is best for your pet in conjunction with your vet. If you choose not to desex that doesnt make you less responsible.

Interesting that the vast majority of dogs in the Canberra dog pound are not desexed when mandatory desexing has been in that state for so long.

Pound dogs come from all sorts of homes for all sorts of reasons and sometimes people have to choose the lesser of two evils to survive.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I can't think of any circumstances where it would be appropriate not to desex, apart from the one I outlined in my earlier post. Or maybe where a rescued animal is already very old. I think it is unfair to leave a dog entire, with all its natural urges unfulfilled. Desexing helps to eliminate that problem. Perthaps you can outline some reasons why desexing of pets should be optional.

It should be optional because the purported medical effects are by no means all positive. The main benefit is in regard to unwanted litters - well I am quite capable of avoiding those and I can make medical decisions for my animals better than any one-size-fits-all blanket policy.

I should be able to chose for them not to have major internal (for bitches) organs removed for societal convenience, and for them not to have to suffer the hormonal impacts of that.

I've not desexed any of my male dogs over the years, and of the 2 females I've desexed I consider the one desexed just for my convenience to be a major mistake and unfair on the dog.

Excepting a medical reason or suddenly not being able to keep them secure (which is improbable in my circumstances) I am unlikely to ever desex another dog of mine. And that is an informed choice, not laziness. I happily stump up for the entire permits, and wish the ACT govt would use the funds to police the existing laws about roaming dogs with a bit more vigour - if they did maybe I could take the pound off my speed dial.

Saying it's unfair to keep dogs entire because they will get frustrated just sounds absurd to me, like a made up reason designed to appeal to the anthropomorphic amongst us. I have kept too many happy, fulfilled undesexed dogs over the years to swallow it.

I strongly support subsidisied desexing - but tying that issue to the manadatory desexing argument does it no favours with people like me. No signature here.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Diva

[Curlybert]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I can't think of any circumstances where it would be appropriate not to desex, apart from the one I outlined in my earlier post. Or maybe where a rescued animal is already very old. I think it is unfair to leave a dog entire, with all its natural urges unfulfilled. Desexing helps to eliminate that problem. Perthaps you can outline some reasons why desexing of pets should be optional.

It should be optional because the purported medical effects are by no means all positive. The main benefit is in regard to unwanted litters - well I am quite capable of avoiding those and I can make medical decisions for my animals better than any one-size-fits-all blanket policy.

I should be able to chose for them not to have major internal (for bitches) organs removed for societal convenience, and for them not to have to suffer the hormonal impacts of that.

I've not desexed any of my male dogs over the years, and of the 2 females I've desexed I consider the one desexed just for my convenience to be a major mistake and unfair on the dog.

Excepting a medical reason or suddenly not being able to keep them secure (which is improbable in my circumstances) I am unlikely to ever desex another dog of mine. And that is an informed choice, not laziness. I happily stump up for the entire permits, and wish the ACT govt would use the funds to police the existing laws about roaming dogs with a bit more vigour - if they did maybe I could take the pound off my speed dial.

Saying it's cruel to keep dogs entire because they will get frustrated just sounds absurd to me, like a made up reason designed to appeal to the anthropomorphic amongst us. I have kept too many happy, fulfilled undesexed dogs over the years to swallow it.

I strongly support subsidisied desexing - but tying that issue to the manadatory desexing argument does it no favours with people like me. No signature here.

Your paraphrasing is inaccurate. I said unfair. Not cruel. But no doubt you still think it's absurd.

[Diva]

Your paraphrasing is inaccurate. I said unfair. Not cruel. But no doubt you still think it's absurd.

didn't mean to misquote, will go back and edit to 'unfair'.

But yes, it's so counter to my direct personal experience with entire and desexed dogs that I can't give it any credence.

[Steve]

Responsible dog ownership encompasses making informed decisions for what is best for your pet in conjunction with your vet. If you choose not to desex that doesnt make you less responsible.

Interesting that the vast majority of dogs in the Canberra dog pound are not desexed when mandatory desexing has been in that state for so long.

Pound dogs come from all sorts of homes for all sorts of reasons and sometimes people have to choose the lesser of two evils to survive.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I can't think of any circumstances where it would be appropriate not to desex, apart from the one I outlined in my earlier post. Or maybe where a rescued animal is already very old. I think it is unfair to leave a dog entire, with all its natural urges unfulfilled. Desexing helps to eliminate that problem. Perthaps you can outline some reasons why desexing of pets should be optional.

Breed, age gender and other variables need to be taken into account. None of the medical literature supports a situation which dictates that a dog should be desexed without these variables being taken into account in consultation with the dog owner and their veterinarian.

Our research shows there are both positive and negative results and that there is still much work to do to try allow medical professionals to fully understand all of the potential implications.

Male dogs

For most male dogs – especially young male dogs there is over whelming evidence to believe that sterilisation will not prevent health problems and that there is in fact greater risk of health problems arising from desexing which far outweigh any health benefits.

Positive, sterilisation male dogs:

• eliminates the small risk (<1%) of dying from testicular cancer;
  
• reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders;
  
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas; and
  
• may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive).
  

Negative, sterilisation male dogs:

• If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis;
  
• increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6;
  
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism;
  
• increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment;
  
• triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems;
  
• quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer;
  
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers;
  
• increases the risk of orthopaedic disorders; and
  

• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations.

Female dogs

For female dogs there may be more health benefits than adverse affects but much is dependent on age a time of spay and breed.

Positive, spaying female dogs:

• If done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumours, the most common malignant tumours in female dogs;
  
• Nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs;
  
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas; and
  
• removes the very small risk (0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumours.
  

Negative, spaying female dogs:

• If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis;
  
• increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of >5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds;
  
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism;
  
• increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems;
  
• causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs;
  
• increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4;
  
• increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty;
  
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumours;
  
• increases the risk of orthopaedic disorders; and
  
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations.
  

References

1. http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/b...vet/neutr.html2 Pollari FL, NEUTERING MALE AND FEMALE DOGS Mary C Wake man dmv

2. Bonnett BN, Bamsey, SC, Meek, AH, Allen, DG (1996) Postoperative complications of elective surgeries in dogs and cats determined by examining electronic and medical records. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 208, 1882-1886 http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.co...ract/157/26/829

3 Dorn AS, Swist RA. (1977) Complications of canine ovariohysterectomy. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 13, 720-724 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...dccb85001e9b293

4 Pollari FL, Bonnett BN. Evaluation of postoperative complications following elective surgeries of dogs and cats at private practices using computer records, Can Vet J. 1996 November; 37(11): 672–678

5 Teske E, Naan EC, van Dijk EM, van Garderen E, Schalken JA. Canine prostate carcinoma: epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2002 Nov 29;197(1-2):251-5

6 Sorenmo KU, Goldschmidt M, Shofer F, Ferrocone J. Immunohistochemical characterization of canine prostatic carcinoma and correlation with castration status and castration time. Vet Comparative Oncology. 2003 Mar; 1 (1): 48

7 Weaver, AD. Fifteen cases of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. Vet Rec. 1981; 109, 71-75

8 Cohen D, Reif JS, Brodey RS, et al: Epidemiological analysis of the most prevalent sites and types of canine neoplasia observed in a veterinary hospital. Cancer Res 34:2859-2868, 1974

9 Theilen GH, Madewell BR. Tumors of the genital system. Part II. In:Theilen GH, Madewell BR, eds. Veterinary cancer medicine. 2nd ed. Lea and Febinger, 1987:583–600

10 Glickman LT, Glickman N, Thorpe R. The Golden Retriever Club of America National Health Survey 1998-1999 http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/golden_retriever_final22.pdf

11 Handbook of Small Animal Practice, 3rd ed

12 Hayes HM Jr, Pendergrass TW. Canine testicular tumors: epidemiologic features of 410 dogs. Int J Cancer 1976 Oct 15;18(4):482-7

13 Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. (1998) Host-related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9

14 Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ. Endogenous gonadal

hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40

15 Moe L. Population-based incidence of mammary tumours in some dog breeds. J of Reproduction and Fertility Supplement 57, 439-443

16 Ferguson HR; Vet Clinics of N Amer: Small Animal Practice; Vol 15, No 3, May 1985

17 MacEwen EG, Patnaik AK, Harvey HJ Oestrogen receptors in canine mammary tumors. Cancer Res., 42: 2255-2259, 1982

18 Schneider, R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON. Factors Influencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and Post-surgical Survival. J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969

19 Feinleib M: Breast cancer and artificial menopause: A cohort study. J Nat Cancer Inst 41: 315-329, 1968

20 Dorn CR and Schneider R. Inbreeding and canine mammary cancer. A retrospective study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 57: 545-548, 1976

21 Brodey RS: Canine and feline neoplasia. Adv Vet Sci Comp Med 14:309-354, 1970

22 Hayes A, Harvey H J: Treatment of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 174:1304-1306, 1979 Page 10 of 12

23 Norris AM, Laing EJ, Valli VE, Withrow SJ. J Vet Intern Med 1992 May; 6(3):145-53

24 Prymak C, McKee LJ, Goldschmidt MH, Glickman LT. Epidemiologic, clinical, pathologic, and prognostic characteristics of splenic hemangiosarcoma and splenic hematoma in dogs: 217 cases (1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988 Sep; 193(6):706-12

25 Ware WA, Hopper, DL. Cardiac Tumors in Dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999;13:95–103

26 Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994 Mar 1;204(5):761-7

27 Panciera DL. Canine hypothyroidism. Part I. Clinical findings and control of thyroid hormone secretion and metabolism. Compend Contin Pract Vet 1990: 12: 689-701. 28

28 Glickman LT, Glickman N, Raghaven M, The Akita Club of America National Health Survey 2000-2001 http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/akita_final_2.pdf

29 Glickman LT, HogenEsch H, Raghavan M, Edinboro C, Scott-Moncrieff C. Final Report to the Hayward Foundation and The Great Dane Health Foundation of a Study Titled Vaccinosis in Great Danes. 1 Jan 2004

http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/great_dane_vaccinosis_fullreport_jan04.pdf

30 Edney AT, Smith PM. Study of obesity in dogs visiting veterinary practices in the United Kingdom. .Vet Rec. 1986 Apr 5;118(14):391-6

31 McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Pride C, Fawcett A, Grassi T, Jones B. Prevalence of obesity in dogs examined by Australian veterinary practices and the risk factors involved. Vet Rec. 2005 May 28;156(22):695-702

32 Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk, CA, Klausner, JS. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Obesity in Adult Dogs from Private US Veterinary Practices. Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 4, No. 2, 2006

33 Marmor M, Willeberg P, Glickman LT, Priester WA, Cypess RH, Hurvitz AI. Epizootiologic patterns of diabetes mellitus in dogs Am J Vet Res. 1982 Mar;43(3):465-70

34 Moore GE, Guptill LF, Ward MP, Glickman NW, Faunt KF, Lewis HB, Glickman LT. Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs. JAVMA Vol 227, No 7, Oct 1, 2005

35 Thrusfield MV, Holt PE, Muirhead RH. Acquired urinary incontinence in bitches: its incidence and relationship to sterilisation practices.. J Small Anim Pract. 1998. Dec;39(12):559-66

36 Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2001;57:233-6

37 Arnold S, Arnold P, Hubler M, Casal M, and Rüsch P. Urinary Incontinence in spayed bitches: prevalence and breed disposition. European Journal of Campanion Animal Practice. 131, 259-263

38 Thrusfield MV 1985 Association between urinary incontinence and spaying in bitches Vet Rec 116 695

39 Richter KP, Ling V. Clinical response and urethral pressure profile changes after phenypropanolamine in dogs with primary sphincter incompetence. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985: 187: 605-611

40 Holt PE. Urinary incontinence in dogs and cats. Vet Rec 1990: 127: 347-350

41 Seguin MA, Vaden SL, Altier C, Stone E, Levine JF (2003) Persistent Urinary Tract Infections and Reinfections in 100 Dogs (1989–1999). Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine: Vol. 17, No. 5 pp. 622–631

42 Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387

43 Verstegen-Onclin K, Verstegen J. Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Sterilisation: Effects on the Urogenital System. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control

http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf

44 Hagman R: New aspects of canine pyometra. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 2004. Page 11 of 12

45.Chastain CB, Panciera D, Waters C: Associations between age, parity, hormonal therapy and breed, and pyometra in Finnish dogs. Small Animal Endocrinal 1999; 9: 8

46 Killingsworth CR, Walshaw R, Dunstan RW, Rosser, EJ. Bacterial population and histologic changes in dogs with perianal fistula. Am J Vet Res, Vol 49, No. 10, Oct 1988

47 Johnston SD, Kamolpatana K, Root-Kustritz MV, Johnston GR, Prostatic disorders in the dog. Anim Reprod. Sci Jul 2;60-61:405-415

48 Dannuccia GA, Martin RB., Patterson-Buckendahl P Ovariectomy and trabecular bone remodeling in the dog. Calcif Tissue Int 1986; 40: 194-199

49 Martin RB, Butcher RL, Sherwood L,L Buckendahl P, Boyd RD, Farris D, Sharkey N,Dannucci G.Effects of ovariectomy in beagle dogs.Bone 1987; 8:23-31

50 Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: Effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development, JAVMA, Vol 198, No. 7, April 1991

51 Whitehair JG, Vasseur PB, Willits NH. Epidemiology of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993 Oct 1;203(7):1016-9

52 Glickman LT, Airedale Terrier Club of America, Airedale Terrier Health Survey 2000-2001

http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/Airedale%20final%20report_revised.pdf 53

53.van Hagen MA, Ducro BJ, van den Broek J, Knol BW. Incidence, risk factors, and heritability estimates of hind limb lameness caused by hip dysplasia in a birth cohort of boxers. Am J Vet Res. 2005 Feb;66(2):307-12

54 B. Vidoni, I. Sommerfeld-Stur und E. Eisenmenger: Diagnostic and genetic aspects of patellar luxation in small and miniature breed dogs in Austria. Wien.Tierarztl.Mschr. (2005) 92, p170 – 181

55 Hart BL. Effect of gonadectomy on subsequent development of age-related cognitive impairment in dogs J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jul 1;219(1):51-6

[Diva]

The individual consideration of risks and benefits is the key for me. My fav breed is robust with very few health issues and Steve's post nails 2 of the biggest as at increased risk if desexed.

The increased osteosarcoma risk is critical. Osteosarcoma is probably the major disease cause of death for my breed, and I'll do anything I reasonably can to minimise that particular risk. Hypothyroidism is a big issue for the breed too - have never had it, but am not keen to triple the risk. It's the one that crops up in the breed health surveys and OFA stats as most of concern so I am not about to play into that predisposition.

ps: poodlefan for PM or at least Chief Minister

Edited April 7, 2011 by Diva

[poodlefan]

One of my older dog books (English) dates from the 1950's.

The author regards desexing as the lazy way out of the responsibilities of managing dogs and frowns upon surgical solutions to issues that can be solved with good management.

My, how times have changed. Or have they?

I support desexing but I don't support the idea of desexing as a panacea for the problem of unwanted dogs OR as a compulsory solution to the that issue. Put the word "mandatory" in front of most animal welfare solutions and you'll find the same folk who manage their dogs responsiblity will cope another requirement and those who don't give a damn will continue on as usual.

Give me education over legislation every time.

The fact that the same folk who advocate for mandatory desexing chafe at any legislatively mandated standards and activities for private dog rescue deserves some reflection. I wonder how those proposing this petition would like to be legally bound to quarantine all dogs in appropriate facilities for 21 days and to be legally liable for any damages caused by a newly rehomed dog.

I'll tell you this though. If the solution to the issue of unwanted dogs was as easy as a new law, my guess is we'd have those laws already. As it is the laws we've got don't work now.

Show me a program like the ASPCA has that takes mobile surgeries out to the public and does "while you wait" free desexing and I'll support that to the hilt. Remove yet another public right to choose how and when (and even if) dogs are desexed and I won't.

In the meantime, lets not kid ourselves that the primary motivation for desexing dogs is the best interests of the individual animal undergoing the surgery.

Oh and for the record all my non-show dogs are desexed.

Edited April 7, 2011 by poodlefan

[Steve]

The increased osteosarcoma risk you cite is critical for me Steve.

Osteosarcoma is probably the major disease cause of death for my fav breed, and I'll do anything I reasonably can to minimise that particular risk.

OT Type in osteosarcoma microchip into google search.

[poodlefan]

The individual consideration of risks and benefits is the key for me. My fav breed is robust with very few health issues and Steve's post nails 2 of the biggest as at increased risk if desexed.

The increased osteosarcoma risk is critical. Osteosarcoma is probably the major disease cause of death for my breed, and I'll do anything I reasonably can to minimise that particular risk. Hypothyroidism is a big issue for the breed too - have never had it, but am not keen to triple the risk. It's the one that crops up in the breed health surveys and OFA stats as most of concern so I am not about to play into that predisposition.

ps: poodlefan for PM or at least Chief Minister

That's Beloved Supreme Leader please

[Quickasyoucan]

This quote from PF (I'm too lazy to do the quote thing) is something I think can be constructively emphasised re desexing drives (not mandatory desexing laws).

"Show me a program like the ASPCA has that takes mobile surgeries out to the public and does "while you wait" free desexing and I'll support that to the hilt."

I don't think people don't just not have the money to get their dogs desexed, I think they just don't get around to it as well. I was watching an episode of Miami Animal police on Foxtel last night. Poor boxer with a terrible terrible case of demodex (and as it turned out heartworm positive ). The owner's response, "I work full time I dont have time to take him to the vet". (BTW dog was surrendered and found a fab home).

If you watch any of those shows where they take the facility to the people there are queues lining up at the door. People just don't get around to making an appointment and turning up for it, life gets in the way, it's not always about money its about not bothering to make the effort. But if you present them with an opportunity, they will oftent take it voluntarily.

The existing dog laws we have are draconian enough (on paper at least) butTHEY don't get policied. If they were and we had a lot less dogs roaming around, no people walking their dogs off leash on streets, not containing their dogs adequately, all of which are currently against the law, there would probably be a hell of a lot less strays, a lot less attacks and possibly even a lot less, "next doors randy jack russell climbed the fence and now my bitch is pregnant"....

Edited April 7, 2011 by Quickasyoucan

[Diva]

The increased osteosarcoma risk you cite is critical for me Steve.

Osteosarcoma is probably the major disease cause of death for my fav breed, and I'll do anything I reasonably can to minimise that particular risk.

OT Type in osteosarcoma microchip into google search.

Yes, I know

Edited April 7, 2011 by Diva

[poodlefan]

The existing dog laws we have are draconian enough (on paper at least) butTHEY don't get policied. If they were and we had a lot less dogs roaming around, no people walking their dogs off leash on streets, not containing their dogs adequately, all of which are currently against the law, there would probably be a hell of a lot less strays, a lot less attacks and possibly even a lot less, "next doors randy jack russell climbed the fence and now my bitch is pregnant"....

And in the ACT, any dog over the age of six? months that isn't the subject of an entire dog permit would be desexed.

And look how well that hasn't worked.