An Animal Welfare Petition For Compulsory De-sexing Of Cats And Dogs F

[Blackdogs]

When it comes to desexing, I'm 100% pro-choice. I own two entire animals, but have no intention of breeding. We need more education and less legislation.

[Maxiewolf]

My Dog Is entire, he has no agression problems, he isn't roaming the streets impregnating bitches, and I don't BYB and never will.. I don't see why I should be made to desex my dog unless its for his own health.

These dogs that need rescuing, the thousands and thousands of them - they are not the product of undesexed dogs roaming around making litters left right and centre, it is the result of a surplus of a consumer must have "product", that everyone "has to have" till the novelty wears off.

The killing stops when the impulse buying because "its cute" stops. Not by forcing the majority to pay for the minorities trying to make a quick buck from a 'pup.

[Nekhbet]

No I wouldn't either.

As for being a registered breeder and being exempt - sorry but a registered breeder does not make an ethical person or one that loves their animals. One lovely example is the 'registered breeder' who kept their dogs in filthy cages and when found out, shot them and burned the bodies because they had so many.

I dont have desexed dogs and I will not. You can't force me to perform surgery on my animals and if the law comes in they wont win in any argument with me about it. Forced desexing will not ensure people are responsible, by a long shot.

[melzawelza]

Disagree with mandatory desexing for the simple reason that it doesn't work.

[Jed]

Surely the people who proposed this petition cant have thought about the implications in the long term?

People who show and don't breed (which is the majority of ANKC members) couldn't have entire dogs, so most of the people who show would be wiped out.

The ramifications are huge

And how discriminatory is it to force people to have purebred dogs? Some people prefer x bred dogs ... and not designer dogs either.

The cause of pound populations is not the number of pups being bred. People who are in favour of legislation to prevent breeding have not read the studies. Every study done shows that dogs are sent to the pound to do "not meeting owners' expectations" and preventing breeding will not stop that.

Education and careful homing of pups will stop that, not mandatory desexing.

We have enough numpty laws already.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Jed

[dogsaremyworld]

No I wouldn't either.

As for being a registered breeder and being exempt - sorry but a registered breeder does not make an ethical person or one that loves their animals. One lovely example is the 'registered breeder' who kept their dogs in filthy cages and when found out, shot them and burned the bodies because they had so many.

I dont have desexed dogs and I will not. You can't force me to perform surgery on my animals and if the law comes in they wont win in any argument with me about it. Forced desexing will not ensure people are responsible, by a long shot.

As with everything there are exceptions to everything. I don't think you can deny that the vast majority of registered breeders are responsible. Using an isolated case, to refute an entire group of people is unfair.

The reason, IMO mandatory desexing would potentially work is if EVERY dog outside a registered breeder's control is desexed, then there is absolutely no excuse for any dog to be bred outside thier control. This is turn makes the pups traceable (something even the RSPCA highlights as crucial in fighting puppy farming - I don't agree with them often but on this I agree). If you can trace a pup back to its breeder, you then make that person legally responsible and liable to persecution should they break the law. If only registered breeders breed puppies, then they can crack down on the other issues that plague the dog world. If everyone, and thier uncle has access to entire dogs, and do not have to be registered for the priveledge then traceability becomes IMPOSSIBLE.

As for you people who have entire dogs and are not breeders, do not breed, and have no intention of breeding, why does it matter to you if your dogs are desexed or not? It will save you money if your council area has lifetime registration rules, and in most cases has a plethora of health benefits to your dogs. Why is it such a drama to desex them if you are not breeding? That is the only reason you need your animal's genitals in tact.

Now, I know there are websites, and 'research' out there claiming that desexing affects everything from a dog's mental state to it's structure, but it is very rarely supported, or accepted by the majority of clinicians. The reality is, if you aren't breeding your dogs, why on earth do you want to keep them entire? And this is a question I ponder often, usually around the time a bitch comes into season - why would you want to deal with seasons, and the affect this has on male dogs, unless you were a breeder? In fact, sometimes I wonder, if the loudest voices against desexing the majority of animals have a vested interest in keeping legislature away. After all, if you have nothing to fear, and nothing to lose from such rules, why are you worried about it?

I also believe that the issue of enforcement is an important one that needs to be pondered, and I agree, there is no point introducing something that will only be on paper, and not in real life. I also believe, that desexing costs need to be subsidised if such a program were to be introduced, so that everyone can afford to desex thier animals, at a reasonable cost. And as I said in a previous post, exceptions should be part of the rules, as there are exceptional circumstances within the dog world which would call for them - for example, working dogs, or dogs not accepted such as the koolie - perhaps a seperate register for those breeders to register upon, which would have to be of course tightly managed. And of course show people who DONT breed and have no intention of breeding - we already get cheaper fees with council registration, and exceptions for the number of entire animals allowed to house at our properties at LGA level, so Im sure similiar exceptions could be included in the Mandatory Desexing Laws.

Edited April 24, 2012 by dogsaremyworld

[Jed]

dogsaremyworld

As for you people who have entire dogs and are not breeders, do not breed, and have no intention of breeding, why does it matter to you if your dogs are desexed or not? It will save you money if your council area has lifetime registration rules, and in most cases has a plethora of health benefits to your dogs. Why is it such a drama to desex them if you are not breeding? That is the only reason you need your animal's genitals in tact.

Have you read, or are you aware of the numerous scientific studies on the disadvantages of desexing?

Quite a large percentage of the responsible dog owning public is actually able to manage their dogs' sexuality without resorting to desexing.

Why would anyone wish a major operation on a dog when a responsible owner will prevent unwanted puppies?

Talk about a nanny state.

The RSPCA did a good job publicising desexing all those years ago, but it has certainly gone overboard now

[Erny]

As for you people who have entire dogs and are not breeders, do not breed, and have no intention of breeding, why does it matter to you if your dogs are desexed or not? It will save you money if your council area has lifetime registration rules, and in most cases has a plethora of health benefits to your dogs. Why is it such a drama to desex them if you are not breeding? That is the only reason you need your animal's genitals in tact.

(My highlights)

Not true. Having an entire dog can go back to reasons of training, development and health.

What is the "plethora" of health benefits to a dog for it being desexed? It won't get cancer of the organs removed, but what else?

[_PL_]

As for you people who have entire dogs and are not breeders, do not breed, and have no intention of breeding, why does it matter to you if your dogs are desexed or not? It will save you money if your council area has lifetime registration rules, and in most cases has a plethora of health benefits to your dogs. Why is it such a drama to desex them if you are not breeding? That is the only reason you need your animal's genitals in tact.

(My highlights)

Not true. Having an entire dog can go back to reasons of training, development and health.

What is the "plethora" of health benefits to a dog for it being desexed? It won't get cancer of the organs removed, but what else?

In one year we had 4 pyometra cases in a row. And another 2 borderline.

A testicular cancer dog, and a double perineal hernia boy from an enlarged prostate. And I've lost count of the mammary tumours.

Obviously they were all from pounds, so the 'responsible owner' bit doesn't count. But some part of their physical suffering could have been avoided had they just been desexed years before.

As you'd know, my range of experience is limited to rescue and every single one should be desexed, that's the way it is.

But one sweeping law to cover every single dog regardless? I can't see it happening. Microchipping is hard enough to enforce. Dogs are running around unchipped, unregistered and unvaccinated.

eg: one small council rural council decided to promote responsible dog ownership after a nasty parvo outbreak with heavily discounted vaccinations. There is also access to subsidised desexing and cheap chipping. But the response to the cheap vaccinations was so stunningly bad. I mean if you can't even motivate people into stopping their puppies dying horribly then wtf.

[Nekhbet]

Using an isolated case, to refute an entire group of people is unfair.

You're doing the exact same thing in supporting the petition. It swings both ways.

As for you people who have entire dogs and are not breeders, do not breed, and have no intention of breeding, why does it matter to you if your dogs are desexed or not? It will save you money if your council area has lifetime registration rules, and in most cases has a plethora of health benefits to your dogs. Why is it such a drama to desex them if you are not breeding? That is the only reason you need your animal's genitals in tact.

No it is not. Many working people want their dogs entire and the benefits of leaving them entire outweight the supposed benefits of desexing them. What about non ANKC breeds? Those breeders cannot be registered so what, we desex their dogs because they're not recognised?

[Liath]

As for you people who have entire dogs and are not breeders, do not breed, and have no intention of breeding, why does it matter to you if your dogs are desexed or not?

My two girls are entire, I am not a breeder and have no intention of breeding at present BUT I do show them. I cannot show desexed dogs. If and when they are no longer show dogs and we do not wish to continue the line they will be desexed BUT only then.