Animal Groups Want All Pet Dogs Desexed

[janisw]

Im a minority here but i am all for desexing pets. I think leave the breeding to the experts & anyone who wants a dog as a pet alone shouldnt have a problem desexing it.

i couldnt think of anything worse then having a litter & selling or giving away pups to find they are mistreated or dumped. I dont want to be part of that & any responsible owner should all have the same thinking. DESEX your pets if you have any thought to your pets welfare & well being & leave the breeding to those who are reg to do so & then i agree less pets will be a problem due to unwated pregnancies. As for training etc well thats a whole different subject.

As for the back yard breeders harsher penelities for those in the wrong. Bigger fines, more policing & time behind bars for those who just dont get it.

[Dame Aussie]

Im a minority here but i am all for desexing pets. I think leave the breeding to the experts & anyone who wants a dog as a pet alone shouldnt have a problem desexing it.

i couldnt think of anything worse then having a litter & selling or giving away pups to find they are mistreated or dumped. I dont want to be part of that & any responsible owner should all have the same thinking. DESEX your pets if you have any thought to your pets welfare & well being & leave the breeding to those who are reg to do so & then i agree less pets will be a problem due to unwated pregnancies. As for training etc well thats a whole different subject.

As for the back yard breeders harsher penelities for those in the wrong. Bigger fines, more policing & time behind bars for those who just dont get it.

There are health reasons to not desex pets also so yes some people will "have a problem" with doing it..... if you want to desex, go for it, but I won't accept being told what to do with my animals just because some people can't stop their dog from getting pregnant.

I have had undesexed animals for years and not one pregnancy, it's called being responsible.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

I have had undesexed animals for years and not one pregnancy, it's called being responsible.

And if everyone were as responsible as you, we wouldn't have problems - but the majority of pet owners are not being responsible

I agree the responsible minority shouldn't have to conform to desexing rules just because some people are ruining it for the others - but I also belive things shouldn't stay as they are and continue to allow acts of blatant cruelty to continue.

[moosmum]

I don't believe its the majority who are being irresponsible.

The irresponsible are the ones who draw notice and are very often repeat offenders.Some one who doesn't give a rats can cause a lot of damage all by themselves.

On the whole,I think theres been a lot of improvement and could be a lot more if there was a bit of common community recognised in being a dog owner,full stop.

There will always be cross breds,and a registration system will be needed to be a breeder. Seems a shame to me that there will be so many,all at each others throats over what it all means,when a common registry allowing for real competion, growth with the times,and common membership could be a uniting force with real teeth.

[Jumabaar]

I have had undesexed animals for years and not one pregnancy, it's called being responsible.

And if everyone were as responsible as you, we wouldn't have problems - but the majority of pet owners are not being responsible

I agree the responsible minority shouldn't have to conform to desexing rules just because some people are ruining it for the others - but I also belive things shouldn't stay as they are and continue to allow acts of blatant cruelty to continue.

We would be in a whole heap more crap if it were the majority that were being irresponsible.

A large number are responsible by recognising they can't comp with an entire animal- they have them desexed

A small number a responsible enough to have entire animals- regardless of their desire to breed them

A minority are irresponsible and would be irresponsible if their pets had reproductive organs or not. Some have litters, others roam the streets etc.

Teach the part of the minority that can understand about their obligations to their pet. Give cheap desexing to the part of the minority who have bought a pet without being able to desex it but will do it if its cheap.

Fine/gaol the rest!!

I don't need legislation to tell me what I can and can't do with my own dogs. I have breed twice in 7 years. So for a total of 40weeks in that 7 years I have been a pet owner not a breeder in my opinion because I own pets that I breed with (and show and do flyball and obedience with).

[Steve]

I have had undesexed animals for years and not one pregnancy, it's called being responsible.

And if everyone were as responsible as you, we wouldn't have problems - but the majority of pet owners are not being responsible

I agree the responsible minority shouldn't have to conform to desexing rules just because some people are ruining it for the others - but I also belive things shouldn't stay as they are and continue to allow acts of blatant cruelty to continue.

This is an interesting response.

How do you know the majority of pet owners are not being repsonsible ?

Who is committing blatant acts of cruelty?

[Steve]

So how many were being dumped and Euth say 10 years ago? We dont even know if its better or worse - we do know mandatory desexing in areas where that has happened hasnt made a scrap of difference to dogs being bumped off.

[Just Andrea]

To the OP,

Please change the title of your thread - it is ONE rescue group NOT many rescue groups that is mentioned in this article.

Just like the article itself clearly has an agenda regarding desexing which has nothing to do with the poor management practices of these particular dogs and the resulting attack, it is also poor form to falsely title this thread suggesting many rescue groups feel the same way as this one isolated group expressing their opinion.

I am a rescuer. I don't want the breeding gene pool to dry up or go underground through overzealous licensing and desexing requirements.

But what I would love to see is every animal microchipped at the point of sale regarless of source (which is compulsory in most places anyway now) and every animal leaving an animal pound or shelter chipped AND desexed if not already (unless purebred - should already be chipped - and returned to its original owner). That would be a good start if all shelters around the country had this imposed and microchipping laws were enforced.

Andrea.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Just Andrea

[Steve]

To the OP,

Please change the title of your thread - it is ONE rescue group NOT many rescue groups that is mentioned in this article.

Just like the article itself clearly has an agenda regarding desexing which has nothing to do with the poor management practices of these particular dogs and the resulting attack, it is also poor form to falsely title this thread suggesting many rescue groups feel the same way as this one isolated group expressing their opinion.

I am a rescuer. I don't want the breeding gene pool to dry up or go underground through overzealous licensing and desexing requirements.

But what I would love to see is every animal microchipped at the point of sale regarless of source (which is compulsory in most places anyway now) and every animal leaving an animal pound or shelter chipped AND desexed if not already (unless purebred - should already be chipped - and returned to its original owner). That would be a good start if all shelters around the country had this imposed and microchipping laws were enforced.

Andrea.

[GeckoTree]

I can't see what the AST attack has to do with pet desexing it as the ASTs Owner is a registered breeder and those dogs were registered breeding dogs?!!!!!

Edited May 30, 2012 by GeckoTree

[bluedeer]

So how many were being dumped and Euth say 10 years ago? We dont even know if its better or worse - we do know mandatory desexing in areas where that has happened hasnt made a scrap of difference to dogs being bumped off.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with that one

Without a point of comparison we cannot see if the rates of healthy dogs PTS have improved or not. Does anyone know what the percentage of dogs that are dumped already have a chip? I think these figures would go a long way into finding out where these dumped dogs are coming from in the first place. I know from anecdotal evidence from council rangers that the vast majority of dogs that they pick up here in Vic are not chipped which would indicate to me that BYB are the main source of these dogs.

[Steve]

From info coming out of pounds in NSW we believe that there are still a large percentage which are not chipped in NSW as well- even though here its been mandatory for around 14 years! Sort of puts an end to the accusation that pet shop puppies are fodder for this when all pet shop puppies are chipped and have been for 14 years.

[WExtremeG]

Should be more awareness regarding mircro chipping for the general public- I'm willing to bet that most wouldn't know that it's compulsory.

A reporting line (for people who wish to buy from byb's and the like) would also be grand...for failure to comply. Might become a great deterrent for those doing the wrong thing...

Otherwise how do you police this sort of thing?

[inez]

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is.

Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group.

If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club.

Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves.

Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count.

No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club.

Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do.

Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET.

There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

Steve,I understand that,and i am working on my own submission.Those who are supposedly speaking for "my group" are mostly pushing their own agendas ,often comercial ventures and D.Ds.

The real stake holders are those that buy these dogs,whatever their source and most of them are blissfully unaware of all thats going on behind the scenes.

They are the ones who happily sign cleverly worded petitions by Peta and welfare groups with out any understanding of what it all means to their choices and options.

There are few avenues of engaging these people and opening their eyes to the real,broad picture.Their education in these matters is very limitted,though they often sign with the best of intentions.

I am saying there needs to be ways these people can experience a broader view of pet ownership and where their dogs come from.The value of pedigree dogs etc.

BTW a point worth mention is the "hybrid vigour" slogan trotted out by D.D breeders and refuted here lies some where between.Hybrid vigour is proven,but true hybrids are inter species,not with in species and are infertile mostly.Any hybrid vigour within species is nominal,but there only due to closed lines of pedigree animals and valid only in the 1st cross.

At least thats been my understanding.A bit more discourse and less animosity between ALL groups can only benefit,surely.

What I dont understand is why those who do have dogs and breed do not become members of these organisations so they are the majority membership instead of the PETA lunies?

surely those who actually have the animals referred to should be the ones in this organisations so there are actually people who do know running them instead of the fanatics?

its in dog and cat owners interests to be surely?

[moosmum]

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is.

Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group.

If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club.

Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves.

Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count.

No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club.

Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do.

Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET.

There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

Steve,I understand that,and i am working on my own submission.Those who are supposedly speaking for "my group" are mostly pushing their own agendas ,often comercial ventures and D.Ds.

The real stake holders are those that buy these dogs,whatever their source and most of them are blissfully unaware of all thats going on behind the scenes.

They are the ones who happily sign cleverly worded petitions by Peta and welfare groups with out any understanding of what it all means to their choices and options.

There are few avenues of engaging these people and opening their eyes to the real,broad picture.Their education in these matters is very limitted,though they often sign with the best of intentions.

I am saying there needs to be ways these people can experience a broader view of pet ownership and where their dogs come from.The value of pedigree dogs etc.

BTW a point worth mention is the "hybrid vigour" slogan trotted out by D.D breeders and refuted here lies some where between.Hybrid vigour is proven,but true hybrids are inter species,not with in species and are infertile mostly.Any hybrid vigour within species is nominal,but there only due to closed lines of pedigree animals and valid only in the 1st cross.

At least thats been my understanding.A bit more discourse and less animosity between ALL groups can only benefit,surely.

What I dont understand is why those who do have dogs and breed do not become members of these organisations so they are the majority membership instead of the PETA lunies?

surely those who actually have the animals referred to should be the ones in this organisations so there are actually people who do know running them instead of the fanatics?

its in dog and cat owners interests to be surely?

Many of them are members of organisations,but the organisations themselves are polarised by the whole pure bred/cross bred thing,and this gives Peta type groups their ammo.

Ordinary pet owners have no real encouragement to join in any organisation...Its just an added expense that brings no real bennefits to them.It won't allow them to do more with their own dogs,join competions or community fun days etc.

There is no one working to solve that basic problem as far as i can see,and yet this is the group least informed and most likely to have unplanned litters.Or see big prices being asked for dogs and think to jump on the graveyy train with no real thought or understanding of what they are doing.

In my own case,there is no organisation that fits.My dogs are working dogs,so "pet" registries are unsuited for many reasons,though they live more closely with their humans than most strictly pet dogs do.They are not herders who have their own registries for work purposes.I find myself with dogs that seem to be very unique in their qualities and no way to show that,or encourage research since working competions are closed to cross breeds in their field.

I can and do have dogs training with huge success in their field,showing great ability and verstility that hasn't been seen in their dominant "breed" in years,but they are not permitted to compete for titles.

I believe this is a great loss to pedigree breeders,who will not recognise the potential the breed was famous for,and could be acheived again because most will never see it demonstrated.

[Steve]

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is.

Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group.

If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club.

Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves.

Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count.

No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club.

Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do.

Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET.

There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

Steve,I understand that,and i am working on my own submission.Those who are supposedly speaking for "my group" are mostly pushing their own agendas ,often comercial ventures and D.Ds.

The real stake holders are those that buy these dogs,whatever their source and most of them are blissfully unaware of all thats going on behind the scenes.

They are the ones who happily sign cleverly worded petitions by Peta and welfare groups with out any understanding of what it all means to their choices and options.

There are few avenues of engaging these people and opening their eyes to the real,broad picture.Their education in these matters is very limitted,though they often sign with the best of intentions.

I am saying there needs to be ways these people can experience a broader view of pet ownership and where their dogs come from.The value of pedigree dogs etc.

BTW a point worth mention is the "hybrid vigour" slogan trotted out by D.D breeders and refuted here lies some where between.Hybrid vigour is proven,but true hybrids are inter species,not with in species and are infertile mostly.Any hybrid vigour within species is nominal,but there only due to closed lines of pedigree animals and valid only in the 1st cross.

At least thats been my understanding.A bit more discourse and less animosity between ALL groups can only benefit,surely.

What I dont understand is why those who do have dogs and breed do not become members of these organisations so they are the majority membership instead of the PETA lunies?

surely those who actually have the animals referred to should be the ones in this organisations so there are actually people who do know running them instead of the fanatics?

its in dog and cat owners interests to be surely?

Many of them are members of organisations,but the organisations themselves are polarised by the whole pure bred/cross bred thing,and this gives Peta type groups their ammo.

Ordinary pet owners have no real encouragement to join in any organisation...Its just an added expense that brings no real bennefits to them.It won't allow them to do more with their own dogs,join competions or community fun days etc.

There is no one working to solve that basic problem as far as i can see,and yet this is the group least informed and most likely to have unplanned litters.Or see big prices being asked for dogs and think to jump on the graveyy train with no real thought or understanding of what they are doing.

In my own case,there is no organisation that fits.My dogs are working dogs,so "pet" registries are unsuited for many reasons,though they live more closely with their humans than most strictly pet dogs do.They are not herders who have their own registries for work purposes.I find myself with dogs that seem to be very unique in their qualities and no way to show that,or encourage research since working competions are closed to cross breeds in their field.

I can and do have dogs training with huge success in their field,showing great ability and verstility that hasn't been seen in their dominant "breed" in years,but they are not permitted to compete for titles.

I believe this is a great loss to pedigree breeders,who will not recognise the potential the breed was famous for,and could be acheived again because most will never see it demonstrated.

I think perhaps you need to look around a little more - Im not permitted to discuss the group that is covering this here however, Im happy to take it private.

[Squidgy]

How to make dogs extinct within one generation. See above.

agree with ya 100%

[Souff]

We should all be responding to the official survey if we live in NSW. I did mine this afternoon.

There is some clear empire building going on by some of the members of the taskforce. I find this rather sobering given that there is no power of review over their actions.

Link to survey off this site, think carefully about whether extra regulation will fix people who will never comply anyway, who sell BYB unregistered dogs off the local shopping mall noticeboard to uninformed ill-prepared people whose only qualification is that they have the cash or just the willingness to take the pup away.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_generalindex.asp?sectionid=1&areaindex=CATASK&docu

Thanks for the reminder and the link.

It is important that all parties have their say, and I hope they do so politely.

There are some good suggestions for change in the feedback form, particularly in relation to registering the microchip details online ... now, why has that idea taken so long?

It is not all doom and gloom, and if people in NSW dont bother to respond with feedback forms such as this, well, they deserve whatever result they get.

There is the opportunity in this form to say YES, to say NO, and to say if you are UNSURE.

If you want the opportunity to remind government to use the laws and resources that they already have, (particularly at local government level), and to tell them to think first and realise that the very first people to the counter to pay licence fees of hundreds of dollars will be the PUPPY FARMERS, the very people they supposedly are trying to discourage.

You can say NO to the question about separate kennels being enforced. The many 'cottage breeders' who share the house with their dogs are amongst the best breeders of good dogs, and those who are on a limited income and have plenty of time to care for their dogs properly, must not face the prospect of paying ridiculously unaffordable licence fees. These are the very people that the dog world, and the dog buying public, needs and you can speak up for this group of breeders on the form.

This feedback form gives YOU the opportunity to make such points to government.

No promises of success, but if you do not use what is given to you, then please do not whinge later.

Souff