Fraser Coast Regional Council Introduces Queensland's Strictest Pe

[Maxiewolf]

Really? I can't believe this got thru without anyone saying boo about it? No chance for submissions or amendments?

I think 22 weeks is far too young for some breeds, heck my friend couldn't even get her English Stafford desexed at 5 months cos his testicles hadn't descended enough....

And one of needs to pay the council $100 to be a "registered breeder" and just keep breeding how ever they want anyway.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-18/fraser-coast-introduces-queenslands-strictest-pet-desexing-laws/7181506

"The Fraser Coast Regional Council in southern Queensland is introducing the state's strictest laws around desexing pet dogs and cats.

From May 1 all dogs and cats sold, given away, or newly registered in the Fraser Coast council area, must be neutered or come with a voucher to cover the cost of the procedure.

If the animal is still whole, the new owner may be issued with a compliance order to have it desexed within 28 days or face a fine.

"We feel it's a fair and responsible thing to do," Fraser Coast deputy mayor Robert Garland said.

"Animals can't help it, and they deserve better — there are just too many unwanted pets."

Cr Garland said four years ago the council impounded more than 2,000 animals, and euthanased about 700.

Those figures have now dropped to about 1,500 animals impounded annually, and 300 put down.

Cr Garland attributed the reduction to the council's work enforcing the neutering of cats, and growing community awareness of desexing and animal welfare.

"We have a significant number of cats and dogs — about half the population has a pet — so I don't think it's unreasonable to have some form of management to it," Cr Garland said.

RSPCA calls for state-wide implementation

RSPCA Queensland spokesman Michael Beatty hailed the decision, calling on other councils to follow the Fraser Coast's lead.

"It's leading from the front and solving the problem, at least partially, before it becomes a problem," Mr Beatty said.

"We'd like to see every single council in Queensland do exactly the same thing. I'm sure I speak for other states' RSPCAs in saying they'd like their councils to do that as well.

"So many animals end up in pounds and RSPCA shelters every year, and probably the main reason for that is people simply haven't had their animals desexed."

Mr Beatty said for owners struggling to afford to have their animals neutered, the RSPCA's Operation Wanted program provided discounted desexing in locations across Queensland, including the Fraser Coast.

The council is also rewarding owners for getting their pets neutered: unregistered animals desexed before the end of April can be registered for free.

The new laws come into effect in the Fraser Coast council area, which includes Hervey Bay and Maryborough, on May 1.

Animals can still be registered with the council before May 1 and have higher registration fees: $118 for a whole dog, versus $57 for a neutered dog.

Legitimate breeding operations on the Fraser Coast will continue, with breeding permits available through the council for $100."

Edited February 19, 2016 by Maxiewolf

[Steve]

So if I decide to keep my animal entire and pay the fine - what then ? Id like to see them make the necessity to pay a fine stick .

Also note that he says how many animals have been in care a but half of them may be mice and the number has reduce by a fair amount without this - so why is it needed?

Proven not to work anyway - take a look at the stats in the ACT - no change.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Steve

[_PL_]

Unenforceable random revenue grab.

And they will be upset to see their euth stats go up again; because dumping will be cheaper and simpler than giving dogs away. The poor unchipped pets get just 72hours impound and that's the law that needs to be changed if it really is all about welfare rather than money.

.

[Little Gifts]

Here is my take on desexing. Most people do not give it a thought until something goes wrong or it becomes a problem - a bitch in season, spotting on the furniture, escaping, unwanted litters. If they have a male dog it could be escaping, barking, marking, leg humping, paying higher impound fees every time it is caught on the hunt for a bitch in season. Then when these people have the idea put in their mind that it can all be resolved with desexing they ring maybe 2 local vets and decide it is horribly expensive. For an operation that can save you a whole lot of stress (and maybe money if you end up with an unwanted litter of puppies) it is not expensive at all. It pays for itself in lower council registration fees too. Plus many vets (and the RSPCA) run desexing specials and of course there are payment plans. Desexing your pet will be the cheapest surgery you ever get and if you can't afford that you can't afford a pet (or unwanted litters).

I don't know how you educate those who are not interested in being educated but I think that is where the problem lies. So many people just don't see it as an issue until it becomes a problem for them. Compulsory desexing is unlikely to be the answer. You will just get more people not registering their dogs - council can't police what they don't know about.

[Maxiewolf]

There is nothing in this legislation to truly discourage backyard breeders or irresponsible people who just produce "accidental" litters. Irresponsible people don't register their animals anyway.

I wanted to buy a house in Glenwood (Fraser Coast) down the track which is just north of me - I'm in Gympie now so this is concerning cos it's in the next council over.

As an owner of a 9 year old Entire Doberman, who has never given me an issue due to being entire - so no roaming, no aggression, no unwanted litters, no health issues...

I don't want to be forced to desex my dog because other people are irresponsible. Ie. Letting their dogs roam, breeding indiscriminately, not training etc.

I like my dog just the way he is. I'm a responsible owner, I'm not contributing to the over population so I should be able to leave him exactly as he is.

And yes that's exactly right about the dumped animal population will explode! Noone who is irresponsible enough to produce them is going to pay to desex a litter of unwanted kittens or puppies they can't even give away, they will just get dumped at the pound if they're lucky - dumped in the bush or drowned/worse if they aren't.

[Willem]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutering

Disadvantages

General

As with any surgical procedure, immediate complications of neutering include the usual anesthetic and surgical complications, such as bleeding, infection, and death. These risks are relatively low in routine neutering; however, they may be increased for some animals due to other pre-existing health factors. In one study the risk of anesthetic-related death (not limited to neutering procedures) was estimated at 0.05% for healthy dogs and 0.11% for healthy cats. The risks for sick animals were 1.33% for dogs and 1.40% for cats.[8]

Spaying and castrating cats and dogs may increase the risk of obesity if nutritional intake is not reduced to reflect the lower metabolic requirements of neutered animals.[9] In cats, a decrease in sex hormone levels seems to be associated with an increase in food intake.[10] In dogs, the effects of neutering as a risk factor for obesity vary between breeds.[11]

Neutered dogs of both sexes are at

a twofold excess risk to develop osteosarcoma (bone cancer)

as compared to intact dogs. The risk of osteosarcoma increases with increasing breed size and especially height.[12][13][14]

Studies of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a

5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma (cancer of blood vessel lining

), one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed females than intact females and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in castrated dogs as compared to intact males.[15][16]

Spaying and castrating is associated with an increase in urinary tract cancers

in dogs, however the risk is still less than 1%.[17]

Neutered dogs of both sexes have a

27% to 38% increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

. However, the incidence of adverse reactions for neutered and intact dogs combined is only 0.32%.[18]

Neutered dogs have also been known

to develop hormone-responsive alopecia

(hair loss).[19]

A 2004 study found that neutered dogs had a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) rupture, a form of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.[20]

A study of golden retrievers found

that castrated males were 3 times more likely than intact males to be diagnosed with lymphoma and 2 times more likely to have hip dysplasia.[21]

Specific to males

About

2% of castrated male dogs eventually develop prostate cancer

, compared to less than 0.6% of intact males.[22][23] The evidence is most conclusive for Bouviers.[17]

In a study of 29 intact male dogs and 47 castrated males aged 11–14,

the neutered males were significantly more likely to progress from one geriatric cognitive impairment condition (out of the four conditions – disorientation in the house or outdoors, changes in social interactions with human family members, loss of house training, and changes in the sleep-wake cycle) to two or more conditions.

Testosterone in intact males is thought to slow the progression of cognitive impairment, at least in dogs that already have mild impairment.[24]

As compared to intact males, castrated cats are at an increased risk for certain problems associated with feline lower urinary tract disease, including the presence of stones or a plug in the urethra and urethral blockage.[25]

Neutering also has been associated with an increased likelihood of urethral sphincter incontinence in male dogs.[26]

Specific to females

Further information: Canine reproduction § Altered Females

There is some weak evidence that spaying can increase the risk of urinary incontinence in dogs, especially when done before the age of three months. Up till 12 months of age, the risk decreases as the age at spaying increases.[27]

Spayed female dogs are at an increased risk of hypothyroidism.

IMO it is legal administered animal cruelty....

Edited February 20, 2016 by Willem

[Simply Grand]

I agree it's dumb and like everything, doesn't target the right people because the people who follow the rules aren't the ones causing the problems anyway.

I wonder how difficult it will be to get the breeders permit? $100 is cheap so I doubt they will put a whole lot of time into actually investigating whether those who want to keep entire animals / breed are doing it in the best interest of the animals.

[melzawelza]

Annnnd watch it do the opposite of what they want and increase impounds. Happens every single place mandatory desexing is introduced.

[Steve]

Why are whole communities so complacent about their basic rights being taken away? Even if you don't own a pet or you think that if everyone desexed their dogs its the solution to animals in pounds that doesn't give the right to take over the property rights of people and enforce them to comply with t unproven and potentially harmful enforcement of knee jerk minority shouting.

If the RSPCA think its a great idea to have everyone desex their dogs then why not do a targeted education campaign with the council and local vets or something similar to get their opinion across?

Why is it necessary to interfere in a decision which should be made by a dog owner in conjunction with their vet as to what they believe is best for their dogs when all previous attempts at using this to control and bring down numbers in pounds has shown not to work?

Its time dog owners started to consider suing councils who gave them no option but to desex their dogs when the dog later develops health problems which can be linked to a lack of hormones.

[Maddy]

Tasmania has had very strict desexing laws for cats for several years and it hasn't helped. People will find and exploit any loophole they can and the laws were never going to be easy to enforce. The end result has been.. no real change.

Punishing people into responsible pet ownership just doesn't seem to work and for whatever reason, most councils won't even consider actually rewarding responsible ownership- and I'm not just talking about reduced rego costs. Having to pay any rego cost is a punishment for doing the right thing and registering the animal. What councils need to consider is free rego for chipped/desexed non-breeding animals. They get better compliance on rego (which is good for them, reduces impounds, etc) and the public has incentive to register. Without that, besides obeying the law, what other incentive is there to the average person?

[denali]

If i lived there i would ignore it. I probably just wouldn't register my dog at all.

Totally ridiculous. And also just up the coast- Brisbane better not even think about introducing this.

[witheverythingiam]

You will just get more people not registering their dogs - council can't police what they don't know about.

Granted, I have not lived in Hervey Bay for a decade, you don't know how strict they are. We lived there 6 months, and in that time they doorknocked us, and DEMANDED we register our dogs within 48hrs, or they would have been impounded!

They were happy, & healthy dogs, and hadn't done anything wrong, they are just very tough with their pet laws. They were doing doorknocks in the area, to make sure all animals were registered properly.

So we registered them, and then got an angry phone call asking why we'd only registered one dog. Um, no! Definitely did both. Computer error saw one not show up on the system. Lucky I'd been given a receipt. No apology at all though. Nasty woman that one!

What happens to those who have entire males? No reason to register a prefix if you only own stud dogs is there?