stellnme Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 http://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/website/The-facts/Statistics/RSPCA_Australia-Report_on_animal_outcomes-2014-2015.pdf ...some numbers; for the past 5 years the RSPCA received a little bit less than 50,000 dogs per year. That counts for a little bit more than 1% of the total dog population (4.2 Mill) in Australia....so it this 1% the reason for aiming to de-sex the other 99%? ....seems to be at least a weird approach.... The RSPCA is certainly not the only organisation that takes dogs in Australia. Even if it was, 50,000 undesexed dogs sure would produce a lot of puppies, would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellnme Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Here's the link http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Dog%20and%20Cat%20Registration%20Fees%20New%20Requirements%20FAQs%20DPI%20January%202013.pdf My council charges $70 per year for registration if there are no discounts applied. The discounts apply as follows: $42 if desexed but no microchipping or training $63 if not desexed but either microchipped or trained $35 if desexed and either microchipped or trained $56 if not desexed but both microchipped and trained $28 if desexed, microchipped and trained. There are also further discounts if you're entitled to concession rates. I pay $35 per year because I've never bothered to provide the council with a copy of Justice's obedience certificate. I thought microchipping is mandatory?...obviously not. As a side note: I wonder whether eye scanners (like some mobile phones provide instead of finger print scanners) could be also used to identify dogs. If it would work there would be a database with the code each scan provides for each dog instead of the microchip number. The big advantage would be that you could identify any - registered dog - just via your mobile phone (if the phone has the feature)...might be handy... Privacy issues here surely? Considering the general public isn't allowed access to microchip databases at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 http://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/website/The-facts/Statistics/RSPCA_Australia-Report_on_animal_outcomes-2014-2015.pdf ...some numbers; for the past 5 years the RSPCA received a little bit less than 50,000 dogs per year. That counts for a little bit more than 1% of the total dog population (4.2 Mill) in Australia....so it this 1% the reason for aiming to de-sex the other 99%? ....seems to be at least a weird approach.... The RSPCA is certainly not the only organisation that takes dogs in Australia. Even if it was, 50,000 undesexed dogs sure would produce a lot of puppies, would it not? yes they would, but 4.15 mill undesexed dogs would easily top that :) , hence I can't see that 50,000 de-sexed dogs would make a big difference. The question I would have for all the pounds and rescue organisation is: how many are too many?...we need pounds and rescue organisations, but what would be a 'healthy' number that would allow for enough time and for the required effort to find really suitable takers without a high risk that the rehomed dogs comes back into the pound?...do we have to half the number?...what is a reasonable target? If I'm engaged in a discussion about de-sexing it mostly comes down to 'you know why...pounds are full...we have to do something ...etc.'...so what are the numbers that allow all the helpers in a pound and rescue environment to do a decent job?....to address the required quality and not to be forced by quantity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are desexed. We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are sick and their owner's chose this as a method of having them PTS We dont know how many dogs that are in pounds are not chipped We dont know how many dogs that are dumped come from pet shops, registered breeders, other rescues, BYB or puppy farmers, oops litters. We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are as a result of a life changing event for the owner We dont know how many dogs that are dumped come from pregnant bitches or puppies under 8 weeks. We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are due to aggressive temperaments We dont know how many dogs that are tagged as dangerous are desexed We dont know how many dogs that are found wandering are desexed and that's just a start to knowing what the problem of dogs being dumped is about before we start handing out incentives and or penalties and beating a drum for what we think is the answers for one thing or another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are desexed. We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are sick and their owner's chose this as a method of having them PTS We dont know how many dogs that are in pounds are not chipped We dont know how many dogs that are dumped come from pet shops, registered breeders, other rescues, BYB or puppy farmers, oops litters. We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are as a result of a life changing event for the owner We dont know how many dogs that are dumped come from pregnant bitches or puppies under 8 weeks. We dont know how many dogs that are dumped are due to aggressive temperaments We dont know how many dogs that are tagged as dangerous are desexed We dont know how many dogs that are found wandering are desexed and that's just a start to knowing what the problem of dogs being dumped is about before we start handing out incentives and or penalties and beating a drum for what we think is the answers for one thing or another The RSPCA report discloses some numbers for the euthanized dogs, biggest number is due to behavioural issues, followed by medical, legal, infectious (that's medical too?) and 'others'... 'others' is not even 1% of the euthanized dogs. So it seems that most dogs that couldn't be rehomed are euthanized for a reason?... Is there clear evidence that the pounds are really too full? Edited May 12, 2016 by Willem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) Is there clear evidence that the pounds are really too full? This will depend on geography and management. RSPCA have different policies on rehoming and assessment that differ considerably to smaller and private rescues. I dont think the question is "are pounds really too full" especially as you take into account that pounds are not the only players for receipt of unwanted animals with some having no kill policies etc How many dogs being dumped, surrendered PTS etc as an expected and acceptable figure for our society is also very subjective. Some will say even just one is too many others will accept that in most things in this world shit happens and its unavoidable for a percentage of dogs which find homes as puppies will end up being unwanted or simply no longer able to be kept by the people who took responsibility for them. Its probably more productive to strip the stats we have down to things like Why do dogs which have behavioural issues stated as the reason for them being surrendered have behavioural issues. Is it something they are born with, is it something due to lack of training , is it simply a lack of suitability to the lifestyle of the owner. Can we take action with breeders to ensure they breed well temperamented animals, can we ensure we reach more new owners with basic principals of training and good manners or can we educate people on selecting animals with characteristics which will suit them and their families. The answer is probably all of the above but either way its a different management and strategy with different incentives required to try to impact the numbers being bought in for this reason. How does advocating desexing pet dogs impact on the potential problem of behavioural problems? Edited May 12, 2016 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 some light reading about the impacts of neutering on behaviour: http://www.saveourdogs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Aggression-and-spay-neuter-in-dogs.pdf http://associationofanimalbehaviorprofessionals.com/effects_of_neutering.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 some light reading about the impacts of neutering on behaviour: http://www.saveourdo...ter-in-dogs.pdf http://associationof..._neutering.html So in other words advocating desexing as a method of having less dogs presented with behavioural problems is counter productive to the stated goal because according to these studies and about a thousand others desexing causes more behavioural problems than it cures. If we are to address the questions regarding behavioural problems we need to look at other potential solutions. Including advocating NOT desexing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottsmum Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I've tried not biting and not responding to this thread - but I can't believe its gone from desexing to "are the pounds too full". Yes! No bloody matter how you slice and dice it they're too full. There is no excuse for the number of animals which end up in our shelters/pounds/foster system. Yeh - in an ideal world just one dog/animal in the pound would be too many - but I'm realistic enough to say that we're not going to get to zero (pets in pounds). I don't know what an acceptable is but I do know that it's currently too high. I took these stats from the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home facebook page: In the last three weeks alone they have: Found new homes for 55 animals Reunited 35 lost animals with their loving owners Found foster homes for 16 young or injured animals needing some added TLC And Rescued 5 dogs whose time had run out in other pounds across Sydney (Not to mention the countless other animals that are currently in our care, waiting for their owners or waiting for a new home.) That's over 150 animals that have needed us in just the last 3 weeks https://www.facebook.com/sdch/ As I said - it should not matter how you look at it - THAT number is too high. THAT IS too many. That is ONE shelter in one city in Australia. That's 7 animals a day! (actually just a smidge more) Is there clear evidence that the pounds are really too full? Shouldn't those stats be enough evidence? If it's not - Multiply the figures. I can think of the cat shelter, another cat rescue, at least one dog rescue local to SDCH and then there's the RSPCA Yagoona facility just 16 km down the highway. I'm not going to argue the merits of desexing - personally I believe if you're not breeding your animal it should be desexed. All animals should be micro-chipped - there should be huge fines for anyone who sells an animal who is not micro-chipped. And Willem - your comments somewhere in this thread talking about desexing and comparing that to cropping tails and ears is close to ridiculous. To compare cosmetic procedures to which impact on the long term health of an animal (regardless of if you do it or not by your own argument) is ... just ridiculous. We - responsible dog/pet/animal owners and all levels of government (particularly state and local) should be working to reduce those numbers. How exactly? I don't know. I do know there isn't one solution but I do think desexing is a good solid base to work from. Scottie was picked up as a stray. No chip. Never claimed. There isn't a week that goes by I don't think about his last owners. He was well trained and had been well cared for. Did they dump him? Did he do a runner? Did he belong to an elderly person who didn't know where to start looking or had passed away and the kids dumped him? Why didn't anyone come and get him? I'll never know. I do know that he's an old dog who didn't get to live out his days with his family and that's (most likely for all involved) sad (Not so much for me - I'm grateful every day I have him). I'm also really glad he did't get to contribute to the over population problem while he was out gallivanting and I'm glad he didn't need to have the chop at 10+ years when the risk of complications being put under a GA is much higher than when they're pups. I hope, beyond hope that none of your pets never finds themselves in a similar situation. Believe what you want to believe. I don't think more or less of people who care for their pets differently to me - unless you know it's really shitty circumstances - but hey - if your dog sleeps in the yard and mine on my bed - so be it. I wouldn't call your choice to keep your pets entire unethical, I don't personally think its entirely responsible but again, to each their own. But please stop the shit stirring over the pound issue. Get out there and do a few volunteer shifts, sponsor a few mange riddled puppies or a litter of kittens. Look at what happened in Wagga, Cowra, read the full lists/ kill lists each week for any pound across NSW then come back and have a mature, balanced and respectful discussion on the pound system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 As outlined in the title, this is a thread for the 'unethical' (but responsible) dog owner who doesn't de-sex his dog, and I'm aware that this is a very small minority here on this forum. This thread was trolling from the get go in my opinion. If you are totally comfortable with the decision not to desex your dog, then one wonders why you need to go to such lengths to justify it. I have three undesexed male dogs in this house. I don't feel unethical and I certainly don't feel irresponsible. I do feel very responsible for ensuring that they create no accidental litters. That's it. Seriously, enough with the pseudo philosophy and pot stirring. Undesexed dogs owned by irresponsible owners are a drain on the resources of their community and the primary source of pound dogs. That we have to apply surgical solutions to animals to deal to owner irresponsibility is hard cold fact of life. The fact that some dog owners are perfectly capable of managing undesexed pets doesn't mean that everyone can. Smile and wave people and lets move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottsmum Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Smile and wave people and lets move on. I tried. I really did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 As outlined in the title, this is a thread for the 'unethical' (but responsible) dog owner who doesn't de-sex his dog, and I'm aware that this is a very small minority here on this forum. This thread was trolling from the get go in my opinion. If you are totally comfortable with the decision not to desex your dog, then one wonders why you need to go to such lengths to justify it. I have three undesexed male dogs in this house. I don't feel unethical and I certainly don't feel irresponsible. I do feel very responsible for ensuring that they create no accidental litters. That's it. Seriously, enough with the pseudo philosophy and pot stirring. Undesexed dogs owned by irresponsible owners are a drain on the resources of their community and the primary source of pound dogs. That we have to apply surgical solutions to animals to deal to owner irresponsibility is hard cold fact of life. The fact that some dog owners are perfectly capable of managing undesexed pets doesn't mean that everyone can. Smile and wave people and lets move on. ...To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 As outlined in the title, this is a thread for the 'unethical' (but responsible) dog owner who doesn't de-sex his dog, and I'm aware that this is a very small minority here on this forum. This thread was trolling from the get go in my opinion. If you are totally comfortable with the decision not to desex your dog, then one wonders why you need to go to such lengths to justify it. I have three undesexed male dogs in this house. I don't feel unethical and I certainly don't feel irresponsible. I do feel very responsible for ensuring that they create no accidental litters. That's it. Seriously, enough with the pseudo philosophy and pot stirring. Undesexed dogs owned by irresponsible owners are a drain on the resources of their community and the primary source of pound dogs. That we have to apply surgical solutions to animals to deal to owner irresponsibility is hard cold fact of life. The fact that some dog owners are perfectly capable of managing undesexed pets doesn't mean that everyone can. Smile and wave people and lets move on. ...To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing... :) I think it safe to say Willem that there's a snowballs chance in hell that you will apply that statement to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 As outlined in the title, this is a thread for the 'unethical' (but responsible) dog owner who doesn't de-sex his dog, and I'm aware that this is a very small minority here on this forum. This thread was trolling from the get go in my opinion. If you are totally comfortable with the decision not to desex your dog, then one wonders why you need to go to such lengths to justify it. I have three undesexed male dogs in this house. I don't feel unethical and I certainly don't feel irresponsible. I do feel very responsible for ensuring that they create no accidental litters. That's it. Seriously, enough with the pseudo philosophy and pot stirring. Undesexed dogs owned by irresponsible owners are a drain on the resources of their community and the primary source of pound dogs. That we have to apply surgical solutions to animals to deal to owner irresponsibility is hard cold fact of life. The fact that some dog owners are perfectly capable of managing undesexed pets doesn't mean that everyone can. Smile and wave people and lets move on. ...To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing... :) I think it safe to say Willem that there's a snowballs chance in hell that you will apply that statement to yourself. you are damn right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 The rules have to cater to the lowest common denominator. I have 3 out of 5 of mine are entire. It was 4 but I had my bitch desexed at 6 and a half for various reasons. No they don't roam and wander, no they are not creating puppies everywhere. Unfortunately idiots wreck it for people with common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) Having just dealt with pyometra, my position on de-sexing has changed a bit. I would always de-sex now. Pyometra is frigging nasty. I have had no problems with any de-sexed animal - cats, dogs & horses oh and a steer! I understand that going through this is a terrifying experience (I followed your thread about Amber) - however I don't believe that dealing with cancer is more pleasant. Here a study that shows some interesting figures about mortality for pyometra: http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-6148-10-6...interestingly, the mortality for the medical treated ones was 0%!...the surgical treated ones (OHE) was only 1%. The overall mortality considering also euthanized dogs (due to various reasons) was 10%. Compare these figures with the survival rate of dogs with cancer due to de-sexing http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937: quote: ...For females, the timing of neutering is more problematical because early neutering significantly increases the incidence rate of CCL from near zero to almost 8 percent, and late neutering increases the rates of HSA to 4 times that of the 1.6 percent rate for intact females and to 5.7 percent for MCT, which was not diagnosed in intact females. ...from zero to 5.7% for MCT!!!...plus all the other side effects. Based on these figures pyo seems to be the less dangerous evil... I dont desex, but then mine have dog proof fences so no accidents. in 40 years and being a breeder 3 to 8 bitches at any given time, from retired to puppies had one case of pymetra and one breast cancer in one teat, both removed and no further complications. other friends seem to have similar,others not as lucky. ditto results with friends with desexed pets.life tends to be a lottery for us and our pets Edited May 12, 2016 by asal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) The rules have to cater to the lowest common denominator. I have 3 out of 5 of mine are entire. It was 4 but I had my bitch desexed at 6 and a half for various reasons. No they don't roam and wander, no they are not creating puppies everywhere. Unfortunately idiots wreck it for people with common sense. do the math: ...we have 4.2 mill dogs in Australia; if we assume an average life span of 10 years (you can adopt the math to other figures - it won't change much) and an average litter size of 5 it takes just 84,000 entire bitches to produce 420,000 dogs per year to maintain the 4.2 mill dogs. In other words: the de-sexing strategy would only have a significant impact if at least 95% of the Australian dogs would be de-sexed! (in this estimation I assumed 200,000 entire dogs to count also for males and some reserves). ...so, it seems to be sheer window dressing that the highly rated de-sexing strategy will have any impact in the future if you need only 5% entire dogs to achieve the critical mass! Edited May 12, 2016 by Willem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverStar-Aura Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I've tried not replying too but can't help myself. The whole issue with this thread isn't the debate about desexed or entire animals at all. The real issue is that we're dealing with HUMANS from the educated and responsible to the bogans and irresponsible etc. After all is said and done, there will always be irresponsible morons owning dogs and I for one don't see the problem in forcing these idiots to have their dogs desexed. Example. I had to assist in the desexing of an early pregnancy young bitch (first season SBT) because the owners thought it was fine to leave her in the backyard with their entire male because "he KNOWS not to mate with her". Yep. These are totally the owners who you can educate about careful management of entire dogs and have them listen. Not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 I've tried not replying too but can't help myself. ...I hope it is nothing epidemic...we had already a few cases in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 Having just dealt with pyometra, my position on de-sexing has changed a bit. I would always de-sex now. Pyometra is frigging nasty. I have had no problems with any de-sexed animal - cats, dogs & horses oh and a steer! I understand that going through this is a terrifying experience (I followed your thread about Amber) - however I don't believe that dealing with cancer is more pleasant. Here a study that shows some interesting figures about mortality for pyometra: http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-6148-10-6...interestingly, the mortality for the medical treated ones was 0%!...the surgical treated ones (OHE) was only 1%. The overall mortality considering also euthanized dogs (due to various reasons) was 10%. Compare these figures with the survival rate of dogs with cancer due to de-sexing http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937: quote: ...For females, the timing of neutering is more problematical because early neutering significantly increases the incidence rate of CCL from near zero to almost 8 percent, and late neutering increases the rates of HSA to 4 times that of the 1.6 percent rate for intact females and to 5.7 percent for MCT, which was not diagnosed in intact females. ...from zero to 5.7% for MCT!!!...plus all the other side effects. Based on these figures pyo seems to be the less dangerous evil... I dont desex, but then mine have dog proof fences so no accidents. in 40 years and being a breeder 3 to 8 bitches at any given time, from retired to puppies had one case of pymetra and one breast cancer in one teat, both removed and no further complications. other friends seem to have similar,others not as lucky. ditto results with friends with desexed pets.life tends to be a lottery for us and our pets http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/your-dog-needs-to-be-spayed-or-neutered-right/ ....more scare-mongering pseudoscience ...but hold on, so many studies coming to the same conclusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now