# Something to think about warning very graphic



## dal818

I found this a while back on Craigslist. It really spoke to me and hit home. It's made my goal to start out a rescue when I finally have a home large enough to do so, and am safe to do so financially. Anyway, I guess I was just posting this for people to give them something to think about. I know it did for me.


"I think our society needs a huge "Wake-up" call. As a shelter manager, I am going to share a little insight with you all. . .a view from the inside if you will.

First off, all of you breeders/sellers should be made to work in the "back" of an animal shelter for just one day. Maybe if you saw the life drain from a few sad, lost, confused eyes, you would change your mind about breeding and selling to people you don't even know.

That puppy you just sold will most likely end up in my shelter when it's not a cute little puppy anymore. So how would you feel if you knew that there's about a 90% chance that dog will never walk out of the shelter it is going to be dumped at? Purebred or not! About 50% of all of the dogs that are "owner surrenders" or "strays", that come into my shelter are purebred dogs.

The most common excuses I hear are; "We are moving and we can't take our dog (or cat)." Really? Where are you moving too that doesn't allow pets? Or they say "The dog got bigger than we thought it would". How big did you think a German Shepherd would get? "We don't have time for her". Really? I work a 10-12 hour day and still have time for my 6 dogs! "She's tearing up our yard". How about making her a part of your family? They always tell me "We just don't want to have to stress about finding a place for her we know she'll get adopted, she's a good dog".

Odds are your pet won't get adopted & how stressful do you think being in a shelter is? Well, let me tell you, your pet has 72 hours to find a new family from the moment you drop it off. Sometimes a little longer if the shelter isn't full and your dog manages to stay completely healthy. If it sniffles, it dies. Your pet will be confined to a small run/kennel in a room with about 25 other barking or crying animals. It will have to relieve itself where it eats and sleeps. It will be depressed and it will cry constantly for the family that abandoned it. If your pet is lucky, I will have enough volunteers in that day to take him/her for a walk. If I don't, your pet won't get any attention besides having a bowl of food slid under the kennel door and the waste sprayed out of its pen with a high-powered hose. If your dog is big, black or any of the "Bully" breeds (pit bull, rottie, mastiff, etc) it was pretty much dead when you walked it through the front door.

Those dogs just don't get adopted. It doesn't matter how 'sweet' or 'well behaved' they are.

If your dog doesn't get adopted within its 72 hours and the shelter is full, it will be destroyed. If the shelter isn't full and your dog is good enough, and of a desirable enough breed it may get a stay of execution, but not for long . Most dogs get very kennel protective after about a week and are destroyed for showing aggression. Even the sweetest dogs will turn in this environment. If your pet makes it over all of those hurdles chances are it will get kennel cough or an upper respiratory infection and will be destroyed because shelters just don't have the funds to pay for even a $100 treatment.

Here's a little euthanasia 101 for those of you that have never witnessed a perfectly healthy, scared animal being "put-down".

First, your pet will be taken from its kennel on a leash. They always look like they think they are going for a walk happy, wagging their tails. Until they get to "The Room", every one of them freaks out and puts on the brakes when we get to the door. It must smell like death or they can feel the sad souls that are left in there, it's strange, but it happens with every one of them. Your dog or cat will be restrained, held down by 1 or 2 vet techs depending on the size and how freaked out they are. Then a euthanasia tech or a vet will start the process. They will find a vein in the front leg and inject a lethal dose of the "pink stuff". Hopefully your pet doesn't panic from being restrained and jerk. I've seen the needles tear out of a leg and been covered with the resulting blood and been deafened by the yelps and screams. They all don't just "go to sleep", sometimes they spasm for a while, gasp for air and defecate on themselves.

When it all ends, your pets corpse will be stacked like firewood in a large freezer in the back with all of the other animals that were killed waiting to be picked up like garbage. What happens next? Cremated? Taken to the dump? Rendered into pet food? You'll never know and it probably won't even cross your mind. It was just an animal and you can always buy another one, right?

I hope that those of you that have read this are bawling your eyes out and can't get the pictures out of your head I deal with everyday on the way home from work.

I hate my job, I hate that it exists & I hate that it will always be there unless you people make some changes and realize that the lives you are affecting go much farther than the pets you dump at a shelter.

Between 9 and 11 MILLION animals die every year in shelters and only you can stop it. I do my best to save every life I can but rescues are always full, and there are more animals coming in everyday than there are homes.

My point to all of this DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER PETS DIE!

Hate me if you want to. The truth hurts and reality is what it is. I just hope I maybe changed one persons mind about breeding their dog, taking their loving pet to a shelter, or buying a dog. I hope that someone will walk into my shelter and say "I saw this and it made me want to adopt". THAT WOULD MAKE IT WORTH IT

After you wipe away the tears from reading the letter above, I BEG that you share it with anyone and everyone you know."


----------



## DobermanGuy

Shelter people have good hearts but are BIG sources of misinformation.

It is not hard to see that these people have an agenda. They are so set in their beliefs and their agenda that they will readily tell outright lies to convince people to spay/neuter. They are so set in their agenda that they have no consideration for OUR rights as owners...

Not wise to believe everything you read from these people.


----------



## Keechak

I didn't wipe away any tears, I simply shook my head in disgust at the way they are trying to manipulate people with their letter.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Keechak said:


> I didn't wipe away any tears, I simply shook my head in disgust at the way they are trying to manipulate people with their letter.


Well said. 

It is amazing how similar they all are when you you get them started on the spay/neuter topic. They will FREAK OUT if they discover that your dog is intact and then immideately begin to tell you how many dogs are killed in shelters each year.

They will NEVER ask you first if you are able to control your dogs. They will never ask you if you have ever had any 'unplanned' litters... They simply assume that all owners are idiots and unable to properly manage their dogs and control what is going on.


----------



## Willowy

I think people need to know the truth. . .that if they drop their pet off at a shelter, nationally, a dog has only a 50% chance of getting out alive, a cat has only about a 25% chance (and most of those adopted are puppies or kittens; an adult pet's chances are far lower). That they don't usually die peacefully--a healthy animal will fight death and they're so scared it's basically torture. That many shelters will kill pets with minor problems such as a cold or those who refuse to eat, even if they're otherwise adoptable. I think people need to see the bodies stuffed in blue barrels on their way to the incinerator or landfill. I think the tidy and guilt-free disposal of inconvenient animals contributes to the casual attitudes many people have toward getting rid of their pets or letting them have random litters. 

But that story is somewhat outdated, maybe from the late 90s or so. There are "only" 3-4 million pets slaughtered in U.S. shelters every year now. That's still way too many but it is an improvement. The dog situation is fixable, there is really no reason for a shelter to kill an adoptable dog. If a shelter is killing adoptable dogs, it's most likely due to mismanagement or deliberate underfunding. Cats are seriously overpopulated, though.


----------



## Kérstan

DobermanGuy said:


> Shelter people have good hearts but are BIG sources of misinformation.
> 
> It is not hard to see that these people have an agenda. They are so set in their beliefs and their agenda that they will readily tell outright lies to convince people to spay/neuter. They are so set in their agenda that they have no consideration for OUR rights as owners...
> 
> Not wise to believe everything you read from these people.


I agree.

I prefer to have my pets intact.

I am responsible. I won't allow my pets to breed.

It is sad that numerous animals die in shelters, but, as you stated, they do have an agenda...


----------



## Willowy

Yeah, what's their agenda? Getting fewer pets killed in shelters? Shame on them.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Keechak said:


> I didn't wipe away any tears, I simply shook my head in disgust at the way they are trying to manipulate people with their letter.


 No tears here either.

I have 2 unaltered dogs, (should I mention that I bought those two unaltered dogs from breeders, le gasp.) Should I also mention that one is male and one is female? No, they will never have puppies, should I still alter them?


----------



## sassafras

You know, if someone's going to surrender a dog to a shelter because they're moving or some other BS reason, I'm not sure it matters where they got the dog in the first place. It's not like when people adopt dogs from shelters they are automatically immune to surrendering the dog.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

sassafras said:


> You know, if someone's going to surrender a dog to a shelter because they're moving or some other BS reason, I'm not sure it matters where they got the dog in the first place. It's not like when people adopt dogs from shelters they are automatically immune to surrendering the dog.



I disagree, people move and sometimes they just cant keep the dog, this has never happened to me, but sometimes all you can afford at the time is an apartment and many apartments don't allow dogs. Or if you are evicted from your home, your new landlord may not allow dogs, its just the way it is, stuff happens.


----------



## sassafras

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree, people move and sometimes they just cant keep the dog, this has never happened to me, but sometimes all you can afford at the time is an apartment and many apartments don't allow dogs. Or if you are evicted from your home, your new landlord may not allow dogs, its just the way it is, stuff happens.


You disagree that I'm not sure if you're going to surrender a dog it doesn't matter where you got it?


----------



## Willowy

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree, people move and sometimes they just cant keep the dog, this has never happened to me, but sometimes all you can afford at the time is an apartment and many apartments don't allow dogs. Or if you are evicted from your home, your new landlord may not allow dogs, its just the way it is, stuff happens.


There are emergencies. . .but dumping your dog off at a shelter to be killed because YOU failed to plan ahead? Not cool. Most people have warning before they move and have time to plan ahead.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

sassafras said:


> You disagree that I'm not sure if you're going to surrender a dog it doesn't matter where you got it?


No, sorry, I see now that I wasn't clear and should have shortened the part I wanted to quote in the quote. I _do_ agree that if you are going to surrender a dog that it doesn't matter where you get it. I disagree that getting rid of a dog because you're moving is "BS."
I don't know about the warning thing, when we moved to where we are now two years ago, it was literally less than 1 week notice. Saturday we were happily living where we were, we had just finished redoing a house we were going to move to that we bought a few miles away, by monday we were boxing up the house and moving to a different state. What I am saying is that its not right to assume that the people had adequate time to rehome their dog. We were lucky that we moved to a place that allowed dogs, because it is a ranch, but for weeks we had to keep Lady tied out because she hadn't learned not to leave the yard yet and we had no fence except for the fence that kept the cows from our yard, and anyone that lives on a ranch knows there is a HUGE difference between cow fences and dog fences.


----------



## Willowy

I have no idea what your situation was, but most adults have a choice about when and where they're going to move, and know in advance when and where they're going to be moving. Really, if someone's going to kill their pet---themselves or by hire (by dumping it in a shelter)--- because they're moving, I sure hope the Mafia is after them. I can't think of any other justification.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> Yeah, what's their agenda? Getting fewer pets killed in shelters? Shame on them.


When is the last time you heard ANY of them mention the Long-Term Health Risks associated with spay/neuter surgery when they start giving their 'speech' about why you should get your dog fixed?

When is the last time one of them even bothered to ask you about how well you control your own dogs before giving you the 'speech'? 

They will not tell people about any sort of risks and they care not about how responsible you are as an owner. They simply assume that everyone is an idiot and that ALL dogs must be fixed to control the population. This is POOR advice in my opinion and does not take into account gender, age, breed, and even the specific conditions under which the long-term care, housing and training of the animal will occur. You simply get one slanted side of the story from these people and it is often inaccurate and incomplete at best... They are NOT educating owners - They are promoting an agenda.



> On the negative side, neutering 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 orthopedic disorders
> • increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations
> 
> On the negative side, 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 tumors
> • increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
> • increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations


You are free to do as you with your dogs. I respect YOUR rights as an owner. :wave:

What bothers me is when people try to pump me full of misinformation or give me 1/2 of the story to change the way I care for MY dogs. (even though I do NOT domp dogs at shelters and even though their suggested 'solution' will have a very good chance of adversely affecting my dogs in the long term) :wave:



> *Rottweiler study links ovaries with exceptional longevity*
> 
> New research on the biology of aging in dogs suggests a link between shortened life expectancy and ovary removal.
> 
> The study, published in the December 2009 issue of the journal Aging Cell, found that Rottweilers that were spayed after they were 6 years old were 4.6 times as likely to reach 13 years of age as were Rottweilers that were spayed at a younger age.
> 
> The finding is important because the average life expectancy of Rottweiler dogs is 9.4 years, observed research team leader Dr. David J. Waters. "Our results support the notion that how long females keep their ovaries influences how long they live," he said.
> 
> Dr. Waters is the executive director of the Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation at the Purdue Research Park in West Lafayette, Ind. The foundation is home to the Center for Exceptional Longevity Studies, which tracks the oldest living pet dogs in the country.


http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar10/100301g.asp

I can provide many more recent studies done by well known and reputable Vets that clearly show the NEGATIVE impacts that spay/neuter can have...


----------



## Kérstan

DobermanGuy said:


> When is the last time you heard ANY of them mention the Long-Term Health Risks associated with spay/neuter surgery when they start giving their 'speech' about why you should get your dog fixed?
> 
> When is the last time one of them even bothered to ask you about how well you control your own dogs before giving you the 'speech'?
> 
> They will not tell people about any sort of risks and they care not about how responsible you are as an owner. They simply assume that everyone is an idiot and that ALL dogs must be fixed to control the population. This is POOR advice in my opinion and does not take into account gender, age, breed, and even the specific conditions under which the long-term care, housing and training of the animal will occur. You simply get one slanted side of the story from these people and it is often inaccurate and incomplete at best... They are NOT educating owners - They are promoting an agenda.
> 
> You are free to do as you with your dogs. I respect YOUR rights as an owner. :wave:
> 
> What bothers me is when people try to pump me full of misinformation or give me 1/2 of the story to change the way I care for MY dogs. (even though I do NOT domp dogs at shelters and even though their suggested 'solution' will have a very good chance of adversely affecting my dogs in the long term) :wave:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar10/100301g.asp
> 
> I can provide many more recent studies done by well known and reputable Vets that clearly show the NEGATIVE impacts that spay/neuter can have...



I COMPLETELY agree with you here.

I just don't find it "natural" to spay/neuter your dog.

I also dislike how many people use it as a "crutch" to "manage" behavioral issues. 
[Especially when people think that having a very hyper PUPPY is a "behavioral issue".]

I feel sometimes it's an "excuse" to get out of taking the time to train and care for their dog. -.-


----------



## DobermanGuy

Kérstan said:


> I COMPLETELY agree with you here.
> 
> I just don't find it "natural" to spay/neuter your dog.
> 
> I also dislike how many people use it as a "crutch" to "manage" behavioral issues.
> [Especially when people think that having a very hyper PUPPY is a "behavioral issue".]
> 
> I feel sometimes it's an "excuse" to get out of taking the time to train and care for their dog. -.-


I have a feeling that very soon chemical contraceptives are going to have a major impact on the 'speech' currently given by these people. 

http://naia.typepad.com/naia/2011/07/a-birth-control-pill-for-lassie.html

The people that believe it will 'help' with behavioral issues need to do their homework as well. 



> *Scientific research studies that found spaying and neutering do NOT reduce aggression in dogs*
> 
> Michelle Bamberger, MS, DVM, and Katherine A. Houpt, VMD, PhD, DACVB
> Signalment factors, comorbidity, and trends in behavior diagnoses in dogs: 1,644
> cases (1991–2001)
> Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol 229, No. 10,
> November 15, 2006
> 
> Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression
> Ilana R Reisner, Frances S Shofer, Michael L Nance
> Injury Prevention 2007; 13:348–351
> 
> Deborah L. Duffy, Ph.D., and James A. Serpell, Ph.D., Center for the Interaction of
> Animals and Society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
> Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering on Behavior in Dogs
> Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical
> Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control, 2006
> 
> Anthony L. Podberscek, James A. Serpell
> Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group, Department of Clinical
> Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Studies,
> School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
> Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47 (1996) 75-89
> The English Cocker Spaniel: preliminary findings on aggressive behaviour
> 
> V. O’Farrell and E. Peachey
> Behavioural effects of ovario-hysterectomy on bitches
> Small Animal Clinic, Royal (****) School of Veterinary
> Studies, Summerhall, Edinburgh EH9 1QH
> Journal of Small Animal Practice (1990) 31, 595-598
> 
> Hyeon H. Kim a, Seong C. Yeon a,, Katherine A. Houpt b, Hee C. Lee
> Hong H. Chang a, Hyo J. Lee
> Institute of Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National
> University, Jinju 660-701, Republic of Korea
> Animal Behaviour Clinic, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University,
> Ithaca, NY 14853-6401, USA
> Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German Shepherd dogs
> The Veterinary Journal 172 (2006) 154–159


----------



## Willowy

You really think that nobody should be encouraged to spay/neuter their pets? You think that the inbred Chihuahua guy (from the recent thread in the Health section) wouldn't have been better off if someone had encouraged him to spay/neuter his dogs? At the very least he would have known that dogs can get pregnant before they're a year old. If you don't want to do it, ignore the advice. But the truth is that MOST dog owners aren't responsible enough to keep intact dogs. And plenty of people who SAY they're responsible enough still end up with accidental litters. Humans tend to overestimate their own abilities. The health effects that _might_ happen to a dog from spay/neuter are nothing compared to their offspring suffering and being killed because they're unwanted.

Attempts at chemical contraceptives have proved unsatisfactory in the past. Increased chances of cancer, ineffectiveness, etc. Hopefully someone can come up with a safe, easy, and effective non-surgical alternative.


----------



## Kérstan

DobermanGuy said:


> I have a feeling that very soon chemical contraceptives are going to have a major impact on the 'speech' currently given by these people.
> 
> http://naia.typepad.com/naia/2011/07/a-birth-control-pill-for-lassie.html
> 
> The people that believe it will 'help' with behavioral issues need to do their homework as well.


Once again, I agree.

And personally, I was on birth control when I was 14 to 18 and I honestly think it affected my growth.

I finally decided to get off of it. 

I just don't trust it personally.


----------



## Kérstan

Btw, *Willowy*, don't make such a pretentious statement:



> "And plenty of people who SAY they're responsible enough still end up with accidental litters. Humans tend to overestimate their own abilities."


I AM a responsible owner. I AM very articulate and precise. I'm not the type to "just forget" or to "accidentally leave my two unaltered different sex dogs together while I'm away". e.e

It's not responsible owners who need to alter, it's IRRESPONSIBLE ones.


----------



## Pawzk9

Kérstan said:


> I COMPLETELY agree with you here.
> 
> I just don't find it "natural" to spay/neuter your dog.
> 
> I also dislike how many people use it as a "crutch" to "manage" behavioral issues.
> [Especially when people think that having a very hyper PUPPY is a "behavioral issue".]
> 
> I feel sometimes it's an "excuse" to get out of taking the time to train and care for their dog. -.-


I'm a big believer in personal choice, and doing what works best for you as a dog owner. Part of informed personal choice is understanding the issues on both sides, and staying away from spouting or believing propaganda. There are good reasons for spaying and neutering. There are also good reason for keeping a dog intact. And I hope owners will be informed enough to decide what is best for them and their dogs. And other owners will figure out that it's not their call to make judgements and dictate what folks need to do. I do think that for the majority of dogs who end up in shelters it is a mindset by the owners that the dogs are "disposable". And it doesn't matter if they are intenionally bought or not. That mindset will be there or it won't.


----------



## Willowy

Any responsible breeder will tell you that even they have accidents sometimes. It's not about "just forgetting" or leaving two unaltered dogs together, it can be about a dog breaking through a door or crate, jumping through a window, etc. And if you say "only irresponsble people need to alter their dogs", well, who's going to admit they're irresponsible? Part of being responsible is recognizing your limitations and accounting for circumstances. If you have kids who leave doors open and 2 dogs of opposite genders, it wouldn't mean you're irresponsible if you had them spayed/neutered. It would mean you're responsible enough to recognize that you wouldn't be able to keep your dogs reliably separated for 2 months a year.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Any responsible breeder will tell you that even they have accidents sometimes. It's not about "just forgetting" or leaving two unaltered dogs together, it can be about a dog breaking through a door or crate, jumping through a window, etc. And if you say "only irresponsble people need to alter their dogs", well, who's going to admit they're irresponsible? Part of being responsible is recognizing your limitations and accounting for circumstances. If you have kids who leave doors open and 2 dogs of opposite genders, it wouldn't mean you're irresponsible if you had them spayed/neutered. It would mean you're responsible enough to recognize that you wouldn't be able to keep your dogs reliably separated for 2 months a year.


Well, the point here would be that if a "responsible" breeder had an oops litter, those dogs are likely already health tested and well bred. Possibly not the perfect pedigree, but still nice dogs and good pets. And will be placed like any of their other litters, with people who really want those dogs. And so not likely to be a drain on the shelter system. Me, personally? I LIKE the fact that people breed good dogs. I would rather them place a few nice dogs that they didn't mean to actually breed than have them eliminate their gene pool because the ARs say that they should.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, the point here would be that if a "responsible" breeder had an oops litter, those dogs are likely already health tested and well bred. Possibly not the perfect pedigree, but still nice dogs and good pets. And will be placed like any of their other litters, with people who really want those dogs. And so not likely to be a drain on the shelter system. Me, personally? I LIKE the fact that people breed good dogs. I would rather them place a few nice dogs that they didn't mean to actually breed than have them eliminate their gene pool because the ARs say that they should.


 Well, certainly, if it's a dog you intend to breed one day, and it just happens a bit sooner than expected, that's one thing. If it's a dog that shouldn't ever be bred for some reason, it would be safer to do something permanent about it.

But, yeah, not encouraging people to spay/neuter because SOME people are responsible enough to keep an intact dog, have decided that's what they want to do, and get annoyed when they're encouraged to do so, just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


----------



## Kérstan

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm a big believer in personal choice, and doing what works best for you as a dog owner. Part of informed personal choice is understanding the issues on both sides, and staying away from spouting or believing propaganda. There are good reasons for spaying and neutering. There are also good reason for keeping a dog intact. And I hope owners will be informed enough to decide what is best for them and their dogs. And other owners will figure out that it's not their call to make judgements and dictate what folks need to do. I do think that for the majority of dogs who end up in shelters it is a mindset by the owners that the dogs are "disposable". And it doesn't matter if they are intenionally bought or not. That mindset will be there or it won't.


And I agree here. Everyone has to make that choice based upon what works best for them and their dog.


----------



## Kérstan

Willowy said:


> Any responsible breeder will tell you that even they have accidents sometimes. It's not about "just forgetting" or leaving two unaltered dogs together, it can be about a dog breaking through a door or crate, jumping through a window, etc. And if you say "only irresponsble people need to alter their dogs", well, who's going to admit they're irresponsible? Part of being responsible is recognizing your limitations and accounting for circumstances. If you have kids who leave doors open and 2 dogs of opposite genders, it wouldn't mean you're irresponsible if you had them spayed/neutered. It would mean you're responsible enough to recognize that you wouldn't be able to keep your dogs reliably separated for 2 months a year.


But, as you stated here:



> "I have no idea what your situation was, but most adults have a choice about when and where they're going to move, and know in advance when and where they're going to be moving."


I, as an ADULT, would know whether I'm having children or not, which, I plan not to.

Sure, things change, people change and things happen.

If I decided to have children, I would know the responsibility of such a thing.

Nothing in this world is 100%, the truth is a work in progress.

Anything is possible, but most possibilities are improbable.

This being something VERY improbable for me.

I won't say !00% guarantee, but, then again, who can?

But for 99% of it, I feel pretty confident in myself.


----------



## Willowy

Ah, but you said this:


Kérstan said:


> It's not responsible owners who need to alter, it's IRRESPONSIBLE ones.


 And I'm saying that it's not irresponsible to have your pet altered because you know you couldn't reliably prevent a pregnancy, it would be irresponsible NOT to spay/neuter in that situation. This whole "only irresponsible dopes need to spay/neuter their pets" thing is really doing more damage than good.


----------



## Kérstan

Willowy said:


> Ah, but you said this:
> 
> And I'm saying that it's not irresponsible to have your pet altered because you know you couldn't reliably prevent a pregnancy, it would be irresponsible NOT to spay/neuter in that situation. This whole "only irresponsible dopes need to spay/neuter their pets" thing is really doing more damage than good.


As well "as all responsible dopes need to spay/neuter their pets because they over-think their selves".

I understand what you're saying, that if, by ANY means, I couldn't guarantee that my unaltered pets wouldn't come into contact with each other via children opening doors, getting lose, etc. that spaying/neutering would be the responsible thing to do.

If I ever felt the need to spay/neuter, I would at LEAST wait until my dog was FULLY mature.

Not when their young or still developing.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Well, certainly, if it's a dog you intend to breed one day, and it just happens a bit sooner than expected, that's one thing. If it's a dog that shouldn't ever be bred for some reason, it would be safer to do something permanent about it.
> 
> But, yeah, not encouraging people to spay/neuter because SOME people are responsible enough to keep an intact dog, have decided that's what they want to do, and get annoyed when they're encouraged to do so, just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.



Well, I recall that you don't know any "responsible" breeders, but I do. And the ones I know don't routinely keep intact dogs who shouldn't never be bred for some reason. They also place their pups carefully (including pups that will be strictly pets) So, that's not really a valid point in the particular argument about poor shelter dogs. I don't necessarily encourage people to keep intact dogs. I also don't encourage them to routinely spay and neuter because I've made a judgement about their motives or level of responsibility. I would like for them to do their home work, access their own needs and do what is best for them and their dogs.


----------



## Willowy

I still think that spay/neuter should be pretty much universally recommended and encouraged. If someone makes an educated decision not to, they can feel free to ignore the recommendations and encouragement, and shouldn't be annoyed (unless someone gets obnoxious. . .which is always annoying regardless of which side they're on). But it should be the default for your average pet owner.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, I recall that you don't know any "responsible" breeders, but I do. And the ones I know don't routinely keep intact dogs who shouldn't never be bred for some reason. They also place their pups carefully (including pups that will be strictly pets) So, that's not really a valid point in the particular argument about poor shelter dogs. I don't necessarily encourage people to keep intact dogs. I also don't encourage them to routinely spay and neuter because I've made a judgement about their motives or level of responsibility. I would like for them to do their home work, access their own needs and do what is best for them and their dogs.


Well, the original discussion wasn't about breeders, responsible or otherwise. It was about average pet owners. I was just pointing out that anyone can have an accident, no matter how responsible they are (or consider themselves).


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Ah, but you said this:
> 
> And I'm saying that it's not irresponsible to have your pet altered because you know you couldn't reliably prevent a pregnancy, it would be irresponsible NOT to spay/neuter in that situation. This whole "only irresponsible dopes need to spay/neuter their pets" thing is really doing more damage than good.


I will say that part of the reason I tend to spay females I'm not going to breed is because I don't want to have to be that responsible twice a year. Another reason is the longer you leave a uterus inactive, the greater the risk for pyo. For me, that's frequently the right choice, weighing a number of consideration. Other people deserve to weigh a number of considerations and make the right choices for them. That doesn't mean that everybody can keep intact dogs without irresponsibly bred or placed but it doesn't mean I am going to assume that everybody has to be protected from their own choices either. That sort of thing usually ends up having the worst results.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Well, the original discussion wasn't about breeders, responsible or otherwise. It was about average pet owners. I was just pointing out that anyone can have an accident, no matter how responsible they are (or consider themselves).



Untrue. From the original post: "My point to all of this DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER PETS DIE!" I'm just tired of fingers being pointed at the wrong folks for the shelter dog issue.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I still think that spay/neuter should be pretty much universally recommended and encouraged. If someone makes an educated decision not to, they can feel free to ignore the recommendations and encouragement, and shouldn't be annoyed (unless someone gets obnoxious. . .which is always annoying regardless of which side they're on). But it should be the default for your average pet owner.


I think that thinking, research and intelligent choice should be pretty much universally recommended and encouraged.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> I still think that spay/neuter should be pretty much universally recommended and encouraged. If someone makes an educated decision not to, they can feel free to ignore the recommendations and encouragement, and shouldn't be annoyed (unless someone gets obnoxious. . .which is always annoying regardless of which side they're on). But it should be the default for your average pet owner.


Yet your advice is NOT good for MY dogs... 

I already povided you with the FACTS about the risks of spay/neuter complications and possible adverse affects. I then provided you with even MORE info showing you a study that concluded dogs tend to live longer lives if left unaltered...

I even went so far as to provide a long list of studies that debunk the entire behavior aspect of spay/neuter surgery... (the myth so commonly told that a spay/neuter will transform bad behavior into good like magic)

You refuse to even consider the health of the individual animal before doling out your 'advice'. You simply stick to the same old story and tell us about all the pets that get killed each year in shelters... Instead of providing any facts or studies to support your claims - You bring up hypothetical situations about dogs jumping through windows or breaking down doors to get pregnant...

If you really cared about the individual animals - You would be promoting the use of leashes (and responsible ownership) and NOT suggesting an irreversable surgery that has been SHOWN to have many adverse affects which could lead to a shorter lifespan, more serious medical issues in the long term AND unwanted behavior changes.

The 'default' for 'average' owners should be to provide them with complete and accurate information and allow them to make up their own mind. :wave:

With shelter people you ONLY get one side of the story regardless of any long term risks for the individual dog.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> I think that thinking, research and intelligent choice should be pretty much universally recommended and encouraged.


True . But that doesn't seem to be an especially popular pastime.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> True . But that doesn't seem to be an especially popular pastime.


When people (not you specifically) are shrilling "don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"that's not exactly encouraging any sort of thinking, research or intelligent choice.


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> I already povided you with the FACTS about the risks of spay/neuter complications and possible adverse affects. I then provided you with even MORE info showing you a study that concluded dogs tend to live longer lives if left unaltered...


I have read the studies and have detemined that any health benefits/risks come out pretty even either way, especially for females. People can read the same information you read and come to a different conclusion, you know.

Sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual. What benefit is it if a female lives to be 20 (if, indeed, unspayed dogs live longer) if 50 of her puppies were killed because they were unwanted?

So, sure, don't spay your dogs if that's what you want. As long as my tax dollars aren't going to kill their offspring at the shelter (or I don't have to be distressed by you killing them), it's not my problem. But don't get annoyed if people encourage spay/neuter; they don't know how responsible you are.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> I have read the studies and have detemined that any health benefits/risks come out pretty even either way, especially for females.


That is just plain incorrect. Please show me ANY studies you can which can show that. 

You are entitled to an opinion but you are short on facts here...


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> That is just plain incorrect. Please show me ANY studies you can which can show that.
> 
> You are entitled to an opinion but you are short on facts here...


Really, now, did you miss "on the positive side" of that study you quoted (but didn't link to, I see, so I'll post it: http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf):

On the positive side, neutering male dogs
• eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
• reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)

On the positive side, spaying female dogs
• if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common
malignant tumors 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
• removes the very small risk (0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors

But most studies are those looking into the benefits/risks of EARLY spay/neuter, the procedure itself is not frequently studied.

And a lot of the "cons" are something easily controlled (like obesity), or represent a teeny tiny increase in their chances of getting extremely rare diseases. Yeah, the benefits are also minimal, which is why I consider it a wash. And anecdotally, every unspayed dog I've known except one got either mammary gland cancer/tumors or pyo and needed an emergency spay ($$$) anyway, so it's just not a risk I'd like to take. Also (and this is not usually considered in studies ), I possess a full set of female hormones and reproductive parts, and I am generally dissatisfied with them. They are annoying and frequently painful. I wouldn't do that to an animal. I'd have mine removed if I could guarantee I will never want kids. But I might change my mind someday so I better keep the dang things. I suppose men are more attached to their bits and probably most of them feel differently.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> Really, now, did you miss "on the positive side" of that study you quoted (but didn't link to, I see, so I'll post it: http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf):


I didn't miss any of it. 

The summary did a fair job of explaining just how SMALL the benefits really are and LOW many of the risks are that you advise people to spay/neuter to protect against.

Hopefully people will read and learn for themselves. :wave:


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I have read the studies and have detemined that any health benefits/risks come out pretty even either way, especially for females. People can read the same information you read and come to a different conclusion, you know.
> 
> Sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual. What benefit is it if a female lives to be 20 (if, indeed, unspayed dogs live longer) if 50 of her puppies were killed because they were unwanted?
> 
> So, sure, don't spay your dogs if that's what you want. As long as my tax dollars aren't going to kill their offspring at the shelter (or I don't have to be distressed by you killing them), it's not my problem. But don't get annoyed if people encourage spay/neuter; they don't know how responsible you are.


So, is the 20 year old dog with 50 unlucky puppies another one of those number thingies you pull off the top of your head to create a talking point? I can assure you that your tax dollars aren't going to kill my dogs' offspring in the shelter. And I can assure you that you don't have to be distressed by me killing them, unless they are irretrievably ill. In which case I am going to be more distressed by it than you are. I don't get annoyed when people encourage spay and neuter. I do get annoyed when they lie about its "benefits." And I get annoyed when the "don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die" mindless propaganda, as well. (not that you said that)


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> I didn't miss any of it.
> 
> The summary did a fair job of explaining just how SMALL the benefits really are and LOW many of the risks are that you advise people to spay/neuter to protect against.
> 
> Hopefully people will read and learn for themselves. :wave:


I don't really advise people to spay/neuter for any reason other than permanant birth control. Which is a very important reason for most people. Although the summary of that study does say that they believe that the health benefits probably outweigh the risks for most females if they're spayed past sexual maturity.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't get annoyed when people encourage spay and neuter. I do get annoyed when they lie about its "benefits." And I get annoyed when the "don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die" mindless propaganda, as well. (not that you said that)


I'm not real fond of it myself. But it gets peoples' attention. And a lot of people need that. And pointing out benefits without mentioning risks isn't always lying. I can fully understand the frustration that would lead shelter workers to do so. When someone drops off their 5th litter of puppies/kittens that year, all proud of themselves that they "made a donation to the shelter", there's very little you _wouldn't_ do or say to make them spay their pets. Scaring them into it is unfortunately quite effective.

You don't think 50 pups is realistic? Labs usually have 10-12 pups per litter, and I've known/heard of quite a few Labs who had far more than 50 pups in their lives. They don't usually live to be 20, though. . .the oldest I've known was 16. But, hey, if people want to say that unspayed dogs live longer (it was a very interesting study, it would be nice if they did it with more dogs of other breeds. I'm not so sure it would apply universally), why not 20?


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I'm not real fond of it myself. But it gets peoples' attention. And a lot of people need that. And pointing out benefits without mentioning risks isn't always lying. I can fully understand the frustration that would lead shelter workers to do so. When someone drops off their 5th litter of puppies/kittens that year, all proud of themselves that they "made a donation to the shelter", there's very little you _wouldn't_ do or say to make them spay their pets. Scaring them into it is unfortunately quite effective.
> 
> You don't think 50 pups is realistic? Labs usually have 10-12 pups per litter, and I've known/heard of quite a few Labs who had far more than 50 pups in their lives. They don't usually live to be 20, though. . .the oldest I've known was 16. But, hey, if people want to say that unspayed dogs live longer (it was a very interesting study, it would be nice if they did it with more dogs of other breeds. I'm not so sure it would apply universally), why not 20?


You've actually known these dogs? Or are they like the breeders and trainers you've "known" who are not at all representative of what is actually out there? The other numbers you can't back up when asked about? I honestly am not only not real fond of lying and propaganda and questionable statistics that can't be proven. I actively abhore it. I don't think there is any sense in lying to people that their dogs will (in general - in some cases it may be true) be healthier or better behaved because you remove their reproductive organs, when you know that's not really the issue. There are legitimate reasons to speuter animals. And you know what? Legitimate reasons carry more weight than fear tactics. And the people you are trying to scare the most aren't really that concerned about their dogs health and future anyway. The people who are concerned deserve facts so they can make good choices.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> And you know what? Legitimate reasons carry more weight than fear tactics. And the people you are trying to scare the most aren't really that concerned about their dogs health and future anyway. The people who are concerned deserve facts so they can make good choices.


 Not with the people who really NEED to speuter their pets. They generally do care about _their_ pets, but not about animals in general, including their pets' offspring. In my experience anyway.

I don't know you expect me to "back up" my personal experiences. Unless you want to come meet these people yourself. Can you back up your claims to know SO many wonderful, caring, responsible breeders? Not sure how to submit documentation about the people I meet in my life. But, yeah, I know a Lab breeder who brags about "the best bitch he ever had" who produced over 100 pups for him in her life, and says most of his bitches "only" have 70-80 lifetime pups. I don't know how to prove that, though. I can currently introduce you to a Lab who had 2 accidental litters, with a total of 25 pups in those litters. I could probably even prove that, since the owners took the pups to the vet for shots. I have proof 2 of the pups are dead but the owners didn't keep contact with the other puppy buyers so no statistics on them. She's spayed now, thankfully, but only because someone (not me; they won't listen to me) scared her owners into it by telling them she'd get "breast cancer" if they didn't. I could go on but I doubt it would make any difference.

So, yeah, my personal experience is that the people who really need to speuter their pets usually need to be scared into it.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> So, yeah, my personal experience is that the people who really need to speuter their pets usually need to be scared into it.


Sorry, I think the truth is always more compelling than scare tactics and drinking koolade. And then people don't think such bad thoughts about you when they find out how they've been manipulated with lies.


----------



## sassafras

Honestly I think Willowy's experiences specifically with regards to spay/neuter and being responsible for pets' oops litters is pretty representative of rural upper midwest attitudes. Many people in those areas have just a completely different attitude towards animals than most of us on this board have, and people do have dogs & cats that have litter after litter and think nothing of giving them away in a box in front of the hardware store or, if all else fails, just shooting or drowning them. I knew someone whose parents "had to" shoot their young lab because he "didn't know enough" to stay on their property (farm), people like that just keep killing one and getting another one until they happen to get one that naturally stays around the property. 

Generally I do think that most John and Joan Q Publics aren't responsible enough to have an intact dog of either sex, but in some areas it's way worse than others. That stuff is out there for sure.


----------



## Willowy

Thank you. Nobody believes me when *I* say that. This is the only place in the U.S. I've ever lived (except San Diego when I was tiny, and I remember our landlady talking about drowning kittens so I didn't think it was any better there), and even though I travel a lot, it's hard to get a feel for attitudes toward animals when you're just visiting. It has gotten just a teensy bit better since we moved here (17 years ago), but not much, unfortunately. It's just so frustrating.


----------



## Inga

As someone who has spent 40+ hours a week at a shelter and numerous hours working in rescue I will say that thousands of adoptable dogs still died in my shelter each year. When I say adoptable I mean, no obvious health issues ore behavioral issues that couldn't be dealt with. The number of cats is just mind boggling. Even dogs that came in completely trained and were amazing dogs were euthanized for lack of space. Many shelters now have gone the way of big business. They will tell you that "no adoptable dogs or cats are euthanized" the problem is... what is their idea of adoptable? In many cases it means cute, little or puppies and kittens. Anything that is considered harder to adopt is deemed unadoptable and euthanized before they are counted in the numbers.

I agree that spaying and neutering is not the best option in many cases it is the best in many others. In the case of the average Joe pet owner that neither trains, socializes or keeps the animal contained as it should be it is the right answer.

I have to admit it shocks me every time these threads come up and people make statements like "No animals should be killed in a well run shelter" What should they do with all the animals that are dumped at their doorsteps? Heck, more shelters and rescues are cropping up all the time because their isn't enough room in the ones that are already here. 

Honestly the I think the focus needs to be more on responsible animal ownership and management then on just spaying and neutering. If you are responsible and keep your animal contained then you are not part of the problem. Look at how many threads are here with the "oops, my dog got herself pregnant" or some other ridiculous thing. Those are the people that should have had their dogs spayed or neutered.


----------



## Willowy

Because if the people who DO keep their dogs contained don't set the example and spay/neuter, then the people who don't keep their dogs contained will say "why should I have my dog neutered? You didn't". It was actually a major reason I finally had Moose neutered, because I was getting sick of hearing that. The "yeah but I keep my dog contained and you don't" argument doesn't really work very well. How do you know who "should" have their dog speutered until it's too late? Everybody says they're a responsible owner. I've never heard anyone admit to being irresponsible.

I'm only going by the breeders who say that producing more dogs does not make them part of the problem. If dogs aren't really overpopulated, then breeding is fine, and the only reason shelters kill saveable dogs is because of mismanagement. If the shelters really are killing dogs because there are too many of them and they have no choice, then even a responsible breeder is part of the problem, because they're introducing more dogs into an oversaturated market. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> Honestly I think Willowy's experiences specifically with regards to spay/neuter and being responsible for pets' oops litters is pretty representative of rural upper midwest attitudes. Many people in those areas have just a completely different attitude towards animals than most of us on this board have, and people do have dogs & cats that have litter after litter and think nothing of giving them away in a box in front of the hardware store or, if all else fails, just shooting or drowning them. I knew someone whose parents "had to" shoot their young lab because he "didn't know enough" to stay on their property (farm), people like that just keep killing one and getting another one until they happen to get one that naturally stays around the property.
> 
> Generally I do think that most John and Joan Q Publics aren't responsible enough to have an intact dog of either sex, but in some areas it's way worse than others. That stuff is out there for sure.


I don't doubt that there are callous and stupid people. I don't even doubt that there are certain unfortunate locations which have more than their fair share of the dolts. What I DO doubt is that the misinformation about how much bettter sterilization is for the dog's health will move them in that direction. Because guess what? They are killing and dumping the dogs already. No reason to try to preserve their good health. Honestly, I know more people like myself who believed the hype and later had reason to wish we were better informed. Because I did care very much about the dog I didn't plan to breed so I neutered him (because it was best) and cut his life short with a very aggressive prostate cancer. And over the years, I've met many people who really cared about their dogs, weren't into pumping out puppies and really, really wished they'd had the actual facts available. I think there are reasons why a lot of people shouldn't be breeding dogs. And some of those are very compelling reasons. If all of Willow's good ole boys are out their proudly breeding hundreds of labs from a single female, it's my guess they aren't listening. Maybe they wouldn't listen to honest reasons either.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Because if the people who DO keep their dogs contained don't set the example and spay/neuter, then the people who don't keep their dogs contained will say "why should I have my dog neutered? You didn't". It was actually a major reason I finally had Moose neutered, because I was getting sick of hearing that. .


Well, I can promise you that I will choose to spay or neuter (or not) based on what I think is best for me and my dog. Not to set an example for someone whose situation is not my own. I will, however, try to set a very good example of responsible dog ownership and dedication to my pets.


----------



## Inga

Willowy said:


> Because if the people who DO keep their dogs contained don't set the example and spay/neuter, then the people who don't keep their dogs contained will say "why should I have my dog neutered? You didn't". It was actually a major reason I finally had Moose neutered, because I was getting sick of hearing that. The "yeah but I keep my dog contained and you don't" argument doesn't really work very well. How do you know who "should" have their dog speutered until it's too late? Everybody says they're a responsible owner. I've never heard anyone admit to being irresponsible.
> 
> I'm only going by the breeders who say that producing more dogs does not make them part of the problem. If dogs aren't really overpopulated, then breeding is fine, and the only reason shelters kill saveable dogs is because of mismanagement. If the shelters really are killing dogs because there are too many of them and they have no choice, then even a responsible breeder is part of the problem, because they're introducing more dogs into an oversaturated market. Can't have it both ways.



But the truly responsible breeder only produces puppies when they have homes lined up and waiting for the pups AND they will take back any pup if the owner cannot keep them. The pup would never need to find it's way into a shelter. To say to someone, "the shelter has 6 Golden retriever's, go adopt one," to someone looking for a Rottweiler is not going to work either. Another thing that the "good breeders" do is to be active in rescue in some way. In my book, there are very few truly responsible breeders as I have a very high standard but I do not feel that they (the truly responsible few) do add to the problem. Good breeders also breed to the standard of that breed. If they stop breeding before the backyard breeders do, we risk losing the breeds as they are. I don't believe that should happen.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I'm only going by the breeders who say that producing more dogs does not make them part of the problem. If dogs aren't really overpopulated, then breeding is fine, and the only reason shelters kill saveable dogs is because of mismanagement. If the shelters really are killing dogs because there are too many of them and they have no choice, then even a responsible breeder is part of the problem, because they're introducing more dogs into an oversaturated market. Can't have it both ways.


If a breeder's puppies aren't ending up in shelters, the breeder is not part of the problem. The problem is irresponsible ownership and H$U$'s influence on the shelter culture.


----------



## Willowy

But these people _aren't_ "callous and stupid", or "dolts", or "good ol' boys". They're perfectly normal, average, responsible, kind (to humans) people. That's the hardest part for me. These are The Nicest People Ever. They'll get the neighbor's crops in if he gets sick, even at great personal cost. They'll lose hours of sleep to pull you (a perfect stranger) out of the ditch in the middle of the night, just because they heard you revving the engine from their house a mile away. They'll go out of their way to help you in any way they can. They pay their bills and love their families.

Just somehow, that niceness and responsiblity doesn't translate to animals.


----------



## Inga

Willowy said:


> But these people _aren't_ "callous and stupid", or "dolts", or "good ol' boys". They're perfectly normal, average, responsible, kind (to humans) people. That's the hardest part for me. These are The Nicest People Ever. They'll get the neighbor's crops in if he gets sick, even at great personal cost. They'll lose hours of sleep to pull you (a perfect stranger) out of the ditch in the middle of the night, just because they heard you revving the engine from their house a mile away. They'll go out of their way to help you in any way they can. They pay their bills and love their families.
> 
> Just somehow, that niceness and responsiblity doesn't translate to animals.


I assume you are speaking of someone you know? That can hardly be related to every breeder. Any one can be nice but that doesn't mean they are the most responsible. Even the best person in the world (if there is such a person) makes mistakes and can benefit from some education. How that education is presented might make the difference between learning something new and slamming their very nice door in the teachers face.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> But these people _aren't_ "callous and stupid", or "dolts", or "good ol' boys". They're perfectly normal, average, responsible, kind (to humans) people. That's the hardest part for me. These are The Nicest People Ever. They'll get the neighbor's crops in if he gets sick, even at great personal cost. They'll lose hours of sleep to pull you (a perfect stranger) out of the ditch in the middle of the night, just because they heard you revving the engine from their house a mile away. They'll go out of their way to help you in any way they can. They pay their bills and love their families.
> 
> Just somehow, that niceness and responsiblity doesn't translate to animals.


Well, okay, so we just have irreconcievable cultural differences. Still, I bet if it doesn't translate to animals, they aren't rushing out to get their pet fixed because you give them misinformation about health risks.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> If a breeder's puppies aren't ending up in shelters, the breeder is not part of the problem. The problem is irresponsible ownership and H$U$'s influence on the shelter culture.


 It's quite likely that at least some of the people buying from the breeder would get a pup from a shelter if a breeder pup wasn't available. Or they'd buy from another breeder and one of that breeder's puppy buyers would get a shelter pup or a pup that's not currently in a shelter that would otherwise end up there (and so on down the line). It's a numbers game. If there are too many dogs, then adding more dogs to that is not a good thing, no matter how special you think your bloodlines are..

If it's because of "HSUS' influence", then that would count as mismanagement, in my book.


----------



## Willowy

Inga said:


> I assume you are speaking of someone you know?


No, I mean the general attitude toward animals in the upper midwest that Sassafras mentioned. The people who have litter after litter of puppies and give them away from a box in front of the grocery store, and if they don't all get taken they "go for a ride to the river". Those that shoot their dog because he doesn't stay on the property. That kind of thing.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, okay, so we just have irreconcievable cultural differences. Still, I bet if it doesn't translate to animals, they aren't rushing out to get their pet fixed because you give them misinformation about health risks.


It's not misinformation to say "if you spay your dog she won't ever get pyometra, which would make a mess and maybe cost you a lot of money to have her put down and the body disposed of" (if they live in town. . .doesn't really work if they live in the country). They sure aren't going to spay her if it doesn't benefit THEM in some way.

I already said that I consider the health issue a wash. You weren't liking the "shelter dogs die" part, not the health benefits part.


----------



## sassafras

Inga said:


> I assume you are speaking of someone you know? That can hardly be related to every breeder.


No, but it can be generalized to a whole population of average Joes and Janes. I swear it's like a completely different culture.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> It's not misinformation to say "if you spay your dog she won't ever get pyometra, which would make a mess and maybe cost you a lot of money to have her put down and the body disposed of" (if they live in town. . .doesn't really work if they live in the country). They sure aren't going to spay her if it doesn't benefit THEM in some way.
> 
> I already said that I consider the health issue a wash. You weren't liking the "shelter dogs die" part, not the health benefits part.


I wasn't liking any of the propaganda.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> It's quite likely that at least some of the people buying from the breeder would get a pup from a shelter if a breeder pup wasn't available. Or they'd buy from another breeder and one of that breeder's puppy buyers would get a shelter pup or a pup that's not currently in a shelter that would otherwise end up there (and so on down the line). It's a numbers game. If there are too many dogs, then adding more dogs to that is not a good thing, no matter how special you think your bloodlines are..
> 
> If it's because of "HSUS' influence", then that would count as mismanagement, in my book.


Guessing you aren't familiar with the Asilomar accords?


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> Guessing you aren't familiar with the Asilomar accords?


Sort of. Having glanced over it while looking at other things. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation?

I was giving breeders the benefit of the doubt. I personally think there are too many dogs (and KNOW definitively that there are too many cats) but am willing to consider that the situation might be different elsewhere. That's why I said that the only reason shelters kill saveable dogs is because of mismanagement or deliberate underfunding. Inga (having worked in a shelter) said that's not true; that it's necessary for shelters to kill even highly adoptable dogs because of the neverending avalanche of dogs overwhelming them. Which is it?


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Willowy said:


> Sort of. Having glanced over it while looking at other things. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation?
> 
> I was giving breeders the benefit of the doubt. I personally think there are too many dogs (and KNOW definitively that there are too many cats) but am willing to consider that the situation might be different elsewhere. That's why I said that the only reason shelters kill saveable dogs is because of mismanagement or deliberate underfunding. Inga (having worked in a shelter) said that's not true; that it's necessary for shelters to kill even highly adoptable dogs because of the neverending avalanche of dogs overwhelming them. Which is it?


So in your perfect world all dogs would be spayed or neutered?


And if that happened we wouldn't have any puppies.

And if that happened dogs would cease to exist.

Is this the future you want? I'm confused about your end goal.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Sort of. Having glanced over it while looking at other things. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation?
> 
> I was giving breeders the benefit of the doubt. I personally think there are too many dogs (and KNOW definitively that there are too many cats) but am willing to consider that the situation might be different elsewhere. That's why I said that the only reason shelters kill saveable dogs is because of mismanagement or deliberate underfunding. Inga (having worked in a shelter) said that's not true; that it's necessary for shelters to kill even highly adoptable dogs because of the neverending avalanche of dogs overwhelming them. Which is it?


Has to do with the generally aggreed upon principles that run most animal shelters. From a Winograd article (not about Asilomar, but about the philosophy of shelters as killing places):

Phyllis Wright of the Humane Society of the United States, the matriarch of today’s “catch and kill” paradigm, Wright once famously wrote, “I’ve put 70,000 dogs and cats to sleep… But I tell you one thing: I don’t worry about one of those animals that were put to sleep.”

She then described how she does worry about the animals she found homes for. From that disturbing view, HSUS coined a maxim that says we should worry about saving lives but not about ending them and successfully propagated this viewpoint to shelters across the country. The essay created an emotionally acceptable pretext for killing animals: shelter workers “were now ‘putting animals to sleep’” and the charade that “killing is kindness” became a national fixture.

As I recall, many shelters, led by HSUS, were highly against TNR because it provided an alternative to killing all those unadoptable cats. And many are against allowing any bully type dog to walk out of the shelter, also by the influence of H$U$/PeTA. A number of smaller rural and county shelters don't even make a pretense of trying to find homes for animals.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> Has to do with the generally aggreed upon principles that run most animal shelters. From a Winograd article (not about Asilomar, but about the philosophy of shelters as killing places):
> 
> Phyllis Wright of the Humane Society of the United States, the matriarch of today’s “catch and kill” paradigm, Wright once famously wrote, “I’ve put 70,000 dogs and cats to sleep… But I tell you one thing: I don’t worry about one of those animals that were put to sleep.”
> 
> She then described how she does worry about the animals she found homes for. From that disturbing view, HSUS coined a maxim that says we should worry about saving lives but not about ending them and successfully propagated this viewpoint to shelters across the country. The essay created an emotionally acceptable pretext for killing animals: shelter workers “were now ‘putting animals to sleep’” and the charade that “killing is kindness” became a national fixture.
> 
> As I recall, many shelters, led by HSUS, were highly against TNR because it provided an alternative to killing all those unadoptable cats. And many are against allowing any bully type dog to walk out of the shelter, also by the influence of H$U$/PeTA. A number of smaller rural and county shelters don't even make a pretense of trying to find homes for animals.


Um, yeah. I agree with all of that and that was kind of my point. However, I can also see Inga's point--when a shelter has 15 dogs surrendered a day and only adopts out 5 a day, despite their best efforts, what can they do? When a rescue has had a wonderful, well-trained, highly adoptable dog available for a year and haven't even had one application for him, how can they help more dogs? If I can't even GIVE away cute, socialized, vaccinated, spayed/neutered kittens, how does anyone expect to get an adult cat adopted? It just seems like there are more dogs/cats than there are homes willing to have them. If that's not true, great, but even if it's not true it doesn't seem to be helping the homeless pet situation any.


----------



## Willowy

KodiBarracuda said:


> So in your perfect world all dogs would be spayed or neutered?
> 
> 
> And if that happened we wouldn't have any puppies.
> 
> And if that happened dogs would cease to exist.
> 
> Is this the future you want? I'm confused about your end goal.


 No, of course not. Ideally, all pets would be born having a good, permanent home lined up already. We're so far from that goal right now that any alarmist "we'll run out of pets, oh nooo!" just seems kind of laughable (if the situation weren't so sad).


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Willowy said:


> No, of course not. Ideally, all pets would be born having a good, permanent home lined up already. We're so far from that goal right now that any alarmist "we'll run out of pets, oh nooo!" just seems kind of laughable (if the situation weren't so sad).


But you preach "spay and neuter all dogs". If I were you I would rethink that. I wont preach something that would lead eventually to a undesirable outcome, but I guess it's your choice.


----------



## Willowy

KodiBarracuda said:


> But you preach "spay and neuter all dogs". If I were you I would rethink that. I wont preach something that would lead eventually to a undesirable outcome, but I guess it's your choice.


I don't think I ever said "spay and neuter all dogs"? But most pet owners should. I think that millions of pets being killed just for being unwanted is far more "undesirable".


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> I already said that I consider the health issue a wash. You weren't liking the "shelter dogs die" part, not the health benefits part.


It is NOT a 'wash'. You simply distort the facts to suit your agenda.

Most people that have actually READ the studies can figure that out.


----------



## Inga

Willowy said:


> I don't think I ever said "spay and neuter all dogs"? But most pet owners should. I think that millions of pets being killed just for being unwanted is far more "undesirable".


I agree with you there. I am sick of people saying that there is not an over population problem because obviously there is. It may not be the kind of dogs that most people want but there IS an over population problem. Still, there must be good breeders and though I agree with spay/neuter for that average Joe, I won't fight for any spay/neuter laws. There must be choice and there should be punishment of guilty dog owners, not punishment of every dog owner just because the mass calls for it. I don't want to lose the individual breeds as I think that there is a dog to meet the needs for everyone interested in a dog. For that reason I promote good breeders and educate in that way. I do preach spay/neuter to the average Joe as well because Joe has too often proved himself to not be qualified to keep a dog contained. If Joe wishes to educate himself/herself enough to know that there are other options then they are on the right path to being responsible. If not, then I feel it is best to have their dog fixed.


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> It is NOT a 'wash'. You simply distort the facts to suit your agenda.
> 
> Most people that have actually READ the studies can figure that out.


I have read the NAIA study you quoted from. And I assume the NAIA people read it. So how do you explain the "conclusion" (the last group of paragraphs; I'd quote it but I can't do much with PDFs on my phone) where they say that the benefits of spaying likely outweigh the risks for most (but not all) females? And that it's a complex subject? They couldn't even find enough intact geriatric females to get a good sample base for the dementia study, probably because they needed to be spayed at some point because of pyo or mammary gland issues. For males, the health risks generally outweigh the benefits, though.

I don't know why you dismiss the need for birth control in dogs. It's a necessity for most pet owners. So far, there is no satisfactory birth control for dogs other than spaying/neutering.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Willowy said:


> So far, there is no satisfactory birth control for dogs other than spaying/neutering.


Perhaps in thus lies the problem.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> I have read the NAIA study you quoted from. And I assume the NAIA people read it. So how do you explain the "conclusion" (the last group of paragraphs; I'd quote it but I can't do much with PDFs on my phone) where they say that the benefits of spaying likely outweigh the risks for most (but not all) females? And that it's a complex subject? They couldn't even find enough intact geriatric females to get a good sample base for the dementia study, probably because they needed to be spayed at some point because of pyo or mammary gland issues. For males, the health risks generally outweigh the benefits, though.
> 
> I don't know why you dismiss the need for birth control in dogs. It's a necessity for most pet owners. So far, there is no satisfactory birth control for dogs other than spaying/neutering.


You have not read very many studies on the matter and you know even less about the current research on chemical contraceptives being done. (their are some (for dogs) awaiting FDA approval now and others already in use on other animals here (deer))

Aside of the long term health problems that can result there are also many recent studies that show behavior can change for the *worse *as well.

You should reread the study I linked you to about longevity and intact female dogs...


----------



## sassafras

Unfortunately most of the studies aren't that well designed. The rottweiler/osteosarcoma study is probably the best one I've seen although it's hard for me to fully accept generalizing a study done on one breed to all breeds. There's a lot of stuff that is suspected but unfortunately we don't really know for sure. I would love it if someone would actually do some well designed studies about the effect of spay/neuter on orthopedic problems like cruciates and hip dysplasia and try to put that issue to rest. What I've seen so far isn't all that compelling either way to be honest.

I wish I could find it now, but I had a link to a very well written blog that essentially did a literature review of the larger studies. The conclusion (which I agreed with) was that there is a lot that we really can't say for sure, but for females there is a slight health benefit to spaying ("best" age unknown) and little benefit for males. Having said that, I really don't think the societal benefits of encouraging Joe and Jane Average pet owner to spay or neuter their pet can really be understated. Most of the general public with an intact dog is just an oops litter waiting to happen.


----------



## Willowy

KodiBarracuda said:


> Perhaps in thus lies the problem.


Yes, probably that would help. Although I'm inclined to believe that most people who won't take their pet to the vet for spay/neuter also won't take their pet to the vet for a contraceptive. 

And who knows why the products aren't available here? Other countries have non-surgical birth control for pets available. Possibly some politically powerful people are fighting against attempts to introduce them in the U.S., or maybe they really do have excessive risks. I'm not sure what studies have been done on the subject.


----------



## sassafras

DobermanGuy said:


> You should reread the study I linked you to about longevity and intact female dogs...


I didn't see a link to the study, I saw a link to an article about the study?

What I would really like to know about that study is if it included both bitches who had and who had not had litters in their lifetime. If they did, you can't draw any further conclusions past "this merits more studies". I suspect that pregnancy has some protective effects against the risks of mammary cancer and pyometra. Whether that's true or my opinion only, a good study will compare apples to apples - that is, never been pregnant spayed to never been pregnant unspayed. The control group is always the downfall of these studies, it seems.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> And who knows why the products aren't available here? Other countries have non-surgical birth control for pets available. Possibly some politically powerful people are fighting against attempts to introduce them in the U.S., or maybe they really do have excessive risks. I'm not sure what studies have been done on the subject.


They DO use this method here already on some animals...


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> They DO use this method here already on some animals...


Yeah, but there are a lot of warnings out on Ovaban (if that's the one you mean). Most vets won't use it (as birth control) on a pet that's able to be spayed/neutered. I don't know if they're being overcautious or if it really does have too many side effects. If the alternative is worse than spaying, what's the point?


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Um, yeah. I agree with all of that and that was kind of my point. However, I can also see Inga's point--when a shelter has 15 dogs surrendered a day and only adopts out 5 a day, despite their best efforts, what can they do? When a rescue has had a wonderful, well-trained, highly adoptable dog available for a year and haven't even had one application for him, how can they help more dogs? If I can't even GIVE away cute, socialized, vaccinated, spayed/neutered kittens, how does anyone expect to get an adult cat adopted? It just seems like there are more dogs/cats than there are homes willing to have them. If that's not true, great, but even if it's not true it doesn't seem to be helping the homeless pet situation any.


if the dogs aren't coming from the breeders, and the breeder dogs and shelter dogs don't have the same market, it really makes so much more sense to address the real issues (the indifference of the owners who have no commitment to their dogs and often the complacency of shelters who have been told by H$U$ that killing animals is their most important and honorable job) instead of going after people who breed carefully,place carefully, and frequently aid in getting dogs out of those situations. If the REAL goal was to figure out where the problem is, that would make a lot more sense. But it's not, of course.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> No, of course not. Ideally, all pets would be born having a good, permanent home lined up already. We're so far from that goal right now that any alarmist "we'll run out of pets, oh nooo!" just seems kind of laughable (if the situation weren't so sad).


No, just in danger for well bred pets. Good breeders already don't breed enough dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I don't know why you dismiss the need for birth control in dogs. It's a necessity for most pet owners. So far, there is no satisfactory birth control for dogs other than spaying/neutering.


It's intersting that in much of the civilized world people manage to control their dogs' breeding without routine spaying and neutering.


----------



## Willowy

I guess I don't think an animal's life is worth more if it's "well-bred" (which is awfully subjective. . .don't all breeders think they're making well-bred animals?). Until something can be done about the sheer numbers, it's just more dogs.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> It's intersting that in much of the civilized world people manage to control their dogs' breeding without routine spaying and neutering.


I dunno. . .in Germany, maybe. They have a lot of restrictive pet-keeping laws, though. Same for a lot of the other European countries. England has a similar homeless pet problem as the U.S., a similar kill rate, and similar spay/neuter rates (as far as I can tell anyway). Everywhere else, it looks like they just have fewer societal problems with killing the unwanted ones, or they just let them roam freely.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I guess I don't think an animal's life is worth more if it's "well-bred" (which is awfully subjective. . .don't all breeders think they're making well-bred animals?). Until something can be done about the sheer numbers, it's just more dogs.


I don't know if all breeders think they are breeding well bred animals. I do know that not enough are bred. Breeds would be healthier if careful breeders weren't under constant, unwarranted and uncalled for attack by the people drinking AR Koolade. I recognize that the individual is important to the owner, and I've owned and loved dogs who weren't deserving of being bred. (And dogs who were). Other than playing in the show ring, I valued them all. But some dogs genes are worth more. You don't have to support that, of course. Nobody even forces you to have dogs. And you'll probably be perfectly happy when PeTA reaches their ultimate goal.


----------



## Tofu_pup

Out of curiousity Willowy where abouts in South Dakota are you? You can PM me if you're more comfortable. 

The reason I ask is because my roommate is from South Dakota and his father breeds labs(surprise!). Apparently his dogs hunt but that's it. It's gotten to the point where I just don't touch the subject of dogs with him because we can't be very civil about this.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Everywhere else, it looks like they just have fewer societal problems with killing the unwanted ones, or they just let them roam freely.


I wonder how they manage that.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> I wonder how they manage that.


Which part? The lack of regard for animal life or letting them roam freely? 

I know in Japan, they don't really have "shelters" (or at least not 17+ years ago), just killing centers. And they sent the animals' bodies to the zoo to feed the carnivores. Of course there were a few private rescuers but generally speaking, the people just didn't want to be bothered to think about it. There are quite a lot of free-roaming animals, too, so I guess the kill centers only dealt with nuisance animals or owner surrenders.

In places like Turkey and Greece, the animals roam freely and the people accept that and don't usually whine about how annnoying and inconvenient they are. And a lot of people care for them. Although I just saw an article saying that Turkey wants to go to the American-type catch-and-kill model. Which is a real shame.


----------



## Willowy

Tofu_pup said:


> Out of curiousity Willowy where abouts in South Dakota are you? You can PM me if you're more comfortable.
> 
> The reason I ask is because my roommate is from South Dakota and his father breeds labs(surprise!). Apparently his dogs hunt but that's it. It's gotten to the point where I just don't touch the subject of dogs with him because we can't be very civil about this.


I live in a small town about half an hour from Sioux Falls (which is a very nice city, BTW). And, yeah, surprise, it seems like everyone breeds Labs here.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> It's intersting that in much of the civilized world people manage to control their dogs' breeding without routine spaying and neutering.


Well if you want to take on changing an entire culture, have at it. Here is here, elsewhere is elsewhere.


----------



## juliemule

I agree with the point that there are too many unwanted dogs, and most should spay or neuter. However I have bred before, and plan on breeding again. Many dogs are in shelters because of poor breeding, which make for poor working dogs, which is what I look for. There Are some great dogs that come from shelters. I have looked for years, and have yet to find one with the nerve, drive and biddability that It takes to make a great working dog. To breed specifically for those traits, you have a much better chance of getting what you put in it. I really don't care if a dog is registered or not, as long as they are bred for a good purpose. In fact, I don't agree with what some registries have done to some breeds (or What the breeders have done to meet only the standards for looks on some breeds). Hopefully the poorly bred dogs will find homes, be altered, and leave breeding to ones that care about improving dogs, not making a dollar.


----------



## Willowy

juliemule said:


> Many dogs are in shelters because of poor breeding


How do you figure? Do you think someone irresponsible enough to dump their pet in a shelter would magically be more responsible if they somehow came into possession of a "well-bred" dog?


----------



## juliemule

Willowy said:


> How do you figure? Do you think someone irresponsible enough to dump their pet in a shelter would magically be more responsible if they somehow came into possession of a "well-bred" dog?


No. However the health and temperament of well bred dogs are more predictable. possible owners tend to research more, have more money invested in up front purchasing, and good breeders will try to place their dogs in suitable homes. No magic involved. I have nothing against mutts, own one, and have another rescue as well. They are as loved and well cared for as my well bred dogs. Poor breeding and handling resulted in them. The female is spayed and the male is neutered.


----------



## jersey_gray

I do think the regular pet owner needs to spay/neuter. The regular pet owner is not out there socializing and training their dogs and their attitude is "this guy is selling Yorkies for five hundred but that's highway robbery I know I can get one for three hundred" (that would be my grandma specifically). Shelters should definitely push/promote altering pets. However, I really wish now that I had known there was possibly reason NOT to alter your dog young. My vet should have known and informed me that this could have negative effects in the future rather than make it seem as though the only risk was from the anesthetic involved in the surgery. My male dog was just weeks old when he was neutered and now I'm wondering if I did him more harm than good (do not regret neutering him necessarily, just that it was done so young). I am one of those "regular" owners whose child or visiting uncle lets the dogs run out the door from time to time (why do people feel the need to open the front door, then stand there talking with the door open knowing full well there's three dogs in the house!!!?) so I prefer that my animals are altered. All dogs and cats I have ever owned have been altered. Also, as of a couple years ago, it is the law in my county that all dogs and cats over the age of four months have to be altered. I do not feel the government has a right to tell you what to do with your own animal so I do not agree with that being made into law.


----------



## Kérstan

jersey_gray said:


> I do think the regular pet owner needs to spay/neuter. The regular pet owner is not out there socializing and training their dogs and their attitude is "this guy is selling Yorkies for five hundred but that's highway robbery I know I can get one for three hundred" (that would be my grandma specifically). Shelters should definitely push/promote altering pets. However, I really wish now that I had known there was possibly reason NOT to alter your dog young. My vet should have known and informed me that this could have negative effects in the future rather than make it seem as though the only risk was from the anesthetic involved in the surgery. My male dog was just weeks old when he was neutered and now I'm wondering if I did him more harm than good (do not regret neutering him necessarily, just that it was done so young). I am one of those "regular" owners whose child or visiting uncle lets the dogs run out the door from time to time (why do people feel the need to open the front door, then stand there talking with the door open knowing full well there's three dogs in the house!!!?) so I prefer that my animals are altered. All dogs and cats I have ever owned have been altered. Also, as of a couple years ago, it is the law in my county that all dogs and cats over the age of four months have to be altered. I do not feel the government has a right to tell you what to do with your own animal so I do not agree with that being made into law.


If the "regular pet owner" isn't out here training, socializing, etc. then personally they DON'T need a dog.

Proper socializing, training, handling and care are ESSENTIAL for a dog's development.

If the "regular pet owner" does NOT do these things, I'm going to assume they also have NEVER done any extensive research about dogs in general.

If this is the case, once again, someone so ignorant about dogs should never own one.

You don't just go out and get a dog without doing TONS of research FIRST... -.-

Alas, not all of us are like the "regular pet owner". Some of are more RESPONSIBLE and actually DO our research about such things.

Like everyone should, really.

People should be WELL educated about things BEFORE making a final decision.


----------



## InkedMarie

I'm just a pet owner who has had mostly purebred pups. I don't want anyone to take away my choice to buy a puppy from a reputable and responsible breeder.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> Well if you want to take on changing an entire culture, have at it. Here is here, elsewhere is elsewhere.


Well, the current model isn't really working all that well, is it? We can try to change an entire culture by forcing pet ownership out of the picture by making it too difficult to own, to breed or to buy; or we can try to change it by insisting our shelters make a greater effort, and that education (real education, not propaganda) is part of the picture. I don't *THINK* Americans need to be a disposable society when it comes to our pets. But it also doesn't mean that no animal is ever going to fall through the cracks. I also don't think it is the entire culture. My personal experience is that there are a lot more people who care about their pets than people who don't. But the thing is, there are often powers at the top which are driven by profit and upheld by belief systems. If you are going to look for change, you have to conside what their part is in all this. While a lot of local shelters are starting to realize how H$U$ uses them, the fact is that their policies, their education, their software is gifted to them by H$U$. And, of course they accept it, because they are underfunded and need something.

What benefits H$U$? Animal suffering. Animal death and suffering fills their treasury and pays their big salaries. If they can't find death and suffering, they create it or stage it. Then, they schedule the news releases to come out when they don't have another big issue cooking. People watch the sad drama, cry and write a check. What would reducing shelter euthanasia numbers do for H$U$? Well, for one, Wayne might have to move out of his penthouse. Numbers have fallen, and it's been very bad for the bottom line. So, H$U$ encourages euthanasia as the main purpose of the shelters, and because that is how most shelters are trained, there's no real motivation to change the system. The shelter personnel is told that not only are they "doing their job" when they kill but that they are offering those animals a great gift. What is the motivation to look at doing things differently?

And if numbers are down, they can always be inflated by stealing dogs from breeders (and I am talking about hobby breeders here) creating irrational and unmeetable laws which give them power to steal the dogs of breeders who cannot met them, and they can pad shelter numbers by moving dogs around (including dogs from out of the country) so that nobody notices that otherwise shelters in some areas would be almost empty. In one New England state, a great many dogs are imported from the south (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) because education has worked well, and VOLUNTARY S/N has left them with few dogs to sell. The kicker is at this same time, the governor was pushing for MANDATORY S/N legislation, using the statistics of dogs in shelters. If gazillions of dogs aren't dying in shelters every 5 minutes, we don't need to send our money to organizations like H$U$, do we? That's the real point. If things get better, H$U$ loses funds. And they may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.

I am not anti-speuter. I've actually talked quite a few people out of "just one litter" Most of my current crew lacks sex organs. But I think it is important to treat people (even people who are thinking - IMO - stupidly) as if they are capable of thinking about the subject and making good choices. And I won't lie to them for their own good. Because I understand exactly what it feels like when you do something you are told reduces your dog's health risks and it kills him instead.


----------



## sassafras

Oh yea I lie to people all the time for their own good, that's exactly what I do. I lie to sixty people before breakfast. :/


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> How do you figure? Do you think someone irresponsible enough to dump their pet in a shelter would magically be more responsible if they somehow came into possession of a "well-bred" dog?


There would probably be more involved in coming into possession of a "well-bred" dog - requiring more commitment, more time, more thought. In some cases, creating a greater sense of pride in having something "valuable" though that's not a great reason to own an animal all by itself. Still, it's harder for many people to dump $1500-$2000 than free. Additionally, the person would have the back-up of a breeder who cares about the best interest of the dog, can provide intervention on small issues before they become huge issues and provide resources they might not otherwise have access to. 
Behavior issues are the number 1 reason dogs end up in the shelter. Health issues are also a consideration. I'm sure epilepsy was the reason my handsome red tri Willie ended up in the shelter, and the severity of it was certainly the reason he wasn't very adoptable. While getting a well-bred dog doesn't absolutely guaranty 15 years of no problems, you are more likely to end up with a dog without overwhelming or unworkable issues if you choose a breeder who knows what is in their pedigrees, understands genetics and pays attention to the health testing recommended for the breed.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> Oh yea I lie to people all the time for their own good, that's exactly what I do. I lie to sixty people before breakfast. :/


No need to take a general statement about a common practice quite so personally, Sassifras.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> No need to take a general statement about a common practice quite so personally, Sassifras.


No need to use inflammatory language in your posts, pawzk9. Nor to assume that those who have not reached the same conclusions as you based on shaky evidence are lying to people.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> No need to use inflammatory language in your posts, pawzk9. Nor to assume that those who have not reached the same conclusions as you based on shaky evidence are lying to people.


My language has been less inflammatory than several on this thread. The fact is, when someone (not you) states that they don't mind using scare tactics if that's what is necessary to convince people to s/n, that's not really reaching for an assumption. Sorry.


----------



## spotted nikes

While there are health risks to spaying/neutering, more dogs die every yr because of NOT spaying or neutering, than ever die because they were spayed or neutered. Look at the number of dogs killed in shelters each yr, the number of stray dogs/dumped dogs that are hit by cars, killed in dog fights, starved, and the number that die whelping, or the number of puppies that die at birth, and the number of dogs that die due to Pyo/testicular cancer. The avg pet owner does no research on breeds/training/care, and gets a pet off CL or from someone in the paper giving/selling puppies. The dogs aren't socialized, trained or contained. Many owners have no clue what age dogs can reproduce or the signs of heat. Many think opening a door to let them run out by themselves is fine. So many people have Oops litters or they breed because they want to sell the puppies or have the kids see the miracle of birth. Responsible/educated owners are rare. Look at your local paper/CL and you'll see my point. Go to your local shelter, and you'll see my point. We kill 18000 dogs a year here, in my city, in spite of having 4 rescues that are no kill. Speutering could have prevented many of their deaths.

There are only a few people that are responsible enough plus stable enough financially to keep unaltered dogs. There shouldn't be any reason to give a dog to a shelter, if you are a responsible owner. Most people could find their dog a home within a couple of weeks if they put some effort into it. The problem is, that they don't. Or they buy luxury items, and can't afford a pet deposit for a new place. That's entirely the owner's fault. If the dog they are dropping off at a shelter/rehoming is unaltered, then that is irresponsible, because now the dog is going to incur more expense by the shelter, or may be rehomed to someone who wants to be a BYB, or is irresponsible and lets them breed.


----------



## Bordermom

Willowy said:


> How do you figure? Do you think someone irresponsible enough to dump their pet in a shelter would magically be more responsible if they somehow came into possession of a "well-bred" dog?


The breeders who breed to improve the breed, for show or working, care about what they breed and where those pups end up. Usually they don't breed often so people have to wait and have more time to back out. The questions and expectations from the breeder are a lot higher, and they take their pup back no matter what, at any age.

The breeders who breed for money, have pet dogs, don't care where the pup ends up provided the person looks like a good home and has money. They breed often and sell more, usually 4-5 litters a year, don't want to know where the pup ended up or what kind of person has the pup, or if the dog needs a home in five years - it won't be with them. 

If a person has to wait six months, fill out paperwork, has a lot of breeder support for any issues they're having, they're more likely to keep the dog. The person who decided today they'd like a newfie puppy, and got one home by noon by meeting the breeder in the walmart parking lot and now has no clue what to do next, is more likely to get frustrated and drop the dog in the shelter. 

At least that's what I see all the time with teaching classes and talking to people. The dog that is purchased cheap and quickly is just as easily dumped and replaced.


----------



## Pawzk9

spotted nikes said:


> While there are health risks to spaying/neutering, more dogs die every yr because of NOT spaying or neutering, than ever die because they were spayed or neutered. Look at the number of dogs killed in shelters each yr, the number of stray dogs/dumped dogs that are hit by cars, killed in dog fights, starved, and the number that die whelping, or the number of puppies that die at birth, and the number of dogs that die due to Pyo/Prostate cancer.
> .


Dogs are killed in shelters whether or not they are speutered. Sometimes "fixed" dogs may get a bit more time. But they are killed because they are in the shelter, not because of their reproductive statis. Dogs that are hit by cars die from being hit by cars, and are just as likely to be speutered. The majority of dogs I've known of killed in dog fights are speutered. The majority of dogs I know of who start dog fights are speutered. Reproductive status doesn't have anything to do with whether a dog starves or not. Calorie intake does. Certainly dogs who die in whelping or neonates who don't make it DO have to do with reproductive status. So does pyo. Prostate cancer is generally an issue of NEUTERED dogs. Benign prostate problems are more common in intact dogs, but are not deadly and can be cured by neutering.

I'm not saying most people need to routinely keep their dogs intact. For most people dogs without all their bits are easier. Shoot, in most cases it's easier for me as well, and I'm not going to keep a non-breeding female intact without a very good reason. And it does remove the concern of oops litters, which is a biggie. IMO, there's enough good arguements in favor of it in most situations that we don't need to pull out ones that are not legitimate concerns (for instance, cars don't check to see if a dog has testicles before hitting them)

As to shelters rehoming to someone who wants to be a BYB, that would be the shelter's bad for adopting out an intact dog. Any dog going through a shelter or rescue should be S/N. But individual owners should be able to decide for their own dog based on the best information available and their own lifestyle/level of responsibility


----------



## spotted nikes

Pawzk9 said:


> Dogs are killed in shelters whether or not they are speutered. Sometimes "fixed" dogs may get a bit more time. But they are killed because they are in the shelter, not because of their reproductive statis. Dogs that are hit by cars die from being hit by cars, and are just as likely to be speutered. The majority of dogs I've known of killed in dog fights are speutered. The majority of dogs I know of who start dog fights are speutered. Reproductive status doesn't have anything to do with whether a dog starves or not. Calorie intake does. Certainly dogs who die in whelping or neonates who don't make it DO have to do with reproductive status. So does pyo. Prostate cancer is generally an issue of NEUTERED dogs. Benign prostate problems are more common in intact dogs, but are not deadly and can be cured by neutering.
> 
> I'm not saying most people need to routinely keep their dogs intact. For most people dogs without all their bits are easier. Shoot, in most cases it's easier for me as well, and I'm not going to keep a non-breeding female intact without a very good reason. And it does remove the concern of oops litters, which is a biggie. IMO, there's enough good arguements in favor of it in most situations that we don't need to pull out ones that are not legitimate concerns (for instance, cars don't check to see if a dog has testicles before hitting them)
> 
> As to shelters rehoming to someone who wants to be a BYB, that would be the shelter's bad for adopting out an intact dog. Any dog going through a shelter or rescue should be S/N. But individual owners should be able to decide for their own dog based on the best information available and their own lifestyle/level of responsibility


You're misunderstanding my post. Spaying/neutering reduces the number of dogs/puppies in shelters, and the number of BYB, and oops litters that produce dogs in shelters, or stray/dumped dogs. Those dogs in shelters are often killed. The dumped/stray dogs often are killed in fights/by starvation or being hit by cars. Many dogs that are intact, and not contained properly will jump fences, get loose to get to a female in heat. those dogs often get hit by cars, or breed other loose females in heat. Speutering reduces the number of shelter dogs/dogs owned/sold by BYB, and oops litters that get dumped. I didn't mean that altered dogs aren't euthed in shelters.


----------



## spotted nikes

This article has some numbers that show that speutering reduces the number of dogs killed. Now I don't agree with many AR propoganda/stances at he end of the article, the numbers of dogs killed as a result of speutering, makes me favor mandatory spay/neuter laws. I am not for BSL.
http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/anp/2011/11/19/editorial-the-shelter-killing-of-pit-bulls/


----------



## Pawzk9

spotted nikes said:


> You're misunderstanding my post. Spaying/neutering reduces the number of dogs/puppies in shelters, and the number of BYB, and oops litters that produce dogs in shelters, or stray/dumped dogs. Those dogs in shelters are often killed. The dumped/stray dogs often are killed in fights/by starvation or being hit by cars. Many dogs that are intact, and not contained properly will jump fences, get loose to get to a female in heat. those dogs often get hit by cars, or breed other loose females in heat. Speutering reduces the number of shelter dogs/dogs owned/sold by BYB, and oops litters that get dumped. I didn't mean that altered dogs aren't euthed in shelters.


Do the shelters in your area routinely adopt dogs out to people who want to breed them? To me that just seems like a very bad idea, and one that the shelters can control pretty easily. Once the dogs reach the point of being adopted out by shelters (or rescues), there's really no reason they should still be fertile if the goal is to reduce the number of dogs in shelters.


----------



## spotted nikes

Pawzk9 said:


> Do the shelters in your area routinely adopt dogs out to people who want to breed them? To me that just seems like a very bad idea, and one that the shelters can control pretty easily. Once the dogs reach the point of being adopted out by shelters (or rescues), there's really no reason they should still be fertile if the goal is to reduce the number of dogs in shelters.


No. The shelters spay/neuter before adoption. Mandatory spaying/neutering reduces the number of BYB, and reduces the number of strays, and reduces the number of dogs and puppies in shelters because of BYB and oops litters. Read the link in my post above for exact numbers .


----------



## Pawzk9

spotted nikes said:


> No. The shelters spay/neuter before adoption. Mandatory spaying/neutering reduces the number of BYB, and reduces the number of strays, and reduces the number of dogs and puppies in shelters because of BYB and oops litters. Read the link in my post above for exact numbers .


Mandatory s/n has never been shown to do any of those things. In fact, municipalities with MSN tend to have much higher kill rates in their shelters than neighboring communities which do not. I was not understanding how "BYBs" were procuring dogs from the shelter for breeding unless the shelter was allowing dogs out intact. I tried reading the article, but the amount of misinformation in it made my eyes glaze.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Just a thought, I think we have these same problems with people. 

Orphanages are overflowing and older kids aren't as likely to be desired by possible adopters. 
No we aren't killing them, but they are out on their own at 18 whether we like it or not, which is a problem in and of itself if they aren't ready to be thrown into the world.
There are a lot of not planned (or intended) children, I know multiple people with them.
I suppose I could go on, but you get the point.
Should we have a mandatory fixing of people? Its the same premise.


----------



## DobermanGuy

sassafras said:


> No need to use inflammatory language in your posts, pawzk9. Nor to assume that those who have not reached the same conclusions as you based on shaky evidence are lying to people.


You claim it is shaky evidence but you provide NO studies to prove so...

And most certainly not any studies done in the last 10 years or so...

You call the evidence 'shaky' because it does not fit with the spay/neuter agenda that you seem to have.


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> You claim it is shaky evidence but you provide NO studies to prove so...
> 
> And most certainly not any studies done in the last 10 years or so...
> 
> You call the evidence 'shaky' because it does not fit with the spay/neuter agenda that you seem to have.


 YOU haven't provided any studies either, just some quotes from one study and an article about the other study. The NAIA study mentions that there are many benefits to spaying, the other one only studied one breed (a fairly unhealthy breed at that). I would like to see the iron-clad studies you're talking about.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> YOU haven't provided any studies either, just some quotes from one study and an article about the other study. The NAIA study mentions that there are many benefits to spaying, the other one only studied one breed (a fairly unhealthy breed at that). I would like to see the iron-clad studies you're talking about.


Yes I did. Try READING for a change...

The paper by Sanborn was based on many studies which were ALL cited at the end...
(she listed her sources - these are just SOME of them)



> REFERENCES
> 1 Burrow R, Batchelor D, Cripps P. Complications observed during and after ovariohysterectomy of 142
> bitches at a veterinary teaching hospital. Vet Rec. 2005 Dec 24-31;157(26):829-33.
> 2 Pollari FL, 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
> 3 Dorn AS, Swist RA. (1977) Complications of canine ovariohysterectomy. Journal of the American Animal
> Hospital Association 13, 720-724
> 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 Supplment 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 Estrogen 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
> Postsurgical Survival. J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969


I then provided you with these:

Scientific research studies that found spaying and neutering do NOT reduce aggression in dogs



> Michelle Bamberger, MS, DVM, and Katherine A. Houpt, VMD, PhD, DACVB
> Signalment factors, comorbidity, and trends in behavior diagnoses in dogs: 1,644
> cases (1991–2001)
> Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol 229, No. 10,
> November 15, 2006
> 
> Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression
> Ilana R Reisner, Frances S Shofer, Michael L Nance
> Injury Prevention 2007; 13:348–351
> 
> Deborah L. Duffy, Ph.D., and James A. Serpell, Ph.D., Center for the Interaction of
> Animals and Society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
> Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering on Behavior in Dogs
> Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical
> Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control, 2006
> 
> Anthony L. Podberscek, James A. Serpell
> Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group, Department of Clinical
> Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Studies,
> School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
> Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47 (1996) 75-89
> The English Cocker Spaniel: preliminary findings on aggressive behaviour
> 
> V. O’Farrell and E. Peachey
> Behavioural effects of ovario-hysterectomy on bitches
> Small Animal Clinic, Royal (****) School of Veterinary
> Studies, Summerhall, Edinburgh EH9 1QH
> Journal of Small Animal Practice (1990) 31, 595-598
> 
> Hyeon H. Kim a, Seong C. Yeon a,, Katherine A. Houpt b, Hee C. Lee
> Hong H. Chang a, Hyo J. Lee
> Institute of Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National
> University, Jinju 660-701, Republic of Korea
> Animal Behaviour Clinic, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University,
> Ithaca, NY 14853-6401, USA
> Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German Shepherd dogs
> The Veterinary Journal 172 (2006) 154–159


Do some reading on those and get back to me - I will provide you with MORE proof that you are clueless here and simply trying to promote your agenda... :wave:

(an agenda based on misinformation, and NOT on FACTS...)


----------



## Pawzk9

KodiBarracuda said:


> Just a thought, I think we have these same problems with people.
> 
> Orphanages are overflowing and older kids aren't as likely to be desired by possible adopters.
> No we aren't killing them, but they are out on their own at 18 whether we like it or not, which is a problem in and of itself if they aren't ready to be thrown into the world.
> There are a lot of not planned (or intended) children, I know multiple people with them.
> I suppose I could go on, but you get the point.
> Should we have a mandatory fixing of people? Its the same premise.


Just think about how much less time parents would have to spend worrying about their teenagers being out late! Sad part is, I suspect many of the people who are for MSN because they basically have no faith in humans would probably think this would be a good idea.


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> Scientific research studies that found spaying and neutering do NOT reduce aggression in dogs


 I don't think anybody here said anything about reducing aggression. Not very useful. Your position (seems to me) is that spaying is actually dangerous (more dangerous than leaving intact or using other forms of birth control) and not in the best interest of the individual dog. So far I can't see any proof of that. All surgeries have risks, including the surgeries for pyo and mammary gland tumor removal. And most people don't have access to university libraries. . .do you have any links?


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I don't think anybody here said anything about reducing aggression. Not very useful. Your position (seems to me) is that spaying is actually dangerous (more dangerous than leaving intact or using other forms of birth control) and not in the best interest of the individual dog. So far I can't see any proof of that. All surgeries have risks, including the surgeries for pyo and mammary gland tumor removal. And most people don't have access to university libraries. . .do you have any links?


Yet it is a common arguement for Speuter. And, occasionally, in certain circumstances, it can be useful for that purpose as well as others (neutering at least, spaying is likely to make the dog more aggressive) I haven't seen this person indicate that speuter is more dangerous, just that it has considerations that are worth noting. As to university libraries. If you know the study and the authors of the study, it's generally not that hard to get some information about it through an internet search.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Willowy said:


> So far I can't see any proof of that.


Because you are wearing blinders and don't bother to investigate and try to learn on your own.


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> Because you are wearing blinders and don't bother to investigate and try to learn on your own.


I'm TRYING. No useful information has been shown as of yet in this discussion. Every time this comes up, people post links and I read them. I can't say which ones I've read but there are a lot. The conclusion I've come to from reading all of those is that, behaviorally and medically, spaying a dog comes out about even on the risks vs benefits. On neutering males, it comes out slightly on the side of not neutering. Many of the studies even say so in their summaries. You haven't posted anything I haven't seen before. If you're trying to help people come to your same opinion, you aren't very good at it.


----------



## DobermanGuy

Pawzk9 said:


> Yet it is a common arguement for Speuter. And, occasionally, in certain circumstances, it can be useful for that purpose as well as others (neutering at least, spaying is likely to make the dog more aggressive) I haven't seen this person indicate that speuter is more dangerous, just that it has considerations that are worth noting. As to university libraries. If you know the study and the authors of the study, it's generally not that hard to get some information about it through an internet search.


I DO think it can be more dangerous depending on the age, the breed, and the overall health of the dog to begin with... The people we are talking about here NEVER consider any of this when doling out their 'advice'... 



> The results of the study suggest that spayed female dogs tend to be more aggressive toward their owners and to strangers than intact females, but that these effects of spaying on behavior appear to be highly breed-specific. Contrary to popular belief, the study found little evidence that castration was an effective treatment for aggressive behavior in male dogs, and may exacerbate other behavioral problems. Further research will be needed to clarify the relationship between age of spaying/neutering and these apparent effects on behavior.
> 
> Reference
> 
> Hsu, Y., and Serpell, J.A. 2003. “Development and validation of a questionnaire for
> measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs.” J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc., 223: 1293-1300.


----------



## Willowy

DobermanGuy said:


> I DO think it can be more dangerous depending on the age, the breed, and the overall health of the dog to begin with... The people we are talking about here NEVER consider any of this when doling out their 'advice'...


Which is why the usual advice is to spay the dog while she's young and healthy, before she gets pyo or mammary tumors or is too old to safely go under anesthetic (or has numerous unwanted litters). Even if I were to advise someone to spay their older bitch, their vet would help them determine whether it's safe for that particular dog or not. It's not like people can run to Wal-Mart and purchase a home spay kit or anything. I can dole out advice all I want, but the vet has the final say as to whether he/she will do the spay. It's not dangerous advice to tell people to go to the vet.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Willowy said:


> It's not like people can run to Wal-Mart and purchase a home spay kit or anything.


But if one bet wont do it they can just go to another vet that will, safe or not.


----------



## juliemule

KodiBarracuda said:


> Should we have a mandatory fixing of people? Its the same premise.


No, but there are alot of people I would recommend spaying!


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> Which is why the usual advice is to spay the dog while she's young and healthy, before she gets pyo or mammary tumors or is too old to safely go under anesthetic (or has numerous unwanted litters). Even if I were to advise someone to spay their older bitch, their vet would help them determine whether it's safe for that particular dog or not. It's not like people can run to Wal-Mart and purchase a home spay kit or anything. I can dole out advice all I want, but the vet has the final say as to whether he/she will do the spay. It's not dangerous advice to tell people to go to the vet.


So, if you think it is good advice you shouldn't have to make the vet's opinion your excuse. Even with females, pediatric spays cause growth plate and structural changes, and may predispose spay incontenence, which isn't by itself deadly but can be a really difficult problem that some people aren't willing to deal with, and isn't always well controlled by meds. Again, I'm NOT saying "don't spay or neuter." Both my females are spayed and it's a very workable solution for us. I'm saying that medical decisions for your dogs, they deserve for you to do your research and look at ALL sides of an issue - the pros and cons both places. Many people will do that and choose to spay or neuter. And that's fine. Most people don't need intact animals, but that is about the people, not the dogs. What I object to is blanket statements about how much healthier s/n dogs are, how you can protect them from cancer, or assume that people who keep dogs intact are "wrong."


----------



## Bordermom

I think for 95% of pet owners, spay and neutering is good advice. If scare tactics work, so be it. There's no shortage of dogs needing homes at this point. Or owners who are clueless as to how dogs get pregnant!

Mind you I also have this wish that the extreme 'nobody should own an intact animal or plan a litter' people would get a bit educated on who is causing the problems of overpopulation, and who is not. The breeders I know don't breed often so they don't have a lot of puppies taking up 'rescue' homes, and do the education and support that results in that dog having a home for life in most cases. Most don't have a puppy for sale 'now' so those people get sent to the local rescues for a dog. I plan to request any first time dog owners offer to foster before they get a pup from me - yes, might mean I loose some homes but I'm ok with that if they end up keeping a rescue! Does that make me a horrible person? I guess, since I do plan to breed....


----------



## DobermanGuy

KodiBarracuda said:


> But if one vet wont do it they can just go to another vet that will, safe or not.


Correct.

I have only met a small handful of Vets that would ever discuss the possible drawbacks or complications associated to spay/neuter. I have found that you tend to get different advice from a Vet that also happens to be a breeder. (usually more honest and less one sided advice)

I have also noticed that Vets tend to heavily promote spay/neuter if they do not know you very well or if you come in with a mix breed. We have seen many different Vets over the couple years. (more than 5) One is an expert at dental work and VERY well set up to do it, One is what I consider an expert at surgery, One is a Doberman owner (see her for breed specific advice), and another does the lowest cost vaccinations we can find while still using our brand vaccine... We have seen several different Vets and so far only ONE has tried giving us the spay/neuter speech. 

This is just an opinion here but I do honestly believe that if I had seen these Vets with a mixed breed they would have all gave us the speech. When you go in with a quality purebred dog they seem to be less inclined to steer you towards spay/neuter.


----------



## Rescued

I just read this thread and had to respond-

My question is this: Everyone seems to agree that for the average pet owner, S/N is probably the best decision. It takes time and dedication to own an unaltered dog, and from my experience, most people do not realize the lengths that unaltered dogs will go to breed. By default, I consider that to be a responsible dog owner, you must take the time to research the decisions you make for your dog. The posters that have unaltered dogs have likely done research before they made their decision.

How many owners of dogs can honestly say they have looked into the medical aspects of S/N to make their decision? Sadly, not many. People who take the time to post on a dog forum concerning rescue and S/N are generally not the same type of people that own five unaltered "outdoor" dogs.

My issue is this: Why is it considered wrong, shady, or dishonest for shelters, rescues, ect to give adopters information on the benefits of spaying or neutering, and to follow that information with a statement similar to "S/N has both risks and benefits. Please make the decision that is right for both the owner and the dog."

I don't want ANY person who owns an unaltered dog to be the type of person that won't research both sides. By default, I think that anyone who hasn't researched the benefits of having an unaltered dog SHOULD NOT have an unaltered dog.

thoughts?


----------



## juliemule

I agree, I feel that most should spay or neuter. Working as a tech I saw very few problems related to altering versus intact. It can happen yes, but unwanted litters happen way more often. I applaud those who keep intact dogs responsibly. Personally I spay or neuter those who will not be bred. Easier for me, and dogs who will chew through anything to breed.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

juliemule said:


> but unwanted litters happen way more often.


What are the statistics? Proof is what I'm going for. I'm not saying your wrong I just want the facts.


----------



## Rescued

KodiBarracuda said:


> What are the statistics? Proof is what I'm going for. I'm not saying your wrong I just want the facts.


You cannot honestly need a published study.

Lets say that in 20 years of dog ownership, every owner has had two dogs that have eventually developed life threatening complications from being S/N.
Lets also say for arguments sake that 10% of the dogs euthanized in shelters are the result of unwanted litters. With ~3million euth per year, thats ~300,000 from unplanned litters.

lets say that your county only euthanized 100 dogs per year, or 10 dogs per year due to unplanned litters.

That would mean that in the time that it took two of your dogs to develop complications, 200 dogs in your county alone were euthanized because SOMEONE did not S/N.

Does that not point to the bigger problem?
T


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Rescued said:


> You cannot honestly need a published study.
> 
> Lets say that in 20 years of dog ownership, every owner has had two dogs that have eventually developed life threatening complications from being S/N.
> Lets also say for arguments sake that 10% of the dogs euthanized in shelters are the result of unwanted litters. With ~3million euth per year, thats ~300,000 from unplanned litters.
> 
> lets say that your county only euthanized 100 dogs per year, or 10 dogs per year due to unplanned litters.
> 
> That would mean that in the time that it took two of your dogs to develop complications, 200 dogs in your county alone were euthanized because SOMEONE did not S/N.
> 
> Does that not point to the bigger problem?
> T


All theoretical and random numbers. I cant believe everything I hear, and this has to be one of them because no one has shown any _evidence_. Just theoretical and random numbers like the ones you just wrote. 

Where are you getting 3 million a year? What about the 10% it could be much more or less than 10%. 
Why only two dogs developing complications from S/N. Why not 4 or 5? Some people have many dogs, should we just delete them from the statistics?

And you imply that 200 dogs were euthanized because [someone] one person didn't S/N and that would be inaccurate at least perhaps even laughable.

I would go on but I think you get my point.


----------



## juliemule

I can't give you a number. Go to any shelter, rescue, or dog pound. How many mixed breed or purebred unplanned dogs are there? Call any vet in the area. Any area. Then assist them with euthanizing a whole litter of very cute puppies because the shelters are full and no place will take them. Yes it happens, way more than most want to know.


----------



## Rescued

KodiBarracuda said:


> All theoretical and random numbers. I cant believe everything I hear, and this has to be one of them because no one has shown any _evidence_. Just theoretical and random numbers like the ones you just wrote.
> 
> Where are you getting 3 million a year? What about the 10% it could be much more or less than 10%.
> Why only two dogs developing complications from S/N. Why not 4 or 5? Some people have many dogs, should we just delete them from the statistics?
> 
> I would go on but I think you get my point.


3 million/ year euthanized.
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/overpopulation_estimates.html

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html
78 million owned dogs in USA.
78% of these are S/N.
We can therefore conclude within a reasonable margin of error, that ~60 million owned dogs are S/N

.1% death rate from those complications related to those S/N surgeries: page 3
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

.1% of 60 million = 60,000

60,000 < 3,000,000

I dont know how many more statistics I can provide.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

I have crunched the numbers from the HSUS and they didn't add up. Therefore I cant believe what the HSUS says. 
That and it says right on the website that it is estimates.

With the twenty years estimates, you are giving the estimates of one persons dogs having complications vs a whole country producing puppies. I am saying lets keep the numbers even. If we are going to talk about one person lets talk about on person, if we are going to talk about a whole country lets talk about a whole country.

When the government starts allotting money for such studies I will believe the statistics you are throwing out, or better yet, the statistics I get from the studies.


----------



## Rescued

What numbers did you crunch? I found the sources I was looking for, and all of my numbers are updated with citation.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but I've now cited everything I've said. If not 3 million, what would you estimate as to the number euthed in the US every year?

EDIT: The second HSUS source is a study done by the APPA. Those numbers were not derived from the HSUS conducting their own private studies.


----------



## Willowy

KodiBarracuda said:


> What are the statistics? Proof is what I'm going for. I'm not saying your wrong I just want the facts.


Do you really not know people whose pets have unwanted litters? Nobody you know has ever diposed of their pet's offspring by drowning, shooting, or dumping at a shelter? Do you not believe that being unwanted kills a lot of animals? Do you not believe that shelters kill a lot of animls? I'm not sure what you're getting at really.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Willowy said:


> Do you really not know people whose pets have unwanted litters? Nobody you know has ever diposed of their pet's offspring by drowning, shooting, or dumping at a shelter? Do you not believe that being unwanted kills a lot of animals? Do you not believe that shelters kill a lot of animls? I'm not sure what you're getting at really.


No, No, I don't know I don't have any legitimate numbers, and I don't know due to a lack of numbers. <- The answer to each of your questions in order.

To Rescued, I am currently trying to find where I did it, its in a different thread and sometimes finding things on forums isn't as easy as it sounds.


----------



## Rescued

Take your time! I know in the end everyone (maybe 98% for statistics sake ) on this forum is concerned about the welfare of dogs. It's just interesting to debate different viewpoints and see statistics and sources new to you.

Thank god I've made progress beyond being brainwashed by those PETA stickers they gave us for frogs we dissected in High School...


----------



## Willowy

> No, No, I don't know I don't have any legitimate numbers, and I don't know due to a lack of numbers. <-The answer to each of your questions in order.


Wow, that's freakishly amazing. Either you don't know very many people or I want to live where you live.

There aren't a lot of good numbers because shelters are largely unregulated. A lot of city shelters shove a bunch of animals into the gas chamber and never count them, so it's mostly estimates, and all self reported. If you really want to know how many animals are killed at your nearest shelter, I'd recommend volunteering there for a while. But I think it's funny you'd believe a government study over one that's privately funded. LOL .


----------



## juliemule

Seriously Google Jackson Madison county rabies control in TN. Its a kill shelter. And look at Jackson Madison county humane society both in TN.


----------



## Rescued

I agree...if any dog that enters a shelter within a 100 mile radius of my house makes it out alive, it's a near miracle. If the dog makes it out dead due to lethal injection and not gas from a tailpipe, we all give silent thanks that it was the former and not the latter...

Unfortunately all data is going to be skewed to some extent, whether its the way its presented or the actual numbers. All government organizations have ties to lobbying agencies, and private nonprofits tend to exist because they have a strong opinion as to one side or the other. I don't know how much more I would trust a CDC study on the topic than one conducted by the HSUS- I feel like the FDA regulations on farming and dog food point to the kind of clever wording that can confuse ANY pet owner.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Rescued said:


> Take your time! I know in the end everyone (maybe 98% for statistics sake ) on this forum is concerned about the welfare of dogs. It's just interesting to debate different viewpoints and see statistics and sources new to you.
> 
> Thank god I've made progress beyond being brainwashed by those PETA stickers they gave us for frogs we dissected in High School...


Don't get me wrong, I am not against S/N dogs, actually, I think _most_ average dog owners ought to, but I don't like mindless pushing of 'spay or neuter or your dog will be a breeding, out of control, mental case who will spray anything with a scent including you and your family'. I debated in high school, and my couch once told me "Always have your crap detector on." Lol, I guess I never turned it off and I'm always looking for as much proof for or against I can find. And to repeat something I tend to say a lot in RL. I HATE arguing. Hate hate hate it! Arguing involves emotion, I would rather debate statistics, facts, and truth, no emotion required, just good ol' fashioned ethos, logos and pathos.

I guess the statistic I found wasn't from HSUS, I though it was but it was also 6 months ago and it was very HSUS like, my bad, I will take all blame for that. 

Onto the given statistics 


> 3 million/ year euthanized.
> http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...estimates.html


This includes cats, we're not talking cats, just dogs here.



> http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/...tatistics.html
> 78 million owned dogs in USA.
> 78% of these are S/N.
> We can therefore conclude within a reasonable margin of error, that ~60 million owned dogs are S/N


I will accept this although I would like info from an unbiased source.



> .1% death rate from those complications related to those S/N surgeries: page 3
> http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longt...uterindogs.pdf


I'm not talking death rate, I'm talking complications and that source cited complication rates around 22% and 19% for spaying female
dogs and neutering male dogs, respectively. And this is NOT including long term complications.
Average 20% of 60 million = 3 million

Wow, a lot of posts have been made since I started this one. Thus, I cannot possibly reply to all of them.


----------



## KodiBarracuda

Rescued said:


> Unfortunately all data is going to be skewed to some extent, whether its the way its presented or the actual numbers. All government organizations have ties to lobbying agencies, and private nonprofits tend to exist because they have a strong opinion as to one side or the other. I don't know how much more I would trust a CDC study on the topic than one conducted by the HSUS- I feel like the FDA regulations on farming and dog food point to the kind of clever wording that can confuse ANY pet owner.


I agree.
Too short monster bit me...Ouch.


----------



## Rescued

My choice to display the death rate versus the complications rate (which is much higher) was based on the fact that euthanasia is death, not lifelong complications. If you factor in that 1/3 to 1/4 of S/N have complications, the stats do become much closer.

I dont know if you missed my post (it was an edit) that the second source's numbers are actually derived from the APPA, not the HSUS (at top of source page). Both have similar agendas I'm sure, but maybe it helps with being unbiased that its at least a step or two removed.

thoughts?

Good point about cats, that completely went by me.
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics.aspx
This one states that the overall euth rate is (estimated) at 60% of dogs and 70% of cats, so maybe the statistics would stay somewhat similar to what I came up with?


----------



## KodiBarracuda

To Rescued:

It is so late here, I will have to write in the morning I am sure, but here is my initial thoughts.

For me, many complications are worse than death and could lead to death.
Example, my dog Lady slipped on wet grass chasing a cat a few years ago, injured her spine (official vet diagnosis) I had to consider putting her down. We tried anti inflamitory meds and thank doG it worked. But if she were to every loose the ability to chase cats (one of her favorite things) I would have to reconsider and probably put her down because she would be miserable not being able to move because she is a very active dog. No, her injury doesn't cause death, but it will probably lead to it because for me it's quality over quantity.
Also, it (the study) doesn't take into consideration long term complications like possible higher risks of cancer, which kills dogs. Because there isn't the information on that yet. There is information that there is a higher risk, but they cant put %'s to it yet.

I will have to take a look at that website later and do some serious number crunching, give the ol' calculator and paper/pen some use.


As for the APPA I am going to have to find their reports and read them to see how the stats were found and what exactly the stats are. Although I don't dispute that second point because your math and logic seemed appropriate along with the numbers you found. I guess the exact number of dogs in the US isn't as important to me as percentages of said dogs in situations of conflict.


----------



## Willowy

Keep in mind that there aren't any statistics for how many dogs are shot or drowned or knocked in the head by their owner (or by the guy whose property they're dumped on) because they don't want them anymore. Based on my own experience, I'd say the number that are killed by their owner (or other private party) matches the number of dogs killed in shelters. That's probably different in more urban areas, though. But just remember that even if the shelter statistics were 100% accurate, shelters aren't the whole story when it comes to unwanted pets.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> You cannot honestly need a published study.
> 
> Lets say that in 20 years of dog ownership, every owner has had two dogs that have eventually developed life threatening complications from being S/N.
> Lets also say for arguments sake that 10% of the dogs euthanized in shelters are the result of unwanted litters. With ~3million euth per year, thats ~300,000 from unplanned litters.
> 
> lets say that your county only euthanized 100 dogs per year, or 10 dogs per year due to unplanned litters.
> 
> That would mean that in the time that it took two of your dogs to develop complications, 200 dogs in your county alone were euthanized because SOMEONE did not S/N.
> 
> Does that not point to the bigger problem?
> T


No. That points to apples and oranges. My dog's not producing unwanted puppies. Therefore if he gets aggressive prostate cancer from being neutered because someone told me he would be healthier if I neutered him, it has nothing to do with the shelter issue


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> No. That points to apples and oranges. My dog's not producing unwanted puppies. Therefore if he gets aggressive prostate cancer from being neutered because someone told me he would be healthier if I neutered him, it has nothing to do with the shelter issue


And thats a good thing; I commend you for being a responsible owner.

That being said, what percentage of adult dogs in shelters do you think came from litters of puppies born to owners like you?

There is no reason that spaying and neutering should not be encouraged for the average pet owner. You are obviously more responsible than the average owner, or there wouldn't be an overpopulation problem.


----------



## Laurelin

I hate things like the OP, it just is a guilt trip and imo does little good.

This whole problem is very multifaceted and I'm not sure what the solution really is. I spent 2 years working in a kill shelter, my dogs are both from show breeders so I really see both sides. There are two issues that stick out to me and neither has to do with spaying and neutering directly. 

1) People view pets as disposable. I'm not sure how to get people to value their pets more. People would come in and be unconcerned about their pets' potential fate. I think people delude themselves into thinking they're all adopted. Or they just don't care. 

Most people I know around here love their pets and take pretty good care of them. Maybe not feeding them the best food or walking them every day, but most seem to keep their dogs. Most people I know where my relatives live don't view their pets the same way. They're constantly getting killed or throwing the dog away and then getting a new one. I have no idea what the difference is other than cultural. They just don't view dogs the same way. The shelter I worked at was relatively rural (TX in a town that is right next to a lot of really rural country) and there was a lot of that. Dogs are dogs and you keep them till they run off or get run over or poisoned or they start annoying you. Education, I suppose, is the best key there. But they do need to listen too and that rarely happens in my experience.

2) I think this is a thing we as dog people should focus on because it's something I think we CAN change. And that is shelter policy. We had a 70% euth rate. A lot of that was cats but there were policies they had that were imo stupid and did the animals absolutely NO good. 

- No pit bulls were allowed out alive. This is obviously a horrible policy and made moreso because they included puppies on this, even pit bull mix pups that looked NOTHING like a pit bull (but mom was a pit so the pups were euthed). These were often puppies that people were wanting to adopt! Deemed too aggressive to adopt because of their breed. I can think of dozens of dogs people inquired about that were euthed because of this. I think it would have made a dent, there were lots of pit bulls turned in. Breed specific rescues could not even get one of the dogs out. Nor could workers or anything. And tons of these dogs were not even APBTs. 

- Another was that no one in an apartment could adopt a dog over 25 lbs. Period, no exceptions. There were not many small dogs turned in and this was a college town so most people were in apartments. Plenty of the larger dogs were older and calm and would have been FINE in an apartment. Some of the people coming in were in an apartment but extremely active and wanted a bigger dog. So this really limited a large pool of the adopters from adopting the majority of the dogs. Better off dead, I guess?

- Petsmart allowed them to house cats there and have adoptions there and they did not utilize them. At all. 

- Shelter hours were very short and during work hours.

It's stuff like that that finally drove me to the brink and I stopped volunteering. But don't you think if some of that was fixed, more dogs would be adopted out? I am not blaming the shelter for the dogs and cats being there in the first place, but it damn well gets to me when they don't even seem to try to adopt animals out.


----------



## Pawzk9

Laurelin said:


> It's stuff like that that finally drove me to the brink and I stopped volunteering. But don't you think if some of that was fixed, more dogs would be adopted out? I am not blaming the shelter for the dogs and cats being there in the first place, but it damn well gets to me when they don't even seem to try to adopt animals out.


An interesting read is "Redemption" by Nathan Winograd Here's his blog http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166


----------



## Laurelin

Pawzk9 said:


> An interesting read is "Redemption" by Nathan Winograd Here's his blog http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166


I've read a lot of his blog but haven't gotten around to Redemption yet. What is really sad (to me) is that on his first page of his blog with the 91% placement rate is the Austin shelter, which is not far from the shelter I worked at. It's so infuriating that this stuff happens.


----------



## Rescued

I haven't seen much of the show side of dogs, but we did raise two service dogs with an organization that uses primarily purebred dogs...aside from the fact that we are looking into Lab breeders to add one to the family within the next year, that's been about the extent of my experience with purebreds.

I volunteered and fostered for a "no kill" shelter for 5 years, and am now working with the equivalent of animal control in the city where I'm in school. They take in all feral cats, abuse/court/neglect seizures, had a puppy mill raid this summer, and cannot refuse any animal. Last year they reached a 52/48 rate and it was the first time the intake has had better than a 50% chance since they were started by the county. 10-15 years ago they were at about 70%.

It's heartbreaking- we don't have BSL, but MANY of the rural surrounding counties do (North Carolina). We're in one of the more urban towns so most dogs are "Pit" mixes, but if you drive 40 miles down I-40 there are the tiny rural counties with BSL, 72 hours for each animal, and most still use gas euthanasia.

I would say that our main issue is just TOO MANY DOGS. In an "urban" (I say it with a laugh, because we're in NC, not Chicago) area, there tend to be lots of families that want a new puppy or a younger Lab-type family dog. Unfortunately, 90% of the dogs that are coming in have some type of Pit in them thats visible to adopters. Pits (with the right owner, in the right situation) can be EXCELLENT family dogs, but most don't get the chance. 

We are the main shelter that all surrounding rescue groups pull from, so my current foster girls were dropped off at 3.5-4 weeks with the rest of their litter to the county shelter, no b*tch in sight. The family signed off as "unwanted litter" and thank god the pups were quickly pulled to foster homes like mine where they can get milk replacer, high quality wet food, and slowly have been worked onto dry AvoDerm. Not the best food, but had there been no fosters available, the best the shelter can do is leave wet food and water in a run with the puppies and hope they make it- understaffed doesn't even begin to cut it.

From what I've experienced, very little screening (weight/apt requirements, vet checks, ect) is done. This is the county pound, and we are trying to get as many alive out the door as we can. I havent been working with them long enough to know how much it ultimately affects the fate of the dog ten years down the road. We do have very few senior dogs...so maybe that means its been working to some extent?

My frustration with S/N is that due to the passion of the people involved in the show world and the rescue world, very little room is left to meet in the middle.
Animal rescue people are so set on S/N with EVERY dog, NO exceptions, because the general public has given them reason enough.
IMO, People involved with purebreds fall into one of two categories (excluding show dogs, because they have to be intact for conformation,and I really dont know enough about the process.)

The first has a few pb dogs from a good breeder, may do conformation showing but also does working (schutzhund, rally, obediance, scent tracking, ect.) Their temperments are good, they've been healthy enough for the events they participated in, and they aren't bad examples of the breed. The owner decides that she doesn't plan on breeding but wants to keep them intact for health reasons. In ten years, the dogs are reaching old age and have never had a litter, due to the intelligence and personal responsibility of the owner. 

The second loves her pet (purebred) dogs. Their hips are good (if the "breeder" even makes it this far its a miracle, but I'll continue), their personalities are nice, and she figures that her friends have been asking her where they can get a dog like hers...who WOULDNT allow Snuggles to have a litter before we spay her? Snuggles has 10 puppies.
In ten years, my estimates would be that 6 would not be with their original owner, 2 would, and 2 would have somehow made it to a shelter and been euthanized. Of the 8 alive, I'm pretty sure no more than three of those had been S/N. The end lesson? Snuggles should not have snuggled. One litter is one thing, but one dog/owner has singlehandedly added quite an impact on the pet population due to the fact that there were no original S/N contracts.

If both owners visited my shelter, who would I be more friendly to?
People say WAIT, her dogs arent altered = she is a bad owner= thanks lady for adding more to ALL OF THESE!

not the case. I guess that was a really longwinded way to say that people should feel free to exercise their personal responsibilities if they are intelligent enough to understand what they entail.

its really late, so sorry if some of this doesn't make sense. but...overall thoughts?


----------



## Willowy

Well, for one, a spay/neuter contract isn't iron-clad. If the person wants a litter, they'll get one. . .if the breeder cares enough to pursue that, there might not be a second litter, but nothing will stop the first one (except spay/neuter before sale, and early spay/neuter isn't great for dogs). So I don't see that a spay/neuter contract would make much difference in the hypothetical Snuggles' litter. Screening the potential buyers carefully would make more difference, but a lot of casual breeders don't want to go to that kind of trouble, and, unfortunately, bad people lie convincingly.

A lot of breeders I've talked to in real life (everybody on the internet claims to be SO much more responsible, but who knows?) don't care if the pups they produce end up in shelters or end up having puppies that end up in shelters. THEY were responsible enough to keep their own dogs out of shelters, they say, it's not their problem if the puppy buyers aren't responsible too. And, yeah, it is up to the owner to keep their own dog safe and alive and not having unwanted litters, but I do think a breeder shares some responsibility for the lives they bring into the world.


----------



## Listracian

All rescue shelters minus about one I have come across here s/n all their dogs, cats and rabbits. Any that aren't old enough have to sign a contract and send proof of the s/n to the rescue and that proof must come from the vet and is checked on. If not the contract legally allows them to take back the dog and any puppies that dog may have had.

It has got to the point where here now they are s/n staffs and other 'fighting' dogs for free at the RSPCA. This is due to the sudden popularity and the mass breeding. You can find pretty much any breed of dog crossed with a staff now, they are everywhere. It has got to the point where they are looking at making it a legal requirement to have your dog fixed unless you get a license in which case you pay for it and get checked up on.

The Kennel club are under huge amounts of pressure and attack from our rescue groups now about pedigree's and breeding. There is a whole campaign to stop purebred dogs for various reasons, one being that it isn't well regulated and with how inbred these breeds are getting it's causing more problems then good.

We have kill shelters though they are much better at keeping them hushed up. I would guess at least 80% if not more of the country has no idea that most of our council kennels kill dogs the majority of which at the moment are staffordshire bull terriers. It has gotten so bad with these dogs that people are calling for them to be added to the BSL list however again most don't know that there is a large possibility that will vanish by the end of the year. The bad dog owners out number the good stupid amounts.

Now i know and have always known the possible health risks with s/n animals. However every dog/cat we have ever had in my family and extended family have never had issues with it. All our dogs have lived long and happy lives being snipped. I can see why some people would want their dogs to stay 'natural' as it were but personally I see why people push for most dogs to be done. i don't think it is as essential to get dogs done as it is cats as dogs breed in different ways and it can be avoided but too many people give in the 'we will have one litter' thing and then that could be six more puppies that need to have a home and could end up being six more puppies filling up rescue centres.

I know for a fact that even the most gorgeous dogs can stay at a rescue centre for months. Moose is a red husky and he has been in the centre nearly six months now, he is a lovely husky, typical of the breed but perfectly well behaved and then there is Buddy a golden lab, been in nearly as long he did have toilet training issues due to his life before but he is now house trained, beautiful happy dog but still in the rescue centre and yet people are still breeding more puppies that will be perfectly happy dogs and possibly end up in a centre. For that reason alone the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and a couple of our other large organisations are trying to make it so that more dogs and puppies don't end up in rescues by making sure they aren't born in the first place. That is why the kennel club is under attack - because in the eyes of the rescues it's things like Crufts that is aired on TV showing off the beautiful specimens which causes people to go to breeders whether they are reputable or not which then leads on to puppy farming.

Personally I will always be rescue over breeders unless there is a specific reason for it (but I cant think of any!) and so my dogs will always be done because its part of the contract that is legally bound. I have known of rescue centres seizing dogs and litters because they haven't kept to the contract. I also know that a lot of rescue centres have volunteers watching websites like gumtree and preloved in case their dogs come up - as all contracts say the dog must return to the rescue it came from if you are to give it up. 

Sorry that ended up a lot longer then I was planning..


----------



## Laurelin

I should add that the shelter I worked at was also the county pound and they very clearly were not focusing on the mentality of 'get as many pets out alive as possible'.


----------



## Bones

If people are responsible S/N should be up to them- however if animal control picks up their animals for wandering then it should no longer be up them. It should be up to the municipality that would have to foot the cost (albeit miniscule) to house or euthanize any unwanted litters that might arise from wandering animal. Dog goes to a shelter- it should be S/N before being adopted. I think the policy is sound. As for the continued debate about S/N anyone who doesn't admit that there are health risks EITHER way is just being silly. For Rescues and Shelters there is a social and communal obligation for spaying animals that go through Animal Control or similar entities.


----------



## lisakay1983

Very interesting thread, some real narrow minded point of views. One person stated 'the puppies from good breeders don't end up in shelters', that statement couldn't be further from the truth. 

The way I see it, people get dogs for companionship, for fun, for loyalty, for happiness. And a great deal of dogs who can meet these needs can be found at a shelter, 

If you get a dog for anything outside of these reasons, such as for breeding it, to make money from it then you didn't get the dog for the right reason, and not just because that's my personal choice, that is just the way it is. Buying an animal to make money from it completely defeats the purpose of having a pet, no matter how good you look after it, no matter how much you spoil it, if you are a good breeder, you are still adding to the problem.

No one should be allowed to breed another dog until the shelter dogs of the world find a home, you won't like my comment but it's the truth. This thread isn't about whether you should get your dog desexed or not, it's about saving the dogs that are getting killed daily and trying to fix that problem if you can't understand that go back and read the post again.

My dog is a rescue dog, the second dog I'm getting in a month is also a rescue dog, any other future dogs I get will all be rescue dogs. My reasoning is that if you had the chance to show someone love, someone who was most likely never going to know that feeling, why wouldn't you want to be the one that rescues them and shows them what love is, especially when they've never had it.

If you are a breeder reading this, I understand you might enjoy the process etc but you really do add to the problem and the notion of breeding shouldn't even be happening until the current problems are fixed, i.e helping the rescue dogs of the world. Your hobby is not more important than saving a dogs life, it seems the only people who disagree with me are the ones who have made money out of their pets, no matter how small or big that amount of money was. 

People need to be educated about saving rescue dogs, not desexing. They need to be taught that when you make the decision to get a dog, there's plenty at the shelter, you don't need to breed what's already out there.

If you can read this and still not get it, you most likely never will get it and you should probably take a trip to your local shelter and have a good chat with them, then maybe you could see how selfish you are being about your 'dog hobby'.


----------



## Niraya

lisakay1983 said:


> Very interesting thread, some real narrow minded point of views. One person stated 'the puppies from good breeders don't end up in shelters', that statement couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> The way I see it, people get dogs for companionship, for fun, for loyalty, for happiness. And a great deal of dogs who can meet these needs can be found at a shelter,
> 
> If you get a dog for anything outside of these reasons, such as for breeding it, to make money from it then you didn't get the dog for the right reason, and not just because that's my personal choice, that is just the way it is. Buying an animal to make money from it completely defeats the purpose of having a pet, no matter how good you look after it, no matter how much you spoil it, if you are a good breeder, you are still adding to the problem.
> 
> No one should be allowed to breed another dog until the shelter dogs of the world find a home, you won't like my comment but it's the truth. This thread isn't about whether you should get your dog desexed or not, it's about saving the dogs that are getting killed daily and trying to fix that problem if you can't understand that go back and read the post again.
> 
> My dog is a rescue dog, the second dog I'm getting in a month is also a rescue dog, any other future dogs I get will all be rescue dogs. My reasoning is that if you had the chance to show someone love, someone who was most likely never going to know that feeling, why wouldn't you want to be the one that rescues them and shows them what love is, especially when they've never had it.
> 
> If you are a breeder reading this, I understand you might enjoy the process etc but you really do add to the problem and the notion of breeding shouldn't even be happening until the current problems are fixed, i.e helping the rescue dogs of the world. Your hobby is not more important than saving a dogs life, it seems the only people who disagree with me are the ones who have made money out of their pets, no matter how small or big that amount of money was.
> 
> People need to be educated about saving rescue dogs, not desexing. They need to be taught that when you make the decision to get a dog, there's plenty at the shelter, you don't need to breed what's already out there.
> 
> If you can read this and still not get it, you most likely never will get it and you should probably take a trip to your local shelter and have a good chat with them, then maybe you could see how selfish you are being about your 'dog hobby'.


Your statement about GOOD breeder's dogs ending up in shelters is actually very wrong. GOOD breeders take the necessary steps to PREVENT their dogs from ending up in shelters. Including specific points in their contracts stating that if the owner of the dog cannot continue to care for the dog that dog is to be returned to the breeder. Now - I am not naive and know that there are people out there who don't follow contracts and yes SOME ( a very small number) dogs will end up in a shelter - but if/when those GOOD breeders find out - they go and get their dog out of the shelter. 

Second of all - a GOOD breeder DOES NOT make money off of their pups. Many good breeders put a lot of money into research for health and genetic issues in dogs and put a lot of money into developing test for these problems to help us have healthier and happier dogs. They also put a ton of money into testing their OWN dogs to ensure that they are healthy.

Third of all - while I advocate rescuing and adopting dogs - some people just don't want a shelter dog. Some people want a purebred puppy to raise from a great breeder who does proper health checks and clearances and ensures that their dogs and those that they produce are health, happy and of sound body and temperament. Sure - there are lots of incredible companion pets in shelters and rescues everywhere but truth is not everyone wants a mixed breed dog of unknown temperament or health problems. 

Me. I want a purebred Siberian Husky. That is what I have. My next one? A purebred Siberian Husky puppy from a great breeder. I don't want an unknown dog. I want a dog from someone that knows EVERY dog in that puppies pedigree and can tell me what the cause of death was in any specific dog I ask about. I want to know what the strong points of my puppy will be and what the strong points of his pedigree are and what venue his relatives were/are successful in.

Another thing you might not realize is A LOT of reputable and GOOD breeders are heavily involved in rescue.

I think you need to take a step back and realize that not ALL breeders are some terrible demon. GOOD breeders DO NOT contribute to the pet over population/shelter problem because their animals usually do not end up there. You need to take a step back and realize that it is the Puppy mills and the pet stores and the back yard breeders that are the ones you should be angry with.

I respect and understand your view point - but I will never understand how one can say "no dog should ever breed until the overpopulation problem is fixed" Well, from my understanding - if no dog is to be bred to end the pet overpopulation problem - in a 20 years we would no longer have dogs via your "fix". Then what?


----------



## Pawzk9

lisakay1983 said:


> Very interesting thread, some real narrow minded point of views. One person stated 'the puppies from good breeders don't end up in shelters', that statement couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> The way I see it, people get dogs for companionship, for fun, for loyalty, for happiness. And a great deal of dogs who can meet these needs can be found at a shelter,
> 
> If you get a dog for anything outside of these reasons, such as for breeding it, to make money from it then you didn't get the dog for the right reason, and not just because that's my personal choice, that is just the way it is. Buying an animal to make money from it completely defeats the purpose of having a pet, no matter how good you look after it, no matter how much you spoil it, if you are a good breeder, you are still adding to the problem..


So, breeding dogs is bad? I have to disagree. Almost half my pets ( counting the cats) are intentionally breed, intentionally owned (looking at bloodlines) dogs. They are not dogs I would have found at the shelter. And yet, they are wonderful pets who provide fun, loyalty, happiness, companionship. I'll have the dogs I want, and I will get them where I want. You can doi the same, but when you make statements like you did, you look like an Ingrid kissing fanatic. The statement about puppies from good breeders not ending up in shelters certainly COULD be farther from the truth. The fact is puppies from good breeders can end up in shelters, but it is generally because the owner is too lily livered to inform the breeder that there is a problem.


lisakay1983 said:


> No one should be allowed to breed another dog until the shelter dogs of the world find a home, you won't like my comment but it's the truth. This thread isn't about whether you should get your dog desexed or not, it's about saving the dogs that are getting killed daily and trying to fix that problem if you can't understand that go back and read the post again.
> 
> My dog is a rescue dog, the second dog I'm getting in a month is also a rescue dog, any other future dogs I get will all be rescue dogs. My reasoning is that if you had the chance to show someone love, someone who was most likely never going to know that feeling, why wouldn't you want to be the one that rescues them and shows them what love is, especially when they've never had it.
> 
> If you are a breeder reading this, I understand you might enjoy the process etc but you really do add to the problem and the notion of breeding shouldn't even be happening until the current problems are fixed, i.e helping the rescue dogs of the world. Your hobby is not more important than saving a dogs life, it seems the only people who disagree with me are the ones who have made money out of their pets, no matter how small or big that amount of money was.
> 
> People need to be educated about saving rescue dogs, not desexing. They need to be taught that when you make the decision to get a dog, there's plenty at the shelter, you don't need to breed what's already out there.
> 
> If you can read this and still not get it, you most likely never will get it and you should probably take a trip to your local shelter and have a good chat with them, then maybe you could see how selfish you are being about your 'dog hobby'.


From someone who has worked long and hard in rescue, and as a shelter volunteer, I just have to say I'm aware of problems. I am also aware that if there is a moritorium on breeding , until every last shelter dog gets adopted means not only no well-bred dogs, but no dogs. As Wayne Pacelle is fond of saying "one generation and out" Not an option a reasonable, animal-loving person would accept.


----------



## juliemule

lisakay1983 said:


> Very interesting thread, some real narrow minded point of views. One person stated 'the puppies from good breeders don't end up in shelters', that statement couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> The way I see it, people get dogs for companionship, for fun, for loyalty, for happiness. And a great deal of dogs who can meet these needs can be found at a shelter,
> 
> If you get a dog for anything outside of these reasons, such as for breeding it, to make money from it then you didn't get the dog for the right reason, and not just because that's my personal choice, that is just the way it is. Buying an animal to make money from it completely defeats the purpose of having a pet, no matter how good you look after it, no matter how much you spoil it, if you are a good breeder, you are still adding to the problem.
> 
> No one should be allowed to breed another dog until the shelter dogs of the world find a home, you won't like my comment but it's the truth. This thread isn't about whether you should get your dog desexed or not, it's about saving the dogs that are getting killed daily and trying to fix that problem if you can't understand that go back and read the post again.
> 
> My dog is a rescue dog, the second dog I'm getting in a month is also a rescue dog, any other future dogs I get will all be rescue dogs. My reasoning is that if you had the chance to show someone love, someone who was most likely never going to know that feeling, why wouldn't you want to be the one that rescues them and shows them what love is, especially when they've never had it.
> 
> If you are a breeder reading this, I understand you might enjoy the process etc but you really do add to the problem and the notion of breeding shouldn't even be happening until the current problems are fixed, i.e helping the rescue dogs of the world. Your hobby is not more important than saving a dogs life, it seems the only people who disagree with me are the ones who have made money out of their pets, no matter how small or big that amount of money was.
> 
> People need to be educated about saving rescue dogs, not desexing. They need to be taught that when you make the decision to get a dog, there's plenty at the shelter, you don't need to breed what's already out there.
> 
> If you can read this and still not get it, you most likely never will get it and you should probably take a trip to your local shelter and have a good chat with them, then maybe you could see how selfish you are being about your 'dog hobby'.


You should volunteer time with a "good breeder" to see what is actually involved. 

I agree most pets can be found and adopted. Many people want specific traits in a dog that are not as easy to find. I always adopt when possible, when looking for working dogs. Though usually, the dogs that are found do not have the traits and nerve to work. (currently 2 of my 3 working are 'rescues', oh and another will be here in a few weeks, hope she will turn out) I rescue when I can, but also breed, and have a litter due in a week.

I do hope all the shelter dogs find homes, and will continue to preach and spaying pets, and looking at any dog that could possibly work from rescue. However, as long as there is a need for working dogs I will continue to try to produce them. Not all dogs are "just pets".


----------



## Leisure&Priya

I just joined this site today, and this thread caught my eye, as I see the need to adopt from shelters. I live in Canada where small dogs are in demand and expensive, but in the US there are thousands and thousands of small dogs in shelters and at rescues needing homes. I adopted a tiny Chiweenie from California, the rescue group I worked with have brought up 115 dogs since 2010. By doing so another 115 dogs were pulled from high kill shelters and saved. The little CA rescue I have is a lovely animal, she is well socialized, friendly, great with other dogs...although she doesn`t like big dogs on first meeting (being 5 pounds I don`t blame her). The point I am trying to make is, there are so many dogs in shelters and at rescues that need homes, why not save a life and adopt one? I appreciate purebreds as well, I currently own a purebred standard poodle, my 2nd one - the first came from a breeder, the second from the SPCA (she was an owner surrender) and of the two standard poodles, the rescued one was a better dog in all ways. Obviously there is a problem with overbreeding. In Detroit they have approximately 50,000 stray dogs, how does that happen?? I rather doubt anyone that belongs to a forum like this is part of the problem out there and as such have very strong feelings on the spay/neuter/breeding issue on a personal level, and understandably so - nobody like to feel like they are being attacked - but I ask you, how do we stop the millions of animals being killed in shelters? My animals are all fixed, that is my choice for them. My dogs aren't "allowed" out of the house/yard on their own, but I had some teenagers open my gate and let my 2 poodles out...both were fixed, but what if they weren't? I could have had two litters of unwanted puppies! Again, in my case it would have been okay because I love dogs and would have found good homes for them - or at least what I thought were good homes, but what if one or two of those homes let their dogs breed on purpose or by accident? I don't know the answer, I guess the first order of business is to get the dog population down, to a controlled level. I look at my little CA rescue and can't imagine how she ended up in a high kill shelter at 10 weeks old, but she did. She was kept in a foster home for 10 months and ended up being brought up to Canada, I think I am lucky to have gotten her and she seems pretty happy to be here.


----------



## juliemule

There is such a thing as responsible breeders, and responsible dog owners. A chiweenie is a mix breed, so obviously she wasn't bred by a responsible breeder. 
Rescue is a great thing, and I feel everyone here is all for it. Spay and neuter is also great, for dogs that are not breeding material, or for responsible owners that choose to keep dogs intact for health reasons. 

By not purposely breeding selected quality animals, then we would be left with what? Some dogs serve a purpose, and some traits are desired in pets, work dogs, companions, etc. I agree that using dogs for the purpose of making money.is Sri. Reputable, responsible breeders, however, actually breed for the love of the dogs, take care of any dog that was bred by them (and often many rescues of the breed that were not). They usually lose money, as the costs of proper dog care is expensive. Yes many irresponsible people contribute to the dog population, but don't lump every person who breeds a dog into that category.


----------



## Pawzk9

Leisure&Priya said:


> I I currently own a purebred standard poodle, my 2nd one - the first came from a breeder, the second from the SPCA (she was an owner surrender) and of the two standard poodles, the rescued one was a better dog in all ways. Obviously there is a problem with overbreeding. In Detroit they have approximately 50,000 stray dogs, how does that happen?? I rather doubt anyone that belongs to a forum like this is part of the problem out there and as such have very strong feelings on the spay/neuter/breeding issue on a personal level, and understandably so - nobody like to feel like they are being attacked - but I ask you, how do we stop the millions of animals being killed in shelters? .


Well, you can make the shelters accountable (which currently, they are told that euthanizing nice healthy dogs is "necessary" and many shelters are so distrustful of humans that they think euthanasia is a better option than adopting, and many do not promote their dogs or make an effort to get them out alive) and educate the public. Think that doesn't work? In the early 1990s the US had euthanasia rates of 16-17 million. Currently the euthanasia rate (for dogs and cats) is around 3-4million. That still sounds like a lot, but when you figure that there are more owned dogs and cats than there were 20 years ago, that accounts for less that 4% of the population. That includes ferals. In many locations (not just where you live) shelters are desparate enough to import dogs from other places because they don't have enough dogs to sell. As to your poodles, well, that's two dogs. Of the many dogs I've owned and rescued over the years, I've generally found more health issues and behavior issues in the dogs who did not come from a good breeder. But that doesn't mean they weren't great dogs. Including the rescue epileptic who broke my heart because he tried so hard. And towards the end of his life, we did find a treatment that improved his quality of life. Still, it was thousands of dollars in vet bills over the years.




Leisure&Priya said:


> My animals are all fixed, that is my choice for them. My dogs aren't "allowed" out of the house/yard on their own, but I had some teenagers open my gate and let my 2 poodles out...both were fixed, but what if they weren't? I could have had two litters of unwanted puppies!.


Only if you are stupid enough to leave your girls in estrus unattended in your yard. Granted, there are people that dumb, but I bet you are not, and would have supervised an inseason bitch. It's really not that hard. I don't have any intact females at the moment, but I have had, and have never had an accidental litter.


----------



## flamefrost

I support Niraya's statement.. 

I myself know my next dog will be a Dobermann, a purebred aswell from a good breeder who devoted his life to ensure his dogs are in perfect health.. My friend has got a rescued dog and I gotta say, she's a great dog and is in good hands and is healthy but like Niraya said, I prefer to have a dog where the breeder knows everything about the litter and the dog I am interested in and that his forefathers were in good health aswell, a breeder, a good breeder will ASK and ENSURE his litter will end up in good homes and good care and like Niraya again said, if that dog somehow ends up in a shelter and the breeder knows it, the breeder himself/herself will come after the dog.
I support and respect all people who take dogs from shelters, but don't give all breeders a bad name.. Not all deserve a bad name..


----------



## Leisure&Priya

Oh, I hope nobody misunderstood me! I do believe in purebreeding by responsible breeders, totally. My point of mentioning I had two (still have one left) standard poodles was self explanatory. My comment about the rescued poodle being the better of my two poodles was really to point out how happy she was to find a home that loved her and treated her well. She was very healthy after the vet treated her mange and is now 14 years old. The other poodle also was healthy and lived to 15. Good breeding is great, but over breeding is not. 

As to my little chiweenie, and my pomapoo for that matter, they are hybrids, or in the olden days would have been called mutts!! LOL!! They are both in good health, I don't know much about the CA rescue dog's history, this is true, but I don't really care. She is sweet, she is smart, and so far she is really healthy. The pomapoo was horribly phychologically abused as a puppy (I got him at 6 months) and he is a damaged animal, he has issues he will never get over, but I have had him for almost 5 years and I accept him as he is. He has learned to love people, his fear biting can be controlled if strangers don't rush at him (I always pick him up around new people!), we were blessed that he always loved children. 

People have different reasons for having dogs, the 3 I have now are all rescues, and for me it is important. I do understand people choosing purebreds instead. To each their own, as the saying goes.


----------

