My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Today's Paw Prints Radio Interview | Main | Thinking like a retailer - follow up »

October 18, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e20134884a2e82970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference There is not need to reinvent the wheel with mandatory spay/neuter:

Comments

Lori

THANK YOU!!! Shared with some folks who I think are going to be able to attend the meeting. Wish I could be there to help!

Stephanie Feldstein

Thanks for posting this, Brent.

I was also disturbed by, among other things, HSHV's insistence that Ypsilanti Township is a "unique community," and the implication that all the national humane organizations and advocates who have spoken out against this somehow don't understand.

Very little has been done in the community to promote responsible pet ownership in general, let alone the low-cost spay/neuter clinic, or even pit bull adoptions. A law won't suddenly provide outreach and infrastructure to educate people (especially in a township with no budget to support it).

If anyone is planning on attending the meeting and wants to coordinate or meet up, please feel free to contact me through Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sfeldstein

kmk

good blog, Brent!

Same song, second verse! This is that narcissistic, "Our situation is different, we have to do something, and NO ONE ELSE has been smart enough to do it right - but we are smart enough to get it right" obnoxious attitude.

Spay/neuter education actually goes back much farther than the last decade - it started in the 1970s. Back when Moses was walking around and Nixon was president my two best friends had female mixed breeds that were spayed (one big and hairy; one small and hairy). My family had a purebred dog and we always had male dogs (unaltered).

It became somewhat commonplace among the middle-class to alter purebred and mixed breed bitches (no one altered males and they certainly didn't alter cats) in the 70s. I have to assume wealthier people altered their pets as well (I didn't know any rich people!).

It wasn't until the 1980s, at least in this area, that male dogs were routinely altered. That's when the whole "intact males are dangerous" agenda started - I guess because someone finally noticed the teeth were not in the mouth, they were attached to the testicles! :-)

The Animal Rights activists decided they would never control the public, eliminate breeding, and eliminate pet ownership entirely unless they built a bigger mousetrap and came up with a way to force the public to alter males as well. Not that I have a problem with altering males in general. I just don't agree with the lack of logic and the Method to the Madness. It's a very similar tactic to the EPA declaring CO2 "dangerous".

I don't care about the dogs reproducing - breeding usually doesn't kill dogs. I do believe neutering prevents dogs from escaping because they smell a bitch in season and subsequently being hit by a car or picked up by Animal Control and killed.

Shelter euthanasia numbers have been on the decline since the 1970s. The ARs would have you believe we're killing more animals than ever. It's actually quite the opposite.

I would absolutely agree there's been a bigger push for low cost spay/neuter in this area in the last decade. It stared earlier in other areas of the country, which achieved what could arguably called a viable version of no-kill by 2000. then the Law of Unintended Consequences reared its ugly head - when shelters became victims of their own success and didn't have the small, cute, adoptable dogs the public wanted, they started importing them from overseas so they didn't have to go out and find real jobs. Goodness, we couldn't have the public buying dogs from BREEDERS. Plus, we had to keep up that "pet overpopulation" lie to keep those donations coming in!

http://naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/redefining.htm

The first MSN law was in San Mateo County, CA - 1989, I believe. You can read all about it here:
http://fanciers.com/npa/animal-council.html

Other communities, like Long Beach, CA have had "no breeding" ordinances in place but those pre-date the AR movement and have more to do with land use issues.

Animal Lover

Well - - MSN hasn't worked ANYwhere it's be put in effect! So - YES - that's arrogance! The stats show - it doesn't work!!!

kmk

My husband said Ypsilanti's situation IS different than other cities' situations.

"Ypsilanti" is more difficult to spell.

;-)

Tom K

Maybe the "problem" doesn't need to be solved.

kmk

Most dog laws are solutions looking for problems,IMO.

Joan Lamont

Many of the people with pit bulls in my community give me tremendous resistance to fixing them even with financial assistance. They breed them on purpose, sell them underaged, and create unsocialized dogs that end up in bite quarantines. Or they think their males are not "manly" if neutered. We do have a cat s/n ordinance and I don't use it for punishment, only for leverage for the fools who think that their cat is SO special that it should have kittens, or that a cat "should have one litter" or that it's "mean to cut his balls off." Everyone around town comments that there are not nearly as many homeless cats now. I help everyone I possibly can (financially) but there are some people that I simply can't reach with education and $ help. I have not had the experience of more abandoned pets at all, because the first thing I do is offer to help.

Brent

Joan,

We've found that the vast majority of people want to alter their pets. Sure, we come across some that don't, but they are such a small group of our overall population that it is irrelevant in terms of total intake.

One of the biggest things in many areas is that a lot of people don't have access to pets without people breeding them because too many rescues/shelters don't do off-site adoptions in low income areas, often deny people from adopting because they live in certain areas, or even don't offer pit bulls for adoption at all. By making adoption an option, we have essentially dried up the demand of having puppies as a money-making tool. I do definitely agree with laws that prohibit removing bred dogs from litters until at least 8 weeks (I think if the data existed for major dog attacks that early removal from a litter would be a key causal statistic).

Sure you can minimize the negative impact of the law by offering help first. But from my experience, if there is enough help available in the first place then the law is unnecessary. If you have the law, and not the help, it's a recipe for disaster.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment