Spaying and neutering is a good idea.
Forcing people to have their animals altered is not.
That’s because it does the following things: 1. It keeps those with cultural sensitivities to the procedure from seeking veterinary care. That’s a bad thing. 2. It is a very good way to protect the breed clubs and eugenicists, because the only people who are going to get these permits are going to be the conformation breeders. It means bad things for genetic diversity. It also means that working strains that have different conformation from the show varieties of a given breed might not survive. (Hint: that’s good reason for me to hate this law.) 3. It punishes poor people. Poor people have to have their dogs altered. It doesn’t matter that poor people are barely making it in the recession. They must spay or neuter, or the law’s draconian hand comes down hard. 4. The law, at least this proposed one in California, is going to be impossible to enforce without turning pet ownership into a gigantic bureaucratic hassle.
Now, California Senate Bill 250 is out of committee, and we should be worried. That’s why you need to sign this petition. Now, I’m not a California, but as we all know, laws that are passed in California often wind up passed in other states. California is known in policy circles as a labratory in which policies are experimented with. It is a gigantic laboratory for policy analysts. Now, I don’t always agree with PetPAC, but I do agree with them on this issue. And we need to do what we can to ensure that this thing doesn’t pass.
Christie Keith has a very good post at Pet Connection about the bill, and why it must be opposed. In that post, the author wants to know why the government doesn’t do more to fund low cost spay and neuter organizations. Well, I don’t have any control over the levers of state power, but I do know of an organization that does this work. It provides low-cost spay/neuter and microchipping to a relatively poor, rural county in West Virginia. I shall give you the address, if anyone would like to help this organization, which relies on donations from the public to do its work. If you would like to support their work, please send your donations to:
Furr- y Friends Spay/Neuter Group
HC 66 Box 14A
Big Springs, WV 26137
Supporting organizations like this one is a very good way to ensure that dogs and cats are spayed or neutered. These organizatons do far more good than passing self-righteous laws.
It wasn’t that long ago that Sweden actually banned spaying and neutering. I don’t remember the exact reasoning behind it, but I think it came from the same spot as animal rights movements in Europe opposed docking and cropping. Unnecessary surgeries could not be justified and thus were banned. The law wasn’t terribly good policy. Bitches had to take shots twice a year to keep them from coming in full season. Luckily, it was scrapped.
That law is just as bad as the other extreme, which is demanding that all dogs be fixed regardless of the consequences.
Our chocolate Labrador Retriever will be 10 years old next month. He is trim, energetic, all muscle, and totally healthy. He has also never been neutered. We know that if he had been neutered, he’d overweight (maybe arthritic, too?) and slow.
He was recently hit by a car and his energy is what saved him and has his on the fast-track to health and taking long runs again. We know that because he is still all male, he cannot participate in play groups, etc. because other male dogs occasionally try to attack him. Okay, this means more of an inconvenience for us when we want to go out of town for more than one day because we cannot leave him with a dog playgroup: we must board him and then deal with the inconvenience of the boarders’ “closed Sundays” policies, or have somebody come to our home to walk him twice each day. But so be it.
His sister/littermate has been ill for years (incontinence) because of a botched spaying. We are glad to have those inconveniences in order to have this handsome, happy, healthy, and mature dog who shows no signs of slowing down.
That’s why I say this has to be a choice.
I read a study in which golden retriever males were actually predisposed to osteosarcoma when they were neutered early.
In Europe, most male dogs are entire, and such policies would never be in existence. My experience is that intact males tend to get along better than unspayed females, but then we don’t have that kind of off-leash environment here. Dogs that socialize off-leash, neutered or not, are very unlikely to be dog aggressive or aggressive towards people. That’s why I am big off-leash park advocate. All dogs need some off-leash socialization. The studies on whether neutering decreases aggression have been mixed, and some suggest that it has little effect in the statistical aggregate.
If you have an all “whole” environment, such as you write about in Europe, you’re going to have interactions that are more equalized.
Dogs that socialize off-leash may be in a healthier social environment but here in the U.S., where being neutered is the norm, the status quo environment is such that an unaltered male often becomes aggressive toward the whole male dog – such as ours, because he feels threatened, which is why OUR dog is not allowed into play groups. Ours, who weights 80 lbs., plays with anybody but some altered male dogs will attack him out of nowhere. Our dog is unfortunately the one being “penalized” because he is whole; HE is the one who is not allowed in the play groups.
It becomes even more complex in the following common scenario in the U.S. which we have experienced numerous times: An altered male dog is in an ON leash park or woods, but his owner has allowed him to be OFF leash. Our dog, who is whole and wants to be friends with the whole world, is ON leash. The other dog attacks our dog. Once it was so bad that the other dog grabbed MY leg, instead of our dog and wouldn’t let go until his owner whacked him with a tree limb but I ended up having to get the rabies shots because the other dog’s owner just left while I was standing there bleeding.
I’ve thought about taking our Lab to the new off-leash park in our neighborhood but having experienced other altered males attack him, we’re want to do that. Ours will defend himself if necessary but why put him through that, when he’s the only whole male around?
I also object to the law because I don’t think that you can force mutilation on a dog! It is a form of mutilation. As you write, it has to be a choice.
Low cost spay/neutering is definitely something that should be encouraged.
It seems to me that whoever came up with that rule at the park was misusing a study– which is what all would-be tyrants do.
Socialization and training are far bigger indicators of whether a dog is going to be aggressive. It’s really what’s between his ears than what’s between his legs.
In fact, the newest literature is that neutering actually does not reduce aggression most cases. And yet, it’s treated as if you don’t, your dog will be a sex fiend or a maneater. Again, dogs aren’t like horses or lions. The males aren’t that different from females.
Having been to European countries where dogs have more freedom and most males are entire, I can tell you that I don’t remember ever seen a dogfight in a European park.
Maybe the rule at the park should be that the dog passes a temperament test to see whether he can be allowed off. That’s a far better rule than blanket edicts.
But most bureaucrats and officials don’t do nuance.
I’ll be the first to confirm that neutering does not reduce aggression! Whoever paid for that study? Given the percentage in the U.S. of dogs who are spayed/neutered, how does that explain the high number of people (and other dogs) who are bitten by dogs????
I like the idea of passing a temperament test, certainly in the current environment. I agree – the bureaucrats and officials don’t do nuance (nor do the people whose dogs are aggressive)!
The reason why they are being bitten is we don’t have enough off-leash areas for dogs to be social and learn manners. And some breeders aren’t breeding for temperament.
However, could you imagine how you’d develop if your only experiences outside of your home were on a leash?
Good point.
Speaking of breeding for temperament, many times we offered our (purebred) Lab to breeders – not for $ or anything – but just to see his seed and line continue, because he’s an incredible dog for families with children: strong, healthy, all personality, friendly, in love with children (and children love him), his father was a champion Junior Hunter, and breeders don’t even return the call or email. (One time he escaped our back yard and ran up to the school yard; when I got there, the children were all lined up taking turns petting him.) I know here in the States they breed more for show. One of our vets told us that if we want our dog to be used for stud, we have to enter him in shows. That is exactly NOT the idea!
Some breeders? Talk about most backyard litters. Your average person doesn’t put any thought into breeding a litter. And they certainly don’t consider health, temperament, or ability. And they let the pups go home before 8 weeks. I met somebody at a pet store who had an intact male lab that had seizures, and she said she might possibly breed him! I did not hesitate to tell her that it would be bad to breed a dog with that sort of medical issue.
People assume that intact means more aggressive. However, your average person who owns an intact animal probably got the dog from a sketchy breeder or some ad in the paper, and didn’t bother to train or socialize it. And the same applies for neutered/spayed animals. So yeah, I think passing a temperament test is a much better idea to let dogs in an off-leash park as opposed to banning intact animals.
I am also talking about the puppy millers, who really don’t put any thought into it. They just crank out dogs in mass volume, regardless of health or temperament.
Now, in gun dogs, there’s a tradition called the 49 days rule. Pups go to their new home at day 49. At 8 weeks, some breeds go through a fear stage at that time, which means the best time would probably be 9 to 10 weeks.
While I utterly oppose mandatory spay/neuter, I still believe that most pet bitches and a good many dogs should still be altered. For bitches it’s really not healthier to remain intact past a few years old if they’re not being bred. Pyometra is a real risk, and dogs die from it. With males, it’s different. There’s really not much health benefit. Neutering can help decrease the desire to roam, it can help decrease certain kinds of aggression. Of course, a leash and reliable fencing and appropriate training work even better :)
Neutering DOES NOT MAKE DOGS FAT. That’s a myth that irks me endlessly. Consuming more calories than are being burned makes dogs fat. Neutered dogs generally have a slower metabolism- adjusting the diet and exercise to account for that keeps them just as trim as an intact dog.
My biggest problems with mandatory spay/neuter is that it generally gives a pass to the commercial type breeders and it penalizes people who need to be helped. Isn’t the point of all this to reduce shelter killing? So how is that going to happen if people are losing/dumping their dogs because the law says they have to alter them but they can’t afford it? I think a lot of people would be better served by increasing the amount of low-cost and free spay/neuter, and making sure it is actually accessible. If you live in the city and you don’t have a car and you have no way to get your dog to the spay/neuter clinic, it’s probably not going to do you a whole lot of good.
I deal with people who say “well we don’t want a male because they have a tendency to hump legs and other dogs and people”. WHA? I tell them that female dogs do too, its a dominance behavior. This behavior however does seem to go away after a spay/neuter. I guess as the hormones disappear so does the need to hump and display dominance. I don’t bully clients into thinking they have no choice and must spay/neuter their animal. I always tell them that it is ultimately their choice and that after some time it may be in the best interest of the animal for health reasons to do so for an older dog. BUt if they are interested in breeding the dog, they should seriously consider why? And if money is the motivation then they should forget about it. If its due to a sound healthy animal with personality traits and characteristics that would be valued in any other dog. Then I tell them, if you want to know another person looking for a planned breeding and requires a stud or brood bitch… let us know and we’ll look over their dog and if all is well with health records then we’ll contact other interested clients.
I do not agree with the law either.
And to go further – If a dog is going to be spayed/neutered, it should not be as early as they are pushing for: A dog (male or female) needs to mature to a point where adult hormones begin to flow. It is these same hormones that tell the body and brain that it is “time to stop growing” and the body begins to close the growth plates. When an animal is fixed too early, the body never produces adult hormones and the brain is not triggered at the right time. There are just as many arguments for fixing a dog later as there are sooner.
Thanks for reading – I just came across this blog and I LOVE IT!
Sheila
connemaraterrier.com
In my golden retrievers, there was a study of male goldens. Those that were neutered before six months were more likely to develop bone cancer, which is thought to have some relationship to growth issues.
That’s one reason why I oppose these laws.
Retrieverman – You sir, know your stuff. I myself have a great great dislike for breeders that do not consider health & temperament paramount. It is one thing to say your dogs have a great temperament – but it should be put to the test before breeding them. They are the biggest reasons behind what is wrong with our dogs today.
Sheila
connemaraterrier.com
It’s funny, because on a horse blog I visit, the owner rants about the ‘myth of the crazy stallion’. It boils down to training, and most people would rather blame it on the animal than on their own lack of control over their pet.
hi… I am an artist who specializes in wildlife and animal portraiture. Just thought i’d send my details through. If you are interested in a link etc please let me know! Great blog!
You are in luck. I just set up a new section on the blogroll for artists.