Mandatory Spay & Neuter Laws

Laurelin · 05-03-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

Most of the stuff I see against S/N laws are from the people that are making money breeding dogs. They don't want it to cut into their profit margin, and the countless number of dogs that have to face certain death because of the overpopulation, are just a annoyance to them in my opinion. If I were breeding dogs for profit ( which I would never do), I would probably feel the same way.

The truth with almost any study done is it is biased. True, either way the people involved usually have an agenda and the studies are designed to reinforce what they want you to believe.

Captbob · 05-03-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Really, EVERYONE I KNOW is AGAINST this legislation. some don't even breed dogs. And I am not friends with commercial breeders. I am a hobby breeder, not for the money. I make no money. I lose much more money on my hobby than I make in puppy sales. So no profit margin is involved. We just do not see the reasoning behind this. Again, there is NO overpopulation of dogs. If you choose to believe the lies of the ARs. then that is your business.

And the NRA is breeding dogs for profit? They have come out against this.

http://brightlion.com/InHope/InHope_en.aspx

saveourdogs · 05-03-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

I am not rude, I am just making a statement that much of what you posted is bunk. If you say it isn't, prove it.

No you are RUDE! You have a disdain in your tone when someone doesn't adopt from a shelter, when someone doesn't agree with you that it is cruel to not give thier dog an ovariohysterectomy.

Your posts reek of tone and nastiness. Others have commented on it in this and other threads. So it is not just me. I'm just new to this board and I call them as I see them.

Captbob · 05-03-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

No you are RUDE! You have a disdain in your tone when someone doesn't adopt from a shelter, when someone doesn't agree with you that it is cruel to not give thier dog an ovariohysterectomy.

Your posts reek of tone and nastiness. Others have commented on it in this and other threads. So it is not just me. I'm just new to this board and I call them as I see them.

OK, you are a breeder of pure breed dogs, and this law is going to cause you some problems, especially if you are not a legitimate breeder. Practically every post you have made so far is bashing this proposed law and bashing spaying... No vested interest there, I would guess....

Laurelin · 05-03-2007, 08:44 PM

All of this is getting rather ridiculous.

saveourdogs · 05-03-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

OK, you are a breeder of pure breed dogs, and this law is going to cause you some problems, especially if you are not a legitimate breeder. Practically every post you have made so far is bashing this proposed law and bashing spaying... No vested interest there, I would guess....

But since you are not knowledgeable about what the bill actually says or will do, you do NOT have a vested interest so are not speaking with knowledge. I have studied this very carefully. I am a member of a few email lists of serious knowledgeable people who HAVE studied this.
Just because you believe that there is a pet overpopulation issue does not mean that it actually exists.

This legislation will NOT work. Simple.

i am unclear why you think it will. The other legislation on the books already like license laws and leash laws don't work and are no enforced.

Why will this magically work? Simple, it won't.

This will simply cost the people of CA MORE money for more AC workers. That is what really will happen if this is passed and it is enforced.

Curbside Prophet · 05-03-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.

There are no facts that this law will succeed or fail. Everyone, including you, should be looking for the best law possible. The best law possible translates into lives saved. Gamble and fail...what emotions will you appeal to then?

Laurelin · 05-03-2007, 08:55 PM

I've always heard that neutering increases the chances of bone cancer. So if you reduce the chance of testicular cancer, but increase the chance of bone cancer, isn't it still a risk?

Captbob · 05-03-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

But since you are not knowledgeable about what the bill actually says or will do, you do NOT have a vested interest so are not speaking with knowledge. I have studied this very carefully. I am a member of a few email lists of serious knowledgeable people who HAVE studied this.
Just because you believe that there is a pet overpopulation issue does not mean that it actually exists.

Just the fact that you make the above statement ( highlighted in red) , tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is like listening to someone trying to convince us that the world is really flat, and everyone that thinks it is round, is wrong. I am not going to argue with you about this anymore, because obviously you think you are correct, despite all the evidnce to the contrary, so you just go on believing what you believe......

Curbside Prophet · 05-03-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

Just the fact that you make the above statement ( highlighted in red) , tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

If I had a dollar for every time Bob told someone they had no idea what they were talking about, I could end the euthanasia problem tomorrow.

Captbob · 05-03-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurelin

I've always heard that neutering increases the chances of bone cancer. So if you reduce the chance of testicular cancer, but increase the chance of bone cancer, isn't it still a risk?

I have never seen any data that supports that conclusion.

http://www.chai-online.org/en/compan...n_sn_early.htm

Captbob · 05-03-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

If I had a dollar for every time Bob told someone they had no idea what they were talking about, I could end the euthanasia problem tomorrow.

Point to one where I said that, and was proven wrong.....

Laurelin · 05-03-2007, 09:16 PM

To me here are some ridiculous statements made:

1) There is no pet overpopulation crisis.

Obviously, there are way too many unwanted dogs being born every year.

2) A bill that allows for commercial breeders is seriously trying to lower euthanasia stats.

Mills are the worst of the worst to me. They're not being addressed, this leads me to think the bill is all about money.

3) Intact dogs are being abused.

Intact dogs are not being abused, it is simply a choice that an owner makes regarding what operations are to be performed on their own dogs.

4) Neither side is using emotional appeals/scare tactics.

Both arguments are relying on it.

RonE · 05-03-2007, 09:16 PM

Well I did think it was generally accepted that there are a lot more dogs out there than there are people willing and able to care for them.

I thought that was the one thing we could all agree on, even if the solution seems less obvious. Oh, well.

Laurelin · 05-03-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

I have never seen any data that supports that conclusion.

http://www.chai-online.org/en/compan...n_sn_early.htm

Here's a link- http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://www.dogtorj.net/id57.html

I'm not trying to prove you should or shouldn't neuter your dog, just that there are health risks either way and it's ridiculous to call one abusive for allowing your dog to be intact because there are health risks. If health risk = abusive, then all raw feeders are abusive, as are all kibble feeders (there's health debates with both) as are practically anyone doing anything with their dogs.

Here's one that discusses risks and benefits:

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf

Look there are both risks and benefits.

Captbob · 05-03-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Here's a link- http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://www.dogtorj.net/id57.html

I'm not trying to prove you should or shouldn't neuter your dog, just that there are health risks either way and it's ridiculous to call one abusive for allowing your dog to be intact because there are health risks. If health risk = abusive, then all raw feeders are abusive, as are all kibble feeders (there's health debates with both) as are practically anyone doing anything with their dogs.

Here's one that discusses risks and benefits:

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf

Look there are both risks and benefits.

It seems that both of these links contain a very small minority opinion on the effects of early S/N.as opposed to what is considered mainstream by Vets today.

Laurelin · 05-03-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

It seems that both of these links contain a very small minority opinion on the effects of early S/N.as opposed to what is considered mainstream by Vets today.

Are you a vet?

*Sigh* Nothing I say will change your mind, I get that. Believe what you want about my own decisions regarding my dogs, my apathy towards the homeless animals, whatever you want to. I just don't care anymore.

saveourdogs · 05-03-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonE

Well I did think it was generally accepted that there are a lot more dogs out there than there are people willing and able to care for them.

I thought that was the one thing we could all agree on, even if the solution seems less obvious. Oh, well.

No, there is an owner relinquishment problem. These are dogs that where purchased by owners and then given up to shelters. There are not dogs breeding willy nilly in the streets and litters of puppies being turned in. This is because the dogs are not trained, the owner is moving, the owners are getting divorced ,etc. Some legitimate reasons, some not so much.

The dogs in the shelters are NOT put there by breeders. They are put there by owners.

The solution is obvious and is working. EDUCATION.

Contrary to the AR fanatics lies and distortions, shelter population and euthanasia rates are going down each year. I saw one study that said 75% in the last 10 years.

The inflated, distorted and incorrect figures spouted are first of all lies. The exact number of dogs in shelters is not known. No one keeps that figure accurately. Nor the number of dogs euthanized. No it is not millions as the ARs spout.

And the number of dogs euthanised includes dogs that have health problems, are old with terminal diseases, and those with temperament problems. Once that figure is subtracted, it is a totally different picture.

The number of dogs that are actually adoptable is not as high as the number of dogs turned in to shelters.

saveourdogs · 05-03-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captbob

It seems that both of these links contain a very small minority opinion on the effects of early S/N.as opposed to what is considered mainstream by Vets today.

That is YOUR opinion, not the truth. More and more people every day are realizing that ovariohysterectomy/castration is not an innocuous procedure.

There are real health aspects to later altering. Early altering messes with the hormones and affects growth and development.

Captbob · 05-03-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

No, there is an owner relinquishment problem. These are dogs that where purchased by owners and then given up to shelters. There are not dogs breeding willy nilly in the streets and litters of puppies being turned in. This is because the dogs are not trained, the owner is moving, the owners are getting divorced ,etc. Some legitimate reasons, some not so much.

The dogs in the shelters are NOT put there by breeders. They are put there by owners.

The solution is obvious and is working. EDUCATION.

Contrary to the AR fanatics lies and distortions, shelter population and euthanasia rates are going down each year. I saw one study that said 75% in the last 10 years.

The inflated, distorted and incorrect figures spouted are first of all lies. The exact number of dogs in shelters is not known. No one keeps that figure accurately. Nor the number of dogs euthanized. No it is not millions as the ARs spout.

And the number of dogs euthanised includes dogs that have health problems, are old with terminal diseases, and those with temperament problems. Once that figure is subtracted, it is a totally different picture.

The number of dogs that are actually adoptable is not as high as the number of dogs turned in to shelters.

You talk about being rude, and you call people that run animal rescues and shelters liars? As I stated before, you have no idea what you are talking about. Many of the statements that you make in your post,are false. Just posting misinformation that has no truth to it all , is like the old propaganda method called the "Big Lie". where you keep stating something that has no basis in fact, and is totally ridiculous, hoping that if people hear it often enough, they will start to believe it. I think you are going to have trouble on this forum, trying to pull that off.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affe...estimates.html