[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

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

The 'big lie' is the site you are quoting. HSUS is an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization that wants to extinguish pets. The numbers they quote are LIES. if you choose to not believe that, does'nt make it any less true.

You talk about quoting numbers that have no basis in fact, well the HSUS figures fit that bill. It is pure propoganda and lies. Not one ounce of truth or fact.

there is simply no way to know what the true numbers of animals that are euthanized in the US is and why they where euthanized. Was it due to temperament? health? Age? Or simply because no one wanted to adopt them. No way to know. So therefore, there is no truth to the AR numbers spouted by HSUS.

[ritabooker]

"According to figures gathered by Mancuso from the California Department of Health
Services, Veterinary Public Health, 841,000 dogs and cats entered state shelters in
2005. Of those 430,240, or approximately 51 percent, were euthanized, at an estimated
cost of $132,513,899."

This is in California alone. Here is a link to the article. They know the numbers because records are kept.

http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-...eratribune.pdf

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by ritabooker

"According to figures gathered by Mancuso from the California Department of Health
Services, Veterinary Public Health, 841,000 dogs and cats entered state shelters in
2005. Of those 430,240, or approximately 51 percent, were euthanized, at an estimated
cost of $132,513,899."

This is in California alone. Here is a link to the article. They know the numbers because records are kept.

http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-...eratribune.pdf

Some people hate to be confronted with facts.......

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The 'big lie' is the site you are quoting. HSUS is an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization that wants to extinguish pets. The numbers they quote are LIES. if you choose to not believe that, does'nt make it any less true.

You talk about quoting numbers that have no basis in fact, well the HSUS figures fit that bill. It is pure propoganda and lies. Not one ounce of truth or fact.

there is simply no way to know what the true numbers of animals that are euthanized in the US is and why they where euthanized. Was it due to temperament? health? Age? Or simply because no one wanted to adopt them. No way to know. So therefore, there is no truth to the AR numbers spouted by HSUS.

You are way beyond ridiculous......

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

You are way beyond ridiculous......

Why is it ridiculous to know how many of those dogs euthanized where actually adoptable? That is the true number of dogs that are homeless. It is a distortion to include dogs that are not adoptable.

You are just name calling because you don't have facts to back up your arguments.

[ritabooker]

'When so many healthy lives are being lost, something has to change." Mancuso said.

This is a quote from a newspaper article here:
http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-...eratribune.pdf

It talks about euthanizing "unwanted" and "healthy" animals, not "unadoptable" animals.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by ritabooker

'When so many healthy lives are being lost, something has to change." Mancuso said.

This is a quote from a newspaper article here:
http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-...eratribune.pdf

It talks about euthanizing "unwanted" and "healthy" animals, not "unadoptable" animals.

right, but unadoptable animals and cats are included in those numbers.
That scews the number of those that actually where adoptable. Those are the ones that are homeless. Not the old dogs turned into the shelter because the owner did not have the responsibility to bring them to thier vet and pay to have it humanely euthanized.

The total number of those euthanized is not an indication of the number of dogs that are adoptable. The number of dogs that are old, sick, infirm, bad tempered does not matter. This is about a perceived overpopulation issue. Those animals are included in these figures to scew the data to show that there is an 'overpopulation' issue. I don't understand why you can't see that?

[ritabooker]

I can see what you are saying. I just have go by what my own eyes see at every shelter or humane society I have ever been inside of...95% of the dogs are young or middle aged, healthy and eager for a home.

You have every right to be opposed to this bill. That is certainly your right.

[ChRotties]

I agree with Saveourdogs: statistics can be manipulated ...for the true numbers to be known, you have to take out the ones that were euth bc of old age, temperament, illness..those aren't adoptable...

[ritabooker]

Whatever your opinion on this Bill, I am glad it is being discussed.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

According to the law you have to keep getting letters from your vet and it is up to the jurisdiction on whether they will accept them.

YES BUT, I feel that it would be a very brave person in a jurisdiction who did not accept a letter from a veterinarian where they provided a medical health valid reason, this even one letter for life for a life long medical health valid reason. Keep in mind that jurisdictions must also comply to "all laws", and where even jurisdictions could be held liable under various laws.

Also, there has been a mandatory spay neuter law in Santa Cruz since 1995, has anyone heard of any dog being killed because of anaesthesia due to the Santa Cruz Law. I feel that under the current political situation if there was particularly if involving a number of dogs, then by now would have heard something about it as it would have been spread throughout all the media.
.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I think I pretty much covered this in prior posts. I do disagree with you about abuse, because you may not think Beau is being abused, though I don't think you're considering the risk to his health as abuse, and I do. Where the abuse comes in is to his resultant puppies if there is a whoops breeding and they become like all the others that end up in the shelter. Here again we have a disconnect -- you can look at your dog and only see him, not the abuse that will occur to his offspring. You have to look at the bigger picture.

I'm not going to argue about this law, but I've got to say this. Laurelin is a RESPONSIBLE dog owner. She is not abusing her show dog. She loves all her dogs very much, and even said that all her PET dogs are altered. I don't have any problems with somebody keeping a dog intact if they are actively showing it and plan on breeding to better the breed.

I'm also pretty sure that if there ever was an "oops" with a responsible (key word here) owner, they would not even allow the puppies to be born.

[DogAdvocat]

DogA Quote:
But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding. It's all those other guys that aren't breeding responsibly that need to stop. That's why we need regulations, because all those horrible breeders think they're doing it right too. And they're not going to stop until they are forced to stop. Why support them continuing to ruin the breed you love? For that matter, come to think of it, maybe it was one of those horrible breeders that bred the dog that broke it's leg. Look at the assumption I made that it was the breed, and not the result of bad breeding that caused that. I know I'm not the only one to make such an assumption. Do you really want your breed to have a reputation of being substandard, simply because of all the horrible breeders that are making them that way, and the small minority of responsible breeders that are trying to improve the breed in vain? Think of what a limitation to only responsible breeders breeding would mean to your breed.

Laurelin Quote: Mmmm... hmm, but I still can't see this law as helping where it should. Puppy mills have jumped on the 'lets breed crappy toy dogs and charge thousands for them' the most. They're exempt.

And maybe you should stop jumping to assumptions about people. <<<

If irresponsible breeders are allowed to continue to produce substandard dogs, it won't be an assumption that your breed is ruined. By refusing to back s/n laws, you are enabling irresponsible breeders to ruin the breeds.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Someone on another forum worded it better than I can:

Quote:
To me, all the spay/neuter thing is for one reason, population control. I see it no other way. There are risks both ways. One side doesn't cancel out the other. Health effects are often used as a major point in convincing people they need to get it done because fear is a great motivator, especially our human fear of having our pets die. The fact of the matter is, there are health risks on both sides. If you think those parts and hormones aren't important for something during their development I'd highly recommend you take any anat/phys class and you'll see just how important they are.
<<<

Earlier you cited that you had something like 30 dogs that had never had reproductive cancers or pyometra though not altered. I've had several hundred dogs that I've had altered and have not had any problem with anesthetic, and I've early s/n at least a hundred pups, and none of them have had any negative after affects from it, even later in life. If your personal experience proves your point, then may I assume that my personal experience proves mine as well?

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

DogA Quote:
But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding. It's all those other guys that aren't breeding responsibly that need to stop. That's why we need regulations, because all those horrible breeders think they're doing it right too. And they're not going to stop until they are forced to stop. Why support them continuing to ruin the breed you love? For that matter, come to think of it, maybe it was one of those horrible breeders that bred the dog that broke it's leg. Look at the assumption I made that it was the breed, and not the result of bad breeding that caused that. I know I'm not the only one to make such an assumption. Do you really want your breed to have a reputation of being substandard, simply because of all the horrible breeders that are making them that way, and the small minority of responsible breeders that are trying to improve the breed in vain? Think of what a limitation to only responsible breeders breeding would mean to your breed.

Laurelin Quote: Mmmm... hmm, but I still can't see this law as helping where it should. Puppy mills have jumped on the 'lets breed crappy toy dogs and charge thousands for them' the most. They're exempt.

And maybe you should stop jumping to assumptions about people. <<<

If irresponsible breeders are allowed to continue to produce substandard dogs, it won't be an assumption that your breed is ruined. By refusing to back s/n laws, you are enabling irresponsible breeders to ruin the breeds.

By backing this law, you are providing the industrial breeders a nice pat on the back imo.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Quote:

Earlier you cited that you had something like 30 dogs that had never had reproductive cancers or pyometra though not altered. I've had several hundred dogs that I've had altered and have not had any problem with anesthetic, and I've early s/n at least a hundred pups, and none of them have had any negative after affects from it, even later in life. If your personal experience proves your point, then may I assume that my personal experience proves mine as well?

I'm NOT anti spay/neuter. Your statement that unaltered dogs were being indirectly abused is complete bogus. That's why I was citing sources. There ARE small risks either way- altering a dog or keeping a dog intact. You can believe there is only way to do things responsibly, but that would be wrong and woefully ignorant. Whatever a person does with their dogs is a risk. By saying that I am choosing to accept the risk of leaving my dog intact for however long he is intact is abusing him means to me that you are in turn abusing your dogs by putting them at higher risk for other things. We've never had a problem putting a dog under- it's still a risk. It should still be taken into account. I suppose all my dogs- neutered and unneutered alike are being abused because my decisions for them have increased certain risks and lowered other risks?

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

I'm not going to argue about this law, but I've got to say this. Laurelin is a RESPONSIBLE dog owner. She is not abusing her show dog. She loves all her dogs very much, and even said that all her PET dogs are altered. I don't have any problems with somebody keeping a dog intact if they are actively showing it and plan on breeding to better the breed.

I'm also pretty sure that if there ever was an "oops" with a responsible (key word here) owner, they would not even allow the puppies to be born.

Thank you very much.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by DogueEdaddy

Now I'm getting thoroughly confused about all these health risks when not S/N. I don't deny that there may be some risks with some breeds, and I'm surely not Vet trained, but will someone answer a simple question for me.

What about all those AT RISK Wolves, Coyotes, Dingos, etc. Some keep insisting that we make sure their numbers are increased and no one ever seems to worry about the risk to their health of being INTACT. As a matter of fact, they have been breeding and staying intact for a veeeeery long time and if man hadn't directly affected their numbers, they might still be OK. Of course, I know, they don't have to be euthanized at a cost to the gov (taxpayer); so maybe it's more money than dog concern.

Of course y'all are going to say I'm comparing apples to oranges or some such snappy one liner, but IMO it's as valid as equating dog fighting with non S/N. It still sounds more and more like some are advocating NO BREEDING, responsible or otherwise. Now I won't disrespect anyone by equating that as a PETA goal, but; If the shoe fits.............

God Bless All......Stan

Actually, I think it's a valid question. All nature requires of wild animals is that they live long enough to produce the next generation, and raise their offspring long enough so that they can exist on their own. So yes, wolves have lived a very long time, as a species, but what about the individual wolf? With domestic animals, our pets, we hope for much more than that. If one of my dogs doesn't live to at least 16, I feel cheated. I just lost my oldest one who passed her 20th birthday. How often is that seen in the wilds? How many wolves live that long? Does anyone really know?

So when talking about s/n as a health issue, there's no question in my mind that it's an important preventative to future health problems.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat
No it isn't. Both are abuse of animals if it ends up with lack of s/n leading to dogs dying in the pounds. Both lead to death of animals. The argument could be made that the winning dog in a dog fight is quite happy. And again, dogs are legal property and it's a loss of freedom when the owners are told they can't do what they want with their own property - whether it be fighting, or failing to s/n and producing unexpected puppies.

The only real difference between the two is that we see the results right away with dog fighting, but the results of failure to s/n usually aren't seen at all, except for those people that are seeing it up-close and personal in the euthanasia rooms across this country. That's one of the worst parts about our shelter system - it allows too many people to think that there are no repurcussions to their actions - or lack thereof. We can fool ourselves that the puppies we produce are going to good homes because the people seemed so nice, but we don't see when those dogs are abandoned because they became inconvenient. And the people abandoning them can console themselves (if they care at all) with the idea that someone will adopt it from the shelter, or someone will pick it up off the road and give it a home. That makes it that much easier to do it all again, and again, and again.

So yes, there is cruelty involved whether it be from dog fighting, or failure to spay/neuter.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

This is YOUR opinion, NOT FACT. Actually, sterilizing your dog, ie giving it an ovario hysterctomy is very very serious surgery. It is not to be taken lightly.
It is not physical abuse to not give your dog an ovariohysterectomy.

Of course it's my opinion. Did I say it was FACT???? And who's not taking s/n seriously? Certainly not me. But I disagree with you about not spaying not being considered abuse -- when a dog is dying of pyometra, then not having spayed certainly is abuse, IMO, because the pyometra was totally preventable. But the abuse I was talking about was the death by euthanasia and the suffering of the offspring produced by that unspayed dog compared to the death of fighting dogs. Both are inhumane, IMO.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

By backing this law, you are providing the industrial breeders a nice pat on the back imo.

Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, don't you realize that most of the shelter animals are mixed breeds, and most of the dogs dying are mixed breeds, and other than the designer breeds, that means that most of the dogs that are at risk are the ones being produced by irresponsible and neglegent owners that are not breeding for profit or for hobby. Those are the people that are targetted most by this law. And by not backing this law, you are enabling them.