That’s cute! And what evidence would that be? No, I don’t think I care to provide “evidence” to support my opinion. Would you offer evidence that they do not? Guess not… let’s just default to chopping off testicles then.
Obviously, being a dog, its emotions are not analogous to human emotions. I have seen many a dog living a happy life on three legs. No signs of emotional trauma. Would you say a dog is unattached to its leg?
While I regard neutering as a necessary evil sometimes, you seem to contend that it’s like getting the nails done. That’s complete bullshit.
It’s only an “opinion” in the same sense that you might have an opinion that New York is located in England. Whether castrated dogs exhibit any signs indicative of emotional distress analogous to the emotional distress exhibited by castrated humans is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
If your second sentence applies to your first sentence, I agree: that’s nothing like what I claim.
To say animals are mentally traumatized by castration or spay is to imagine that they are capable of:
abstract, “what if…” thinking. IF that were the case, you’d expect dogs to “know better” than to enjoy rides to the vet, running into a confining kennel to get a treat, or doing lots of the other stuff humans can trick them into doing because we know they can’t even think one step ahead.
Understand on some level that they are missing something another dog still has. But animals never seem to “get” that there are differences between themselves and others of their species. It’s why miniature fox terriers will boldy attack German Shepards or attempt to breed St. Bernards.
Heck, dogs don’t appear to have any remorse or mental challenges to having a leg removed. And they use that a lot more than their testicles.
If it bothers an owner too terribly much, you can always boost its self esteem with these http://www.neuticles.com/
People want to keep animals as pets in civilization around lots of other people, and the price for doing that is keeping your animal under control so it doesn’t affect other people, and keeping your animal from breeding unwanted litters. If you can do both 100% of the time with an intact animal, good for you. Most people can’t; the governments have actually pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that, and spay and neuter laws, intact animal laws, and cats not allowed to roam free laws are the result.
That’s really annoying. You are making the opposite claim, just like me, made it first without any evidence, except that you have the truth and everyone else just doesn’t get it.
I also notice you conveniently ignored my question regarding amputations.
So would you say its humane to amputate a leg for, say, hyper-activeness?
The question regarding amputations is so mind-bogglingly irrelevant that I’m not sure how to address it. I’ll try to figure out a way, though; just give me time.
The burden of proof is on you to show the analogy, though: you’re the one who said it’s reasonable to consider neutering a dog to be animal cruelty. I’m just saying that I see no reasonable connection between the two. If you see such a connection, now’s the time to produce it.
You claim a male dog is unattached to its sexual appendages because it shows no outward signs of emotional trauma analogous to humans when neutered. I wonder what these would be by the way. Maybe demanding an animal behaviourist appointment.
Anyway this is the same reaction to a sanitized amputation, something I hope you will clearly agree is prejudicial to the dog, traumatic even.
A dog may take some recovery time but then if properly taken care of will be a happy doggy without outward signs of emotional trauma when amputated.
We are led to conclude that either “emotional signs of trauma analogous to humans” is not a good benchmark for the attachment of male dogs to their sex organs. Or that a dog is unattached to its legs, a notion I believe we can discard.
The chopping off of the leg for a hyper-active dog is not an irrelevant analogy.
Look, a dog is born with balls. A lot of dogs are naturally aggressive, like to roam, and like to fuck.
By cutting off their balls, we are making them easier for us to deal with, and less of a hazard to themselves and others.
No one in the world can know if it is emotionally traumatizing for a dog to be neutered, but we do know one thing: it is removing some of the “essence of a dog”, if you will.
That said, since we forced dogs to become domesticated and have chosen to have them around us, I also believe that it is also our responsibility to make sure they are not harmful to themselves, or other dogs. And I believe that that is quite well accomplished by neutering them.
But I don’t pretend for a second that neutering them didn’t take something away. Is it cruelty? Without great leaps of logic, I can see it that way. But I consider it a necessary cruelty.
FWIW, I have two dogs, both neteured at the earliest possible time. I would love to see their personalities if I hadn’t done it. After neutering the Akita, he became very aggressive for about the next month. Was it emotional distress? I don’t know. I think it calmed him down in the long run, but he’s still a dominant dog.
Metacom unaltered animals are frequently a problem. See any of the links above. They are certainly many times more likely to be a behavior issue than an altered animal. Ask any reputable vet, trainer, or behaviorist. In larger breeds, this far, far too often translates into an unaltered animal attacking and sometimes killing a person.
Owners then sit around crying that it was an “accident” or that they “didn’t know their dog was aggressive”. The easiest, most efficient way to chill out an agressive dog is quite often to have it altered.
In short, it’s an easily preventable risk. And the risk that’s being prevented is generally not to the dog’s owner. It’s to the rest of the public at large.
There is also an ongoing problem with backyard puppy mills. They churn out the maximum number of puppies in the minimum amount of time, taking no care about the health and welfare of the animals. They also don’t take care to breed away from dangerous or purely unhealthy traits (like dysplasia or rampant aggressiveness). In some cases they breed FOR undesireable traits - or breed the trait to a point where it becomes undesirable.
One of the only really efficient ways to even try to prevent this is to require an extra licensing fee to own an unaltered dog. Making an unaltered dog the default - unless someone has gone to the trouble of paying an extra fee would at the very minimum help the problem.
If you’re panting to breed your dog, then you can pay for your choice. After all, if you want the privilege of driving a car, you have to pay for that (or don’t you have licensing fees in your state). My insurance rates go up because I live in NYC - even though I’ve never caused an accident and haven’t had a traffic ticket in so long I can’t actually remember the last one. This is the price I pay for other people being morons. An unaltered-dog fee would be the price YOU pay for other people being morons about their pets. Maybe the fee will encourage them to be more responsible in the future - and will encourage breeders like your “friends” to be more diligent about explaining the care and training of their pets to customers so we can all avoid small children being savaged to death by the family dogs.
I’m so sorry your barrel has been spoiled by the bad apples.
Maybe we can all line up and cry for the poor, set-upon folks who want their dogs to be able to breed but aren’t willing to shell out a fee for the privilege.
I know! Let’s have a bake sale to pay for their fees!
Q. What problems are solved by chopping off a dog’s leg, and what less-intrusive alternatives to chopping off the leg exist, and what problems for the dog does chopping off its leg cause?
Q. What problems are solved by removing a dog’s gonads, and what less-intrusive alternatives to removing the gonads exist, and what problems for the dog does removing its gonads cause?
I’m still not seeing the relevance of the analogy.
How the fuck is this glurge relevant? I wouldn’t buy from an uneducated breeder, but as long as they’re placing their animals in homes and not abandoning them I see no reason why they’re different then any other pet owner in the context of this discussion. People should be free to breed animals as they see fit, even if you or I don’t approve of what they’re doing. And as long as they don’t abandon animals or recklessly allow their animals to hurt someone, it’s none of our fucking business to try and regulate their behaviour.
I assume you meant “altered dog the default” (if not, explain what you ment) and there’s no way you’re going to do that unless you find a way to make a breed of dog that’s born without genitals. Good luck.
Go fuck your self-righteous little twat with a glass sponge. You know fuck-all about the breeders that I know or support, and you have no business implying that they’re irresponsible or that they don’t educate the people they place animals with.
They go on to talk about the medical reasons, but this one . . . um, sprung out at me:
That should be reason enough! Think of how you’d feel . . . (not that I think dogs and human males have the same emotional attachment to their jewels), but if that’s their reasoning, then that should sway it. Talk about blue balls!!
People allowing their pets to breed at will (or deliberately breeding them at every single opportunity) and then disposing of the results of said breeding is one of the things that fills animal shelters to the bursting point and contributes to the feral animal population around the country. It’s also frequently brought up as one of the reasons people should have to pay an extra fee to own an unaltered animal. Some people are irresponsible about their pet breeding. The problem is when they’re irresponsible they quite frequently abandon their animals - or bring them to the local pound.
I did actually mean altered - typos. The bane of my existence. Well one of them anyway.
I know that you’re bitching about paying a fee to help alleviate the problems associated with unaltered animals in irresponsible hands. And if your friends, the breeders, bitch about paying a fee for the same then they’re just as big a wanker as you appear to be. If you want to breed your dogs, then paying a fee to encourage RESPONSIBLE breeding isn’t even remotely out of line. If I had any urge to breed my pets, I’d cheerfully pay the fee as part of being a responsible owner of an unaltered animal. As I don’t care to breed my pets, I had them altered at the first available opportunity.
In short, so far you’re not doing anything to convince me that you or your friends are responsible. Rabidly opposing a possible measure to help curb the problems of unaltered dogs as an offense against your civil liberty isn’t doing much for your “I’m a responsible breeder man” vibe.
As for it being my business, as a member of the general population, it’s most definitely my business. Irresponsible owners of unaltered dogs are everyone’s business - because unaltered dogs can be a public nuisance (when they’re either aggressive or allowed or encouraged to breed continually - as opposed to in responsible hands).
Slight nit-pick here. If you are selling animals you breed, you are in fact running a business. There are regulations for nearly every business field, why shouldn’t there be regulations on pet breeding? Many times you see news stories about these backyard puppy mills where the majority are diseased, infested, unhealthy, or taught to be violent. Shouldn’t we do something in order to not only protect these animals, but to make sure the consumer and general population is protected?
I wouldn’t marry anyone who didn’t at least tolerate dogs. Especially ones that cute. Of course, I’ve wanted a dog ever since I was mentally capable of understanding what “wanting a dog” meant, so I might be a tad biased
Does he at least like cats? Pets in some form?
I suspect that irresponsible dog owners, who let their dogs attack people or do other objectionable things, are part of the reason why so many apartment complexes don’t allow dogs. And that just adds to the vitriolic hatred I feel for irresponsible dog owners. So fuck you to irresponsible dog owners, and double fuck you to irresponsible dog owners who say it’s nobody else’s business if they are irresponsible. What you do makes it harder for the rest of us to own the dogs we would love to have.
Awwwe! How sweet. An old acquaintance of ours used to have a red pit named Rosie, she was the biggest baby. So cute. One night the owners had her outside to do her business and they didn’t put her on a leash. Well, a cop came by and saw the pit and he got out of the cruiser and pointed a gun at the dog while telling the owners it’s illegal in Columbus to have a pit outside without a leash. The dog was so scared, she layed down and peed herself right there. Poor little thing. But, the owners were way in the wrong. They should have at least had her restricted somehow.
So we have kitties instead of dogs.