I Pit irresponsible pit bull owners (and all irresponsible dog owners)

[BlueKangaroo]

Well, I’ll admit to disagreeing with you, and I probably would have started insulting you if you did mean that testicles were more important to males than ovaries are to females. But if you didn’t know, you didn’t know. I’m not going to insult you for not knowing something, unless you choose to willfully ignore it. That’s what seems reasonable to me.

Anyway, I look at spaying as a good thing. If left alone, most dogs would be pregnant every estrus, and that’s not fair to any female. I look at neutering as a good thing. There are too many animals out there that aren’t wanted. But, since what you seem to be adovcating is sterilization while leaving the gonads intact, I can’t really flame you. Vets might, as I bet that’s a lot harder, but all I’m concerned with is allowing every pet to find a good home. So if you’re willing to sterilize your pets, or be a responsible breeder, I can’t fault you.

I do have views on a lot of this other stuff, especially as a woman who grew up with a breed designated “dangerous” by a lot of people (Rottweilers). It’s just that it’s too late for me to really get into it. Metacom sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, but as a potential Rottweiler breeder, I’d much, much rather pay a higher licencing fee for an intact animal than face a breed ban or anything similar. And I wouldn’t be against the idea in general to disgourage backyard breeders. It wouldn’t hit puppy mills though, I don’t think. There’s too much money there.

[Pedro]

Well it’s the responsibility of the female’s owner to make sure it doesn’t get pregnant right? No need to sterilize males in that regard. I could see an exception made for stray males, but they should be taken care of, not sterilized.

Is it really that much more complicated to sterilize a female without removing the sexual organs? Is it safer?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

As a matter of fact, spaying and neutering actually prevent many health problems seen in intact animals:

Breast cancer is at least as common in dogs and cats as in people, and spaying a female before her first “heat” virtually eliminates risk of breast cancer in dogs and cats. Spaying between the first and second cycles dramatically decreases the risk of breast cancer. Obviously, spaying also eliminates risk of diseases of the ovaries or uterus, which are relatively common. Prostate and testicular diseases are also common, and neutering of males decreases the risk of these problems as well.

Alternatives to spaying are few, and carry significant health risks:

Estrous cycles can be prevented in bitches or queens by appropriate administration of commercially available veterinary progestin or testosterone compounds. Progestin compounds work to prevent estrous cycles by keeping the female in a “pregnant-like” condition. Unfortunately, the administration of progesterone to an intact (unspayed) bitch or queen can cause uterine wall disease, leading to the later development of a severe and potentially life-threatening uterine infection called “pyometra” or infertility. Progesterone medications can also cause or contribute to the development of serious diseases (diabetes, growth hormone disorders) and anatomic problems (mammary masses, gallbladder disorders). Therefore, we do not recommend the use of progestogens to prevent estrous cycles. Testosterone-like compounds prevent estrous cycles in bitches by keeping the female in an anestrus-like (no ovarian activity) condition. Behavioral side effects (aggression), tearing of the eyes, malodorous skin, liver problems, and sub-fertility during subsequent estrous cycles are common consequences of the use of testosterone compounds. Clearly, these are not ideal compounds for use in valuable breeding animals.

Alternatives for neutering males aren’t much better:

Neutersol is a shot that is injected into the scrotum of male dogs and ceases sperm production. It. is not yet approved, but it could be useful to control overpopulation of dogs.

Even when and if permanent sterilization alternatives become available to the public, surgery may still be the best choice, said Dr. Deborah Beck-Ross, a small animal veterinarian in West Grove, Penn, who has been following these recent developments. “There are two reasons to perform ovariohysterectomies and castrations in dogs and cats,” she said. “Obviously the most commonly known reason is to prevent unwanted births. Even more importantly in my mind are the health benefits the pets get as a result of the neutering.”

Female dogs and cats that are spayed benefit from the prevention of life-threatening uterine infections, called pyometras, endometriosis, and uterine and ovarian cancer, as well as a reduced risk of mammary cancer. Neutered male dogs and cats can benefit from prevention of testicular infections, known as orchitis, testicular cancer, prevention or dramatic reduction of anal cancer, reduction in incidence of prostatic infections, and reduction in incidence of prostatic cancer.
“It would not benefit the pet at all,” Dr. Beck-Ross said, “it would just reduce the pet population by decreasing offspring and increasing disease in the adult pet population and shortening their life-span.”

[BlueKangaroo]

Yes, it is the responsiblity of the female owner to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant. But the comment of “No need to sterilize males in that regard.”, makes me again question if you’re putting testicles above ovaries. (What a strange phrase.)

When you say “taken care of”, do you mean killed?

I don’t know about sterilization of females without removing the gonads. Keep in mind, though, we’re talking about very small tubes and a much harder surgery. At least on the vet. A cat’s ovary is only about as big as your pinky nail (a little larger), and the uterine horns are only about as long as a pinky, and probably only half as wide (when she’s not pregnant).

Trying to tie that off would take a lot longer than just removing it all. More time in surgery means more time under anesthesia, and that increases the animal’s chance of death or other complications. I don’t know how much though. I am under the impression that it’s not a small amount.

[Fish_Nya]

@Pedro

Is it really that much more complicated to sterilize a female without removing the sexual organs? Is it safer?

This site explains some of the other options for spaying female dogs.

[BlueKangaroo]

Thanks Fish Nya. I didn’t really know about tubal ligation for pets. That seems to indicate that it really isn’t the best way to go.

[Pedro]

@BlueKangaroo

Yes, it is the responsiblity of the female owner to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant. But the comment of “No need to sterilize males in that regard.”, makes me again question if you’re putting testicles above ovaries. (What a strange phrase.)

No, I wasn’t. I immediately regretted my wording. I was just noting that it isn’t required for population control (although it may be advisable).

When you say “taken care of”, do you mean killed?

Only as a last resource. I don’t want to have animals killed but unfortunately kennels and foster homes have limited resources.

EddyTeddyFreddy I was referring to surgical alternatives. Clearly hormone shots are not a practical solution.

[BlueKangaroo]

@Pedro

No, I wasn’t. I immediately regretted my wording. I was just noting that it isn’t required for population control (although it may be advisable).

@BlueKangaroo

When you say “taken care of”, do you mean killed?

Only as a last resource. I don’t want to have animals killed but unfortunately kennels and foster homes have limited resources.

Well, it’s really true that shelters and foster homes have limited resources. It’s actually a big part of the discussion in the PETA thread that’s active right now (also in the Pit). And, please bear in mind, a male can father many more young than a female can whelp. Sterilization of both sexes is pretty key.

@Pedro

EddyTeddyFreddy I was referring to surgical alternatives. Clearly hormone shots are not a practical solution.

As for surgical alternatives, it seems the answer is that there isn’t a medically safer alternative to total removal of the gonads (+ uterus), both short and long term.

[Cat_Whisperer]

Pedro, you seem to be making something that seems pretty simple pretty darned complicated. If people want to have pets in civilized areas, there is a price to be paid, and that price is the animals’ reproductive organs. That debate has been set a long, long time ago. Simple choice - no pets, or pets that can’t reproduce. If you don’t live in a civilized area where your pets affect anyone else, have at 'er. Have as many unaltered dogs as you like.

I don’t much like the idea of surgery on pets, either, but this is definitely a case of the lesser of two evils. There is another debate we could move on to, and that is the debate over whether we humans have the right to have pets at all.

[Pedro]

Too bad I wasn’t consulted. I agree that population control if very important but I disagree that neutering/spaying should be employed for health and behaviour reasons.

Hell, I would favor having to pay for a license just to own pets in urban areas. Pay like 50 dollars to register an animal from a reputable breeder (if adopting a stray the fee would be waived) with proof of adequate care. It would work as a selection mechanism for capable owners, improve the quality of life in cities and discourage “puppy mills”. You could be subjected to inspections which could revoke the license. The money would be used to support the system and take care of strays.

It would work too except it would never get off the ground for lack of political will, because people view pets as toys like I said before and couldn’t care less except for the money and the hassle. A pet is more like a child in my view.

I would love to have a dog but I don’t because a) I live in an apartment and b) it’s too much responsibility right now. And neutering/spaying would be a very difficult decision for me. There are alternatives like vasectomies and tubal ligations.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Pedro, perhaps I am misunderstanding the words you are using. Would you also consider it a reasonable belief that failing to spay or neuter an animal constitutes animal cruelty?

I work alongside organizations that believe that, and I reject that idea every bit as much as I reject the idea that spaying or neutering an animal is animal cruelty. I reserve “animal cruelty” for a select class of actions, and I think that its overapplication dilutes the power of the phrase.

If you’d consider those other groups to be reasonable–if you’d consider it reasonable to believe that letting a cat outside was animal cruelty or that failing to let a cat outside constitutes animal cruelty–then I withdraw my objection, with the caveat that you’re using the words differently from how I’m using them.

As long as I’m being conciliatory:

Metacom, though I still think it tacky in the extreme for you to call my co-workers fascists (not Nazis, thanks for the correction) simply because they enforce a tax with which you disagree, I realize I left out an essential part of the ordinance that may address the problems you seem to have with it. The thing is, the part I left out appears in the enforcement clause of the ordinance, not in its main body, so I often leave it out when summarizing the ordinance.

It’s this: the ordinance is only enforced in conjunction with the enforcement of other sections of the animal control ordinance. In other words, if your dog never causes any problems for animal control, you’re still required by law to get a $100 permit or to have your animal altered, but you’ll never be penalized for violating that law. What’s more, if you DO violate some section of the law (e.g., your dog gets loose and is brought to the shelter, violating leash laws), then you may avoid the citation for violating the law by having your animal altered within thirty days.

That enforcement section is the section that local breeders required before they withdrew their opposition to the ordinance. From a theoretical perspective, I don’t much like it; but from a practical perspective, it’s perfectly fine with me. (Our animal control, like most AC departments, is hardly overstaffed and isn’t exactly busting down doors looking for dogballs; we act almost entirely in response to citizen complaints, and those complaints are never about how a neighbor’s dog is fertile).

Daniel

[Metacom]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Metacom, though I still think it tacky in the extreme for you to call my co-workers fascists (not Nazis, thanks for the correction)

Again, hyperbole–I even threw in an “:eek:” emoticon.

It’s this: the ordinance is only enforced in conjunction with the enforcement of other sections of the animal control ordinance.

OK, that changes things, because it means that the law is punishing irresponsible owners of unaltered animals, not just all owners of unaltered animals. I’d support an ordinance like that.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Metacom

Again, hyperbole–I even threw in an “:eek:” emoticon.

I took that emoticon to represent your shock at the outrageous ordinance; sorry for the misunderstanding. There are letters-to-the-editors type in our community who have quite seriously called us, on account of this ordinance, the “animal Gestapo,” so what was clearly meant humorously to you didn’t seem so clear ot me.

Daniel

[SnakesCatLady]

Pedro, it seems to me you give pets credit for thoughts/emotions they simply don’t have. Sex is not the choice for an animal it is for a human. When a female cat goes into heat, she doesn’t think “Oh boy! I’m gonna go get laid and maybe pick up a good case of FIV and have another litter of kittens even though I just weaned the last one and I’m so skinny you can see through me.” She just goes out and gets bred, and it miserable for a week or so if she is not let out. Even a well-cared-for animal should have a litter evey heat. A male dog doesn’t think “Oh wow” I smell a bitch in heat - I’m gonna go get me some! Even though the dog who lives next door is never restrained and is 47 times my size and is also going to be looking for her and will eat me as a appetizer." He just goes out and gets in a dogfight.

I respect your right to your opinions. I especially respect the fact that, even though might like to have a pet, you realize at this point you are not ready to care for one. I wish every one was like that.

[Pedro]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Pedro, perhaps I am misunderstanding the words you are using. Would you also consider it a reasonable belief that failing to spay or neuter an animal constitutes animal cruelty?

I didn’t realise you got so hung up on that phrase. Reasonable? No, I can’t conceive that as reasonable. Even if you replace spay/neutering with less drastic measures.

My belief could be summed up in that neutering/spaying shouldn’t be done out of convenience for the owner (and the health argument is extremely weak).

I work alongside organizations that believe that, and I reject that idea every bit as much as I reject the idea that spaying or neutering an animal is animal cruelty. I reserve “animal cruelty” for a select class of actions, and I think that its overapplication dilutes the power of the phrase.

Well yes, “animal cruelty” has a different connotation. It’s connoted to abuse and not to surgery performed by a qualified professional. I wouldn’t say it was “animal cruelty”, just a cruel choice under many circumstances. Unethical too.

If you’d consider those other groups to be reasonable–if you’d consider it reasonable to believe that letting a cat outside was animal cruelty or that failing to let a cat outside constitutes animal cruelty–then I withdraw my objection, with the caveat that you’re using the words differently from how I’m using them.

I probably wouldn’t use the words “animal cruelty” under those circumstances. I don’t have a strong opinion either way about cats. But what about an outdoors dog? It’s cruel to keep it inside. Less cruel than keeping it chained to a pole but more cruel than taking it for a nice walk every day. The choice of words is not something I’m overly concerned about but you have a valid point.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Pedro

Well yes, “animal cruelty” has a different connotation. It’s connoted to abuse and not to surgery performed by a qualified professional. I wouldn’t say it was “animal cruelty”, just a cruel choice under many circumstances. Unethical too.

Just so I understand, you’re modifying your original statement now that you understand what I mean by “animal cruelty,” right? I hate it usually when people do this whole quote-quote-quote history thing, but I’m gonna do it so I’m clear on what’s going on. I’ll add emphasis.

@me

One time when I was talking to a group of high-school students about animal issues, I brought up the importance of spaying and neutering. One girl in the class got all in my face about how that was animal cruelty, and how she’d never do that to her dog.

to which you responded:

@you

Which is a reasonable opinion, whether you agree with it or not.

Now you seem to be saying that it’s not a reasonable opinion, or perhaps that it’s not a reasonable opinion given a strict definition of animal cruelty.

Is that correct?

I originally got annoyed because when I teach a class on animal cruelty (the class I had just finished teaching to this girl, in fact), I talk about such things as:
-Ex-husbands who slash the ex-wife’s dog with a knife, removing its nose and parts of its paws as a way of exacting revenge.
-People who fight their dogs to the death for money (this girl, in fact, told me she’d witnessed dogfights in her neighborhood).
-People who chain their dog up in the back yard without access to edible food, potable water, or shade.
-People who keep animals in tiny cages for their entire lives, wallowing in their own filth and rotten food shoved through the bars of the cage.

These are the sorts of things that fill the “animal cruelty” slot in my brain; and it’s just not reasonable to me to put “neutering a dog” alongside these.

Now, I still think that you’re anthropomorphizing dogs in assigning any long-term deleterious effects to them from castration: the puppies I’ve seen who are castrated are often so playful within twenty-four hours that it’s a struggle to get a picture of them for the website, and they’ll spend their entire lives as happy dogs, missing only one set of desires that they’ll never be aware that they’re missing. Sure, they’ll also lack the ability to fulfill those desires, but they’ll be incapable of missing that missing ability. This is different from the long-term deleterious effects of amputating a leg, inasmuch as the latter removes an ability from the dog that the dog will attempt to exercise.

But if we were using the term “cruelty” in a different manner, then I was too harsh on you originally, and I apologize.

Daniel

[Pedro]

@Snakescatlady

Pedro, it seems to me you give pets credit for thoughts/emotions they simply don’t have. Sex is not the choice for an animal it is for a human. When a female cat goes into heat, she doesn’t think “Oh boy! I’m gonna go get laid and maybe pick up a good case of FIV and have another litter of kittens even though I just weaned the last one and I’m so skinny you can see through me.” She just goes out and gets bred, and it miserable for a week or so if she is not let out. Even a well-cared-for animal should have a litter evey heat. A male dog doesn’t think “Oh wow” I smell a bitch in heat - I’m gonna go get me some! Even though the dog who lives next door is never restrained and is 47 times my size and is also going to be looking for her and will eat me as a appetizer." He just goes out and gets in a dogfight.

That’s a good point but I’m not giving pets credit for any thoughts. If you have a bitch in heat you need to deal with it as best as you can. Because that’s what dogs are like. If it means keeping the dog contained, so be it. Or get it sterilized and let them do their thing.

It boils down to the fact that it is a judgement call I’m not prepared to make. I see the need to control reproduction as an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of the lack of pressure put on dogs in our modern society. Eliminating sexual functions from dogs so they will fit our societal etiquette is something I’m not comfortable with.

[Pedro]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Now you seem to be saying that it’s not a reasonable opinion, or perhaps that it’s not a reasonable opinion given a strict definition of animal cruelty.

Is that correct?

Yes.

But if we were using the term “cruelty” in a different manner, then I was too harsh on you originally, and I apologize.

No need to apologize, I misunderstood you too. I certainly wasn’t equating neutering with any of the things you mentioned. Thanks for clearing that up.

[teela_brown]

Hopefully the subject of pit bull attacks hasn’t become the hijack subject here.

We’ve had another pit bull attack in the bay area. A woman cleaning up after her 8-month-old PB was severely bitten by him on the hands and arms, and her husband was also injured trying to pull them apart. It doesn’t say so in the link, but on the news this morning it was stated that she wanted the dog taken away and destroyed.