Save Our Dogs, a grassroots effort to save working dogs from CA AB 1634/Now SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter
Visit Save Our Dogs
Dog & Cat Owners Say No to AB 1634 SB 250 ~ ROUND 18plus!
See SB250.org for FACTS on SB 250
Love your Pets? Read my files on Label Animal_Control.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

NO on SB 250!

This legislative session in California has really been a PAIN. We have a little problem in that California spends money like a bimbo and creates legislation to force compliance with any number of Politically Correct fads and hairbrained schemes without considering the collateral damage to businesses and farms. Additionally the voting population is not really involved with their own government. I guess we all like to believe that there are checks and balances and that our Constitution will prevail. If you are suspicious, you must be a tin foil hatter. Anyway, California is paying for these sins, left and right, and YET... while we are dealing with these mistakes, our pathetic government continues to pass more pork because of ideas that 'sound good' to the citizens.

If you want to cut right to the chase and do stuff about this bill, go here, a google document page where I have placed essential contact information and instructions on what to do.

The mandatory spay and neuter bill is one such idiot package. SB 250 is our current reincarnation of AB 1634 which did not pass last year when our legislators found the bill to be fundamentally flawed. However the people anxious to pass the bill are trying again. It does NOT work. It will be a disaster for our farms and for millions of dollars income for the state. Furthermore, the premise of the bill presents a false problem and presents an equally false solution!
Charts from saveourdogs.com -click to enlarge
See SAVE OUR DOGS for detail and more issues about Mandatory Spay and Neuter (MSN)

Why are some places passing this bill? In Los Angeles, it passed because the promoters flippantly stated (LIES) as if it were fact that Santa Cruz's problems would be helped with MSN. But as you can see from the chart, they are an unmitigated FAIL. Additionally, since Los Angeles willingly used false info to get the bill passed, they too have increased kills and are not solving their original problem. The first step in solving a problem is to correctly identify it.


The hydra strategy.......
The thing is now, the MSN groups are undaunted with their total failures. They seem to think that their failure is not due to them analyzing their problem but is due to all other people that do not have MSN. Thus, they have multiplied their 'divide and conquer' strategy; it resembles the life form known as a hydra. They have chopped up the bigger goals so that the smaller pieces can pass first and like that hydra, the small bits rebuild into a monster. The multiple bills come together after passage, with many complicated ordinances that can be much worse than the original big bill because the smaller ones are amended further and include even more invasive bits tacked onto them.

Read the news and you will see this in action--HSUS lobbyists go to the legislators of other states and say "your state is behind on animal care issues; this and that bill passed in California and other states." This makes legislators think it's really "by the people" since the other states were 'won' and they become convinced that HSUS represents mainstream thought. This is beyond disingenuous, but this is what they are doing.

HSUS and others in the extremist groups discuss this strategy to educate their peers in how successful it is and get sleepy little towns with their boards of supervisors swinging happily from imaginary "progressive" monkey vines.

JQP becomes part of the problem as they sit back and let these laws be enacted without seeing the need for checks and balance.

Anyway, a great post was on another of the forums I read, so I will copy bits of it here. Some of this material is revived from when we were fighting AB 1634.

http://www.ahba-herding.org/AB1634.htm*

It estimated* the benefit dogs give to California ranchers at *about *$140 million.* Add to that about *$1.3 million* boosting local economies by *herding trial exhibitors.*

another
The AKC conducts ongoing research regarding the economic benefits of our events, and our estimates conclude that these exhibitors contributed approximately *$92 million* to local California economies.

Registries such as AKC (American Kennel Club) and CFA (Cat Fanciers of America) conduct ongoing research regarding the economic benefits of our events, and their estimates conclude that these exhibitors contribute nearly 100 million annually to local California economies. This is the contribution from dog and cat shows and does not include the money spent on vets, groomers, handlers, supplies, pet food, etc.

* So far, this looks like AKC dog shows, CFA cat shows, herding trials and working ranch dogs contribute at least $233.3 million to California's economy every year. * This doesn't include hunting trials and other canine performance events including Schutzhund events, sighthound courses, UKC or ARBA dog shows, etc.

Senate Bill 250 is the linchpin on which all the other HSUS-backed radical animal rights bills depend. Sen. Florez -thinks California can afford to lose these animals, their genetics and their owners? In addition to the *$65 million lost by Long Beach* when AKC cancelled the Eukanuba contract a couple of months ago?
See SAVE OUR DOGS (on Twitter)/web for more updates. See True Agendas (on Twitter)/web for frequently updated brief details.

Fight SB 250! (instructions link again)

Labels: , , ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 5/30/2009 01:38:00 AM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Best Time to Neuter Your Pet Cat or Dog

What is the Optimal age for spay and neuter of cats and dogs?

Dr Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, Director of the Animal Welfare Division of the American Veterinary Association and member of the Pet-Law forum, has secured free public access to the following PDF from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.


Citation
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
December 1, 2007, Vol. 231, No. 11, Pages 1665-1675
doi: 10.2460/javma.231.11.1665

Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats

Margaret V. Root Kustritz, DVM, PhD, DACT
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108. (Kustritz)


If sharing the article with others, please direct them to the above link, to the PDF, rather than forwarding the document itself. This, in order to honor the American Veterinary Medical Association's Copyright.

Thanks!

Happy New Year to all!


No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 1/03/2008 12:00:00 AM | Permanent link | (3) Comments

Blogger Neva sent us a woof // January 06, 2008

Thanks for the update....I think it said basically...do it whenever you want but before the first cycle of your female....lots of controversy on this I am sure...I am all for it whenever and however it gets the job done....it doesn't seem to have adverse effects early or late....interesting...   

Anonymous Angel sent us a woof // January 07, 2008

Our humane society won’t spay females before 10 weeks so we get to foster until then.
I think it’s too young but if they don’t do it too many will ignore the job contract or not.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // January 08, 2008

Neva, agreed. I think the main thing to take away from it (with the exception of shelters) is that decisions need to be made on a case by case basis with the owner and vet being responsible for the decision made. A 110 pound male Anatolian puppy that is 7 months old and which still squats to pee, still has open growth plates, is not even the same species as a cat the same age, nor does it have the same maturity or growth rate as a small breed dog.

As to controversy, see below.

Angel, I agree that 10 weeks is too young as general shelter policy but as you know, it is a catch-22 sort of thing indeed. Shelters do not make themselves accountable for fear behaviors, other problems including female incontinence that sometimes develops as the result of their neutering policies. Their main concern is to not see the unwanted progeny of the pets they adopt out.

Controversy?
Shelters and societies do not keep lifelong records of the outcome of their decisions on animals that they place. They are not in the position to say early neutering benefits all the pets they place.

However, I think the source of a pet, including shelters, have the right to make policy for their *own* animal placements because each deals with specific problems, target populations and goals.

When a person makes the choice to adopt from a shelter, they have effectively elected their source and should abide the policies.   

Monday, April 23, 2007

California Healthy Pets Act *NOT!*


No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"

Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception


I've updated a php thread with captured images, including a better rendered version of above, from a few studies regarding dog health and behavior. Above image is about the importance of hormones in the growing dog, its future health and soundness.

Go here http://petoftheday.com/talk/ to see in better clarity and see the posting.

If you have any particular interest in animal health, in dogs, working dogs, service dogs, genetic and environmental implications of dogs as I do, above link may be interesting reading.

Canine Companions for Independence has addressed the question of pediatric spay and neuter in their programs. The results of theirs and of other studies, as well as potential implications thereof may prove to be very interesting to the general public.

It presents a strong argument for encouraging pet owners (specifically) to examine the evidence regarding health and public safety in issues of surgical sterilization, pediatric spay and neutering, and of MSN from the current situation in L.A.

I used some of the good work Laura Sanborn (saveourdogs.net) has shared for
public use. If you have not visited it yet, do go see http://saveourdogs.net/

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 4/23/2007 08:37:00 PM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Monday, March 19, 2007

AVMA - Neutered Small Breed Dogs and Vaccine Risk


Fascinating abstract from 2005 in a major veterinary medical journal - regarding vaccine associated adverse events (VAAEs) risk and its association with neutering.

The first issue having to do with neutering, other issues with repeated vaccination and the size of dog.

Apparently the American Veterinary Medical Association knows about this. I mean, good grief, it's in their journal.


AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 227(7):1102 - Abstract

Some info from the abstract
  • Results—
    4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000 dogs vaccinated) were associated with administration of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight increased. Risk was 27% to 38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35% to 64% greater for dogs approximately 1 to 3 years old versus 2 to 9 months old. The risk of a VAAE significantly increased as the number of vaccine doses administered per office visit increased; each additional vaccine significantly increased risk of an adverse event by 27% in dogs ≤ 10 kg (22 lb) and 12% in dogs > 10 kg.
  • Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—
    Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hours after vaccination. These factors should be considered in risk assessment and risk communication with clients regarding vaccination. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:1102–1108)


New vaccine protocols now call for fewer vaccines. I imagine the study above was part of the supportive information used to help create new vaccine protocols to reduce over vaccination. But what about the statistics behind the neutering aspect of this study? Or the size of the dog? (this just means that of the dogs that HAD reactions, there was a significant difference in the population distribution - all dogs are not the same!)

It's interesting what responsible dog owners don't need to know about when politics promoting "Healthy Pets" is at the fore.


Check out the proposed legislation-
From California Healthy Pets Act website at http://www.cahealthypets.com/

What the California Healthy Pets Act Would Do

The California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634) would require the spaying and neutering of most cats and dogs by the time the pet is four months old. It is authored and was introduced by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine. Pet owners who have not spayed or neutered their pet would be cited and given time to spay or neuter their pets before a fine would be assessed.


Yes, we all want fewer unwanted pets to be killed. But those of us who ARE keeping our pets would like to give our HEALTHY PETS optimal chances to have healthy lives.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Grrrr


UPDATE: Wed-21 March, 2007- Vera Edwards, CEO for Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment, (www.treatinfo.com) comments below. Toggle comments to see Vera's comment (to which I will respond when I can -ok, done, but am out of time to make it shorter ) -alternatively click here

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/19/2007 05:30:00 AM | Permanent link | (6) Comments

Blogger Vera sent us a woof // March 20, 2007

As a supporter of animal rescue, I must disagree with the opinion that AB1634 will be ineffective in curbing the stem of animals contributing to our current crisis of pet over population. To date, the efforts made in educating the public on responsible pet ownership have failed to lead the people to "do the responsible thing" when given the option to do so.
We have spent an enormous amount of time trying to be "politically correct" by allowing pet owners the feedom of choice to spay and neuter. Sadly, many have failed miserably in their efforts. When do we as responsible pet owners begin to defend the rights of the animals who are losing their lives due to non-caring owners? How many who oppose mandatory spay and neuter walk their local shelters and see firsthand what this law is trying to prevent?
Our shelter's are not filled with responsibly bred AKC animals are they? It is the back yard breeders who are breeding for financial gain and the pet owners who simply don't care enough about the problem or their pets, therefore allow them to roam freely, that is contributing to the vast majority of the problems. When do we as responsible pet owners begin to hold them accountable for the problems that they are creating?
For every breeder that is voicing their opposition to this bill, I ask this? How many of them are visiting their local shelter every week and rescuing their breeds? How many of them have talked to animal control workers who are forced to euthanize these animals everyday and asked them for their opinions?
Wouldn't you agree that euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals is inhumane, when it is for no other reason than there simply are not enough homes available?
The argument that we simply cannot fund a law such as AB1634 has no basis. Currently in Kern County,taxpayers are spending 3.1 million dollars to virtually catch and kill the overflow of animals in our community and that amount is steadily rising each year. Shelter personnel are overwhelmed with just trying to keep up with the demands of the daily intake of animals coming into their shelter.
Common sense dictates that if you stem the flow of animals impounded, necessitating the overwhelming need for manpower and funds used to treat and house these animals, those same funds can and should be better spent in prevention. We all are dealing with the daily loss of lives now, so how would you suggest we as a community of animal advocates stop the slaughter of innocent lives today? Before anyone voices disapproval for a law that in effect is a huge start in controlling our pet overpopulation problem, consider that what has been claimed in regards to education, freedom of choice, property rights, etc, hasn't been proven effective. If anyone has a better solution that hasn't been tried yet that will impact the loss of life occurring today and everday, I sure would be interested in hearing it.
Sincerely,
Vera Edwards
Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment
www.treatinfo.com   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 21, 2007

Hi Vera,

I'm just about the worst typist and proofreader that blogs. ;) But
you said you be interested in what I have to say, so I've taken a bit of time to write and take you up on this. (probably just a one shot deal but lots of resource in the links)

You state that it is 'common sense' that "stemming the flow will cause the problem to abate". Certainly it is common sense that pulling out a thorn, removes the thorn. But on the matter of mandatory S/N to solve perceived problems... Not So. If you have evidence that it works, then show supportive statistics at your website. Such evidence may strengthen your argument. I went to your site and don't see materials other than a generalized "Appeal to emotion". If that isn't intended, maybe you can remedy that at your site.

Here is a simple fact. Many places that do not have forced S/N have actually already experienced a deficit of adoptable animals, so some controversial 'importing' has become necessary. Perhaps you know that but chose not to mention it? NAIA is one source for such info but there are other places.

The people that make up the population that we (may) mutually see as the cause of unwanted animals being available will still make bad or misinformed choices. Sometimes 'sheep happens'. People with pets that may have behavioral issues will continue to be a source of shelter pet statistics. Pet bans and limit laws, deaths in the family can all lead to the deaths of beautiful adoptable animals whose owners cannot afford to relocate.

Pets that are not neutered will come from other sources, legitimate and not. Sometimes illegal operations supply stolen puppies from other areas for resale. Go ahead, create an unintentional niche for this. Free breeding feral cats will continue to do their thing and probably already significantly outnumber purebred dogs (or just 'dogs') that end up in rescue. Your site doesn't specify.

Many purebred dog breeders spend a lot of time teaching owners the responsible ways to do things and this is why you don't see so many quality purebreds as a statistical euthanization problem. By lumping them with all others and making it more difficult to breed healthy animals, mandatory S/N dittoheads have overlooked the ONE group that has been successfully preventing problems and instead, are deliberately throwing them into the fire!

Since it is blatently obvious that genetics is not the strong point of many who like animals, they may not understand the need for responsible breeders to require that some of their placements keep puppies intact, at least until 2 years or more of age. These may never breed and be neutered sooner or later, but the more animals in the family that are evaluated -- the better the outcome for the health and longevity of the breed(s). It is called genetic diversity (having more to choose from) and selective breeding.

This is part of the reason that the very idea of "Healthy Pets" being associated with this bill is so disingenuous! It illustrates the lack of education and/or logic among emotive pet advocates and politicians.

Some previous outcomes of legislative issues have been studied (see "Population and Legislative Issues" here) as an example. A hard look at those statistics in your area can be informative.

Would actual statistics showing the absence of large numbers of euthanized, well-bred purebred animals hurt your argument?

Facts or Appeal to Emotion? The latter puts one on the same level as PeTA and HSUS which your site at least attempts to claim you are not. (I do agree with you regarding the lack of accuracy in the controversial temperament tests at some shelters)

Breeders that are an important resource do actually relocate to other counties and states when ordinances become unfriendly. Their dogs vote too! Their places may be filled in with less desireable animal producers. Does that help the problem? or hurt it?

You ask for suggestions toward your goal of fewer animals being euthanized. In order to get a feel for the issues in your area, I looked at your website and a map of your area (Kern County) and also checked to see what type of pets are listed for adoption right now at various county sites. Additionally, I looked to see what sort of animal measures there are in your county and will plainly state that without enforcement of current ones, it is foolhardy to add more. As mentioned, I also looked for studies and data, statistics and clear definitions of the specific types of animal turn ins, their sexes, ages, how many are already neutered, what reasons they end up at the shelters, but this information must either be something you have not researched or you have not put on your website.

Neutered animals do turn up at the shelters and neutering them again [grin] will not stop it. Creating a town full of "Stepford Pets" does not solve the "people problem". To solve a people problem you have to work WITH people.

In order to gain support and effective brainstorming for your problem areas, you will need to provide specific data on the types of animals and why the animals are in the shelter. Usually a shelter is not flooded with newborns and weaning age puppies. Animals that have somehow become a problem to their humans are the ones that end up on death row.
Your organization could make use of materials and services from NAIA, that could also be helpful. One of their handouts is
here.

Some quick info regarding this from their website-

NAIA can help lawmakers ...
.. write fair and equitable laws that clearly define
dangerous dogs and nuisance behavior;
.. devise strategies for enforcement;
.. work with shelters to develop an accurate picture
of pet population dynamics, spay-neuter
efforts, and shelter euthanasias;
.. develop community advisory boards and coalitions
to help deal with animal issues;
.. draft animal cruelty laws that protect animals
without infringing on widely accepted and humane
animal husbandry practices; and
.. locate free educational materials that advance
humane animal care without promoting the extreme
animal rights agenda.

Okay, from me.... Raise money, raise money at events that increase responsible animal awareness and which also involve the people behind well bred pets!

Community involvement at the basic 'every man' human level can go a long way. I don't see that your county has such a thing going on - it's not mentioned on your site. Why not use your community resources to begin to organize these?

Fund raising at pet events such as a local dog fair and finding sponsors who will pay for booths for other such things as pet walkathons and adoption day can help make S/N more affordable for more. These events could also have support of volunteers, breed clubs and training clubs in the community who can bring their well behaved and trained pets, answer questions and give advice. People that show what well trained dogs can do does inspire people to learn more about their pets. Breed clubs usually have some people that are experienced with organizing such events and finding sponsors. Get them on your side. Nearly everyone LOVE these 'meet the breed' type events. I'm not involved with cats currently but I'm sure cat clubs will be happy to help as well. Very cute cat toys could be sold at the event. Information given regarding cat control and problems too.

Contact your local breed clubs and ask them to get involved, to bring brochures that help define responsible ownership and show how to choose a good breeder and a healthy pet.

Pet Fair would be excellent as community draws and will educate children. Events like puppy with the longest tail, dog/human pair in cutest costume, kids in different age groups doing simple obedience such as showing how they can take their dog through a figure eight and sits. How about kids showing what tricks their pets have learned? A $2 entry fee with proceeds going to S/N. Canine Good Citizenship tests, temperament tests and even a local agility club could bring obstacles and charge a small fee like $5, again raised for S/N. Members of the community can walk in with their pet dogs and try agility obstacles. Face painting raising fees for S/N... All of these could be events where mutts and purebreds of all types can come and see 'trade show' exhibits for training leashes, collars, litter boxes, containment systems like crates and kennels could raise money for S/N. Information about housebreaking and some helpful advisors present. This is a lot of rambling. People make it happen.

Draconian legislation does not.

One final thing (I think!) I need to mention this because at one point I was in the following population (and I still am somewhat due to specific registry issues in my breed). AKC, ADBA, ICA and UKC do not respresent the needs of all responsible pet owners. See http://www.saveourdogs.net/ for more information. The more support from the dog/cat fancy you gain, if your priority about responsible ownership and healthy pets and fewer animals destroyed, then work with the system, not against it.

Slapping at a mosquito is simple and reactive, but there is a Whole Earth approach that may yield more fruit in addressing the problem.

The more you know about dogs, the more complex this becomes.   

Blogger ZaltanaAnatolians sent us a woof // March 24, 2007

Janice, great post   

Blogger Vera Edwards sent us a woof // April 01, 2007

First and foremost, our site does "Appeal to emotion".
It IS very emotional when 500,000
animals in CA alone are being euthanized on an annual basis. TREAT was developed to help our local Kern County animals, therefore our data IS specific to our community.
If you are genuinely interested in shelter statistics, please go to
http://www.sheltertrak.com
and
http://www.dboneweb.com/animaltrunks/shelter08.php
While not necessarily reflected in your post, the most "used" argument I have heard from breeders regarding any spay/neuter legislation is what it will cost them in regards to fee's should it become a law. As a breeder, why shouldn't they have to pay for the privilege of breeding their animals? That's
right, it IS a priveledge. Afterall we non breeders pay for it,don't we? I would much rather see my tax dollars spent on
prevention, than to have it used to kill these animals after the
fact.
When TREAT introduced our proposal to our local Board Of Supervisors, we had 4 AKC breeders approach us in regards to their "rights" as breeders. Funny thing is not one of them actually
read our proposal and readily admitted to that fact. They were
opposing something which they had never even seen. THAT is par for
the course when dealing with most breeders who object to any
legislation. Exemptions to this legislation have been made for responsible breeders, but most breeders choose to ignore that. Why?
Another argument that is widely used against legislation is that early age altering is detrimental to the health of the animal.
Frankly, so is death in a shelter at the end of a needle.
If you don't want to alter
your "young" animal for health reasons, get the support of your vet.
Provisions have been made for that too.
While alot of breeders are quick to defend "their" dogs, where are
they when their breeds are dying in shelters everyday? I simply cannot understand anyone who claims to support animals, yet won't support working towards stopping the slaughter of millions of animals every year. Yes, we can easily blame it on irresponsible
breeders, but where is the support from the "responsible breeders"
in this fight to end the killing. So quick to want to defend their
property rights and their freedom of choice, but
how dare anyone defend the rights of the animals who are dying
everyday. Many breeders state that they breed for the betterment of their breed, understandable and much needed, but in
that equation why is "their breed" that is in every shelter in this
country everyday, deserving of less than what they assume
their "quality" animals can provide?
Outside of the responsible breeders who do rescue as well,
I have yet to see any "real" involvement from the "fanciers" in regards to animals that end up in their local shelters. They are quick to say, we want to help, but what have they really done as a combined group to help against pet over population?

I am baffled by your argument:

Would actual statistics showing the absence of large numbers of euthanized, well-bred purebred animals hurt your argument?

To assume that healthy purebred animals are not being euthanized on a daily basis is ignorant. How can you safely assume that "healthy, genetically sound, responsibly bred" animals, won't end up in shelters or breed litters of their own that ultimately may end up in a shelter?
If I were a "responsible breeder"
I would welcome paying the additional fee's to breed my animals if that meant not having the backyard breeders to compete with, therefore allowing for better quality animals and more responsible owners looking to adopt them.

In regards to:
Here is a simple fact. Many places that do not have forced S/N have actually already experienced a deficit of adoptable animals, so some controversial 'importing' has become necessary.

While your statement may have some validity in "some" communities, it is indeed not the norm
and you know it. Millions of animals are dying in this country every year.

In regards to:
People with pets that may have behavioral issues will continue to be a source of shelter pet statistics. Pet bans and limit laws, deaths in the family can all lead to the deaths of beautiful adoptable animals whose owners cannot afford to relocate.

Again true, but don't you think that eliminating the
accidental and unwanted litters from entering the shelter system will in effect help our sheltering facilities better address the needs of already existing unwanted animals?

In response to:
Usually a shelter is not flooded with newborns and weaning age puppies. Animals that have somehow become a problem to their humans are the ones that end up on death row.

You are sadly mistaken here. We have had pups dropped off at our local shelter with their umbilical cords still attached.
Attached is a link that includes just a few of the many "litters" that enter into our sheltering facility on a daily basis. http://www.photoshow.net/scripts_main/build/player.php?show=bJnVSMKmf

It was done showing only our Kern County animals. But I can assure you that this is occurring in every community. This is what we are trying to prevent. You have you head in the sand if you think this isn't happening on a mass level across this nation.

I regards to:
To solve a people problem you have to work WITH people.

At the risk of repeating myself,
We HAVE been "educating" the public on responsible pet ownership for decades. We have been "politically correct" and have worked hard to
influence the public to spay and neuter when "given the personal
choice" to do so to prevent the unwanted and accidental litters. Yet millions of animals are STILL dying every year.

In response to:
Okay, from me.... Raise money, raise money at events that increase responsible animal awareness and which also involve the people behind well bred pets!
Community involvement at the basic 'every man' human level can go a long way. I don't see that your county has such a thing going on - it's not mentioned on your site. Why not use your community resources to begin to organize these?

We,have indeed tried to get the cooperation of our local people to get more involved. We do so without the cooperation of our local governement, who frankly could care less about our problem of pet over population. Sadly, not just here in Kern County, but many community leaders have not put these issues on the forefront of their "agenda"s, have they? TREAT was involved in a spay/neuter event in our community that altered over 100 animals. This event was put together by rescues and concerned citizens, without the involvement of our county officials. As a side note, I can say that breeders weren't lined up to participate either.
The public response was overwhelming.
Thousands of callers had to be put on a waiting list for future events. This is a service that the people want, but our local officials have been slow to react.
Changing the priorities of governement officials who are in a
position to create change has been the biggest hurdle.

Lastly, it is apparent that you have your concerns and they differ from my own. But I am an animal rescuer and I see daily what many of you do not and yes, it gives me an entirely different perspective.
It is my duty to defend the rights of the animals. It is "their" right to live. It is "their" right to not be
born, if death in a shelter is their only outcome. It is "their"
right to not be abused and neglected and to live a life of
intolerable suffering. I have and will always fight for "them".
Vera Edwards   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // April 06, 2007

[[First and foremost, our site does "Appeal to emotion".]]

Exactly.

[[It IS very emotional when 500,000 animals in CA alone are being euthanized on an annual basis. TREAT was developed to help our local Kern County animals, therefore our data IS specific to our community.]]

And once again... You do NOT have data. See below...

[[If you are genuinely interested in shelter statistics, please go to
http://www.sheltertrak.com
and
http://www.dboneweb.com/animaltrunks/shelter08.php]]

First of all, I appreciate the shelter work you do. Now I have seen these statistics and quite frankly it is not YOUR data.

The OBJECTIVE of sheltertrak is not to prove or to document an "overpopulation" problem. There's not enough data there for that purpose. But that's what you are attempting to use it for.

Sheltertrak's purpose is to get shelters to be accountable for their decisions and policies. Sheltertrak's allied website is http://www.shelterwatch.com/. And the reasons the sites exist had initially to do Kern County's abuse of the law and its wholesale killing of animals. Site is now a interesting public source of information that still has to evaluated on different levels of merit and NOT to be taken out of context.

Other readers may not be aware. . . Laws were passed ten years ago which required shelters to neuter animals they adopted out and also to hold animals a minimum number of days. Captured animals that were disoriented, unsocial and frightened or aggressive in their first days, would not be destroyed before their owners had a chance to find them. Surprise! Kern employees chose to _kill_ them instead. -from Shelterwatch: "Between January of 2002 and August 31, 2004, [Kern County] Animal Control impounded more than 70,000 animals, and euthanized more than 75% of those animals."

These numbers do NOT support the concept of mandatory neutering of all pets. Not any more than it supports the idea that Kern county has always been doing all that can be done for the animals. There is not enough data for those conclusions.

In your original statement you wrote, "To date, the efforts made in educating the public on responsible pet ownership have failed to lead the people to "do the responsible thing" when given the option to do so."

"To date"... meaning from a given date (which is?), and NOW.
Okay, give me data. Did education begin in 2004? There is no date from which to observe that there wasn't improvement.


If you can substantiate your claims, put them on your website.

More quotes.....
I wrote: "Here is a simple fact. Many places that do not have forced S/N have actually already experienced a deficit of adoptable animals, so some controversial 'importing' has become necessary."
You wrote: "While your statement may have some validity in "some" communities, it is indeed not the norm and you know it."

Define norm? Here's a chart of data for the state of California. It seems to show that there is significant improvement for the animals since the 70's.

Let's recall, Kern County is still located in the State of California.

Wouldn't you say that the State has had a remarkable improvement on shelter stats over the past nearly forty years.


You made sweeping comments about purebreds and breeders, so I wrote: "Would actual statistics showing the absence of large numbers of euthanized, well-bred purebred animals hurt your argument?"
Your response to this was: "To assume that healthy purebred animals are not being euthanized on a daily basis is ignorant."

Frankly, that's not an answer to anything I said.
You did not respond with evidence regarding actual statistics of purebreds.

... o O (There seems to be a pattern here)

On the subject of breeds, I sometimes see examples of rescued pets which are misidentified by the shelter. An extrapolation from this is that dogs that get PTS may have been misidentified but now represent a breed in the euth stats.

From a site you referred to us form above, there were numerous examples from Kern County-
http://dboneweb.com/dbgallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=kcbreedcall

Anyway, if you have read AB 1634, you know it favors bulk commerce in pet animals, as California wants to protect its sources of taxable income. The legislation is prejudiced against the common people who raise puppies in their houses. The current wording guarantees that every pet will be neutered since there are no AKC or UKC shows where four month puppies can be exhibited, nor can they be champions at that age. Having the state mandate that owners participate in a Sport is questionable legislation at many levels.

[[While not necessarily reflected in your post, the most "used" argument I have heard from breeders regarding any spay/neuter legislation is what it will cost them in regards to fee's should it become a law. As a breeder,
why shouldn't they have to pay for the privilege of breeding their
animals?]]

You certainly feel comfortable speaking for everyone in Kern County and beyond and I don't know if you've ever walked the walk. This is apparently why you don't see the problems with any clarity.

But... the bill IS unconstitutional because it is using a sledge hammer effect to attempt to control an issue without sufficient evidence that it has reasonable prospects of success.

MSN does not work.

I wrote: "Usually a shelter is not flooded with newborns and weaning age puppies. Animals that have somehow become a problem to their humans are the ones that end up on death row."
You replied: "You are sadly mistaken here. We have had pups dropped off at our local shelter with their umbilical cords still attached. Attached is a link that includes just a few of the many "litters" that enter into our sheltering facility on a daily basis. http://www.photoshow.net/scripts_main/build/player.php?show=bJnVSMKmf "

Okay, no stats there either. The movie is touching, but it is not hard statistical evidence. Some of the same dogs are shown a few times. San Mateo liked using "shock value" PR to achieve their goals. No science, no math, no brains required. Just "Appeal to Emotion".

==============

With over 95% of all pets in California never showing up in a shelter, a significant number, possibly 80% of them are seen by vets who reported these pets were already neutered.

Out of the probable 4% that do turn up in shelters, possibly a total of 2% of California pet animals are euthanized but there are a few shelters that are "no kill" and some that average kill rates well below 1/2.


Keeping those proportions in mind, possibly 2 percent of all California cats and dogs are killed in shelters, and you wrote this: "Another argument that is widely used against legislation is that early age altering is detrimental to the health of the animal. Frankly, so is death in a shelter at the end of a needle. "

It is interesting that you choose to place 2% population's "health" above the health of the remaining 98%. In other words, the greater good has lost its importance for you and MNS is your solution. Statistics are meaningless to you?
Redirected aggression?

Yes, my view is different than yours.

I do not support mandatory spay/neuter for these reasons. The rhetoric you use does not warrant a state mandated tyranny against pet owners. It is not a solution to a problem that has yet to tangibly defined for your purposes.

I am out of time for this comment. :D I see your arguments above unsubstantiated and the remaining material is primarily rhetoric that could go on forever.

Thanks for commenting on my blog.

I'll check your site from time to time to see if you have the statistical evidence to support your claims.

If AB 1634 should pass, you should be prepared for higher rates of euthanasia and a plan B.

I suggest that you take the time to actually study shelter data. You can go here to learn more. http://www.petpopulation.org/research.html

Good luck.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // April 10, 2007

Vera Edwards has written this to share:

"I find it appalling that the "argument" of statistics is being used as if there are a percentage of animals dying that is "exceptable"."
==========
I don't think anyone claimed it was acceptable. We are talking about government policy. Constitutional law has to do with creating policies that have reasonable chance for success.
==========
Vera continues:

"Purebreds vs mixed breeds dying is apparently exceptable too? 500,000 state wide and millions upon millions more nationwide is exceptable numbers for you? You accuse me of avoiding "the true facts" yet breeders are avoiding facts of their own, aren't they? Not once have I had a breeder ever respondto questions regarding "their breed" dying in shelters everyday and what are they doing about that"most could care less and don't even visit their local shelters to get educated on the reality of just how many are dying. In effect most care only about what is occurring in their own "backyards"and care nothing about the "unknown" animals that don't belong to "them"or "theirs". I am different, I care about the lives of all animals, so yes I will always support what may help bring an end to the unnecessary destruction of animals.

==========
I am also an idealist in a lot of things as well. But due to my background and responsbilities, I have had to be a realist and with strict protocols and documentation involving nearly every decision. A bureaucrat I am not, since life and health decisions require another level of perception.

Were I were advocating public policy, or policy to benefit tax payers, I would evaluate the evidence to see what the track record on various proposals might be, analyze why things worked or failed, and create policy that has a reasonable chance of success.

==========
You write:
Will MSN help, I sure hope so, but the argument is that it won't, so let's not even try. That makes no sense to me.
==========
"Hope so" ~~~~~~~` suggests that you need access to documentation.

So here we go. MSN has been active around the country since the early nineties. I've put up some links from a wide variety of sources where lawyers, animal welfare and animal rights groups, statisticians, public workers have examined the impact of MSN upon such elements as euthanization statistics and fiscal impact (your specialty at http://treatinfo.com/).

Here are links to useful data and studies regarding MSN. I had previously linked to them in other blog posts under the label, animal_control). You may be particularly interested in the file done by an animal rights group in the discussion of links.

The majority of this data did not come from "reputable breeders" but law workers, public policy quality assurance, from shelters and the like.

==========
You wrote:
When "responsible breeders" as a combined group actually start making a genuine effort addressing the needs of the animals dying in shelters everday then I may "listen" to their arguments. But I find it hard to believe that any breeders (who visit the shelters and then must walk away from dying animals, who watched as terrified animals are led to the euthanasia room or worse actually watch them euthanized or talk to animal control workers who will tell them the reality of their lives everday) won't change their perspective. Is that an "appeal to emotion"? you bet it is. It is an emotional experience, I know, I've done it and it indeed changed me. We have a local breeder here who did it as well and she no longer breeds because of it. Walk both sides of the fence and then tell meyou feel the same. Vera Edwards
==========
I can't speak for this group of 'responsible breeders' that you seem to know. But I can offer advice.

'Responsible breeders' who are anything but -- can be reported to their clubs for their lack of ethics. Document the evidence you have against these known breeders. Use photos, vet tests and other evidence as needed to substantiate your claims.

Once you have it all together, contact the club and get a copy of their by-laws and club constitution. Most breed clubs have a Board of Directors and Officers who are responsible for decisions that pertain to these by-laws & the club constitution. In that material, there will be sections where "Discipline" is discussed. The procedure to register your claim(s) can be found there. Because you are able to collect specific data against these specific breeders that you have clearly identified, you have a case and can possibly get their privileges removed.

UKC is a registry and it does permanently remove privileges from breeders who are unethical. Their policies can be seen here.
Breeders often directly register with the main registry (such as UKC) and may not be members of local clubs. However, there may be regional clubs in your local area, with which the breeders in question may be associated, and the local clubs do consist of concerned members who will be just as anxious as you to get these 'responsible breeders' disassociated from their group, if they could only identify them. And if they had the evidence needed.
   

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Spaying and Neutering & Early Spaying and Neutering

Is spaying and neutering being promoted as a replacement for training and responsibility?

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) on its website, says "Spaying or Neutering Is Good for You" (seriously, that's what it says! like adding food color to kibble to make it look pretty to the buyer!) and that "Spaying and neutering makes pets better, more affectionate companions.".
(source: http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/why_you_should_spay_or_neuter_your_pet.html)


Better? Better than what?

"Stepford Wives Pets" anyone? Not Amused

This posting is primarily about dogs, not because I have a problem with cats, but some issues regarding dogs, especially large breed dogs like the Anatolian Shepherd Dog (my breed), are quite a bit different than issues with cats. Believe it or not, dogs can be plenty wonderful and affectionate without undergoing surgical sexual mutilation spay and neuter. The key is responsible care and training!

In a previous posting, I questioned the un/(no, scratch that) misinformed political support of mandatory early spay and neuter because it is clear that there are some serious unresolved issues which are not in the best interests of healthy animals. Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws are wrong. Responsible people should not be penalized for wanting to do what is best for their particular cases. And responsible breeders who look after their own should not be penalized for the behaviors of stupid owners who choose to get animals from commercial or random and irresponsible sources and then fail to train or contain these animals (both cats and dogs). When they just give up and turn them loose or drop them off at a shelter, why should other pet owners be penalized. Where is the logic in that? Just because people have pets, doesn't mean that it is their fault that other people are irresponsible. Is it your fault that drunks get on the road and kill people? Should you be penalized for using public or private transportation because of them? This is what is happening to responsible owners. They are being told that increased fees and penalties need to be charged to them because there are "so many animals being killed in the shelters".

Don't get me wrong. There IS good reason to spay and neuter, but EARLY spay and neuter is not always in the best interests of every single animal that would otherwise be responsibly kept from breeding anyway. There would also be a lot more support and compliance for existing regulations if they were fair. See: A Guide to Constructing Successful Pet Friendly Ordinances- A project of the National Animal Interest Alliance (which needs donations, please!)

So here are a collection of interesting, recent, information links, some with actual data, about the potential problems and considerations of spay/neuter (and early spay/neuter) which may help one make better informed decisions for our pets. When you vote, remember you are voting on behalf of your pets too! Remember too that many professionals including doctors and veterinarians do not keep informed on the important updates in their fields.

<><><><><>

1-
Some breed specific behavioral and physical data is presented here. Must see, lots of charts and photographs! This is what you're looking for. Information that is better researched and more up to date than the information found in most places.
http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf

Note - Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs (ACC&D) is a nonprofit 501C(3) group involved in attempting to study, define and resolve some of the problems that currently exist internationally, regarding issues of animal population control. They need donations. See their FAQ.

At ACC&D's Third International Symposium, "Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control" - November 9-12, 2006 - Alexandria, Virginia (from their website they state): "more than 120 representatives from universities, animal welfare organizations, foundations, companies, and government agencies from 11 countries gathered to share information and plan for the future".
source: http://www.acc-d.org/

<><><><><>
2-
Dogged Blog: It's Just That They LIE ABOUT IT by Christie Keith

<><><><><>
3-
Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete One Veterinarian's Opinion, at Canine sports - by Chris Zink, DVM, PhD, DACVP

<><><><><>
4-
Spay, Neuter, and Cancer: Revisiting an Old Trinity by Myrna Milani, DVM

<><><><><>
5-
Castration of Male Dogs, Spaying Female Dogs by Mary C. Wakeman, DVM (added 26 Mar 2007)

<><><><><>
6-
The Long-Term Health Effects of Spay / Neuter in Dogs by Laura J. Sanborn Was hosted at English Shepherd Club Registry site - moved to NAIA in April (added 27 Mar 2007)

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/17/2007 01:57:00 PM | Permanent link | (4) Comments

Blogger yellowdog granny sent us a woof // March 18, 2007

came her via carina...and you are so right...I have owned pit bull dogs for over 35 years...they were well behaved, gentle, sweet, protective and the best dogs I have ever had...and I see what stupid people have done to ruin the opinion of pits...not all pits are killers or savage...I had a 120 lb pit named Nate..who would sit in your lap and lick you to death...barked like crazy if you were around his yard..but wouldn't even bite you if you got in the yard..he would heard you like cattle back to the gate, nuding and growling all the way..never bit...so for someone to tell me I had to neuter him because he was a pit really pissed me off...so yah for you...and the dog on your side bar has the best sweetest face...   

Blogger Carina sent us a woof // March 19, 2007

Ahh....I hadn't seen Christie Kieth's bit before, that was also excellent! (And the comments on her blog are usually great reading too.)
I linked to you in my latest post. Good one.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 19, 2007

Carina, thanks for the comments and links.

I agree Yellowdog Granny that Pit Bulls (Rotties too) are getting a bum rap. Both are very popular dogs and irresponsible breeding and placement among other things are making it tough on the rest of the breed, and their responsible owners.

I have read and think that it is reasonable that Pit Bulls are actually more popular than the AKC labrador in terms of numbers living and bred annually. I'm not sure how the estimate was derived (various pit bull bulletin boards) since the majority are not registered (no official data) and many may not be purebred (not speaking of Staffie mixes but part boxer, part something else, etc). But the numbers of pits that get into trouble given the population density seems to be very low. It's just the unfortunate diverse owner profile in many cases. :(

The numbers AKC uses for its stats are based on the numbers registered. The 2006 stats have been published, dogreg_stats_2006 and the number of registrations/litter is 123,760 / 41,132 = 3.0 --- that is, only about three puppies per litter are registered based on the number of litters that are claimed. Furthermore of those small percentage of puppies per litter that ARE registered, according to stats calculated and published in DOG WORLD in the late 1980's only about 1% of those (registered) ever take part in AKC events.

Even tho owners may be given puppy slips, less than half of them ever pay AKC to register. This also doesn't account for purebred labs (or "almost" labs, sold as labs in the paper) which don't have registrations.

Carina spoke of AKC's attempts to generate more income by including mutts in some performance events. And these registration stats definitely suggest that the average owner *could* stand to benefit from the dog community and organized dog events to the benefit of our dog World.

All that is a way of saying that if more owners became involved and got a clue, maybe this threat of mandatory (and stoopid) legislation would not be so uncontrolled. :(

Yellowdog Granny, the Anatolian in my sidebar is Ruya. I had to make a label just for her! She's very popular with our visitors. And she LOVES getting up on the glider and cuddling & swinging with our guests! :)   

Blogger Joan Sinden sent us a woof // April 09, 2007

This is a very interesting topic, it plays into a lot of different ideas - it's been mentioned to me that mandatory spay and neutering is just a different form of BSL - you only mandatory spay and neuter the animals that you don't want to continue on - ie pit bulls, and then those breeds die. And then rescue people also can't understand what's wrong with mandatory spay and neuter because they see so much death everyday because of the "overpopulation problem" that seems so endemic in the dog world that is also so controversial in some dog circles. But then other people - like you - have a problem with mandatory spay and neuter because control is being taken away from you because your dog is your property and you want to have control over what happens to your dog, and so you should! It doesn't matter that 75-85% of the world isn't responsible about spaying and neutering their dog - and that's who legislation would be for - fighting legislation is for th 15-25% who ARE responsible.

I understand perfectly because I come from the viewpoint of vaccinations. In my city the city legislators are trying to tie being able to use proprosed dog parks to having your dog vaccinated and dewormed - and me and my dog friends are fighting vehemently against that because my dogs have never had worms and I am very anti-vaccination - and I have control over what goes in my dogs' bodies - but I still want them to be able to go to the dog parks! And it is the same thing with mandatory spay neuter.

So it's quite a dilly of a pickle. One that I don't imagine we'll ever stop fighting about. Not until they start breeding a sexless dog - and that'll be a whole new thing to start fighting about! haha!

Joan in Halifax