New Orleans is considering mandatory spay/neuter legislation (1 Viewer)

[SidelineSaint]

One *major* concern that I have with the legal requirement of returning animals to owners only if they have been spayed or neutered is that it does not take into account degrees of responsibility. If a dog is repeatedly a nuisance and is constantly getting loose and being rounded up by the authorities, that is one thing. However, it is not unknown for disgruntled neighbors to let dogs out of their neighbors yard. It is not unknown for animal rights activists to go to shows and let animals out of crates. If my purebred show dog had to come back to me spayed or neutered when it got loose through no fault of my own or through another person's action, I would have to be very upset. While I would still value my pet, I would no longer be able to participate in the events that I enjoy with that pet. That disturbs me quite a lot.

Yes, there is a possibility of someone's highly valued show dog ending up at the shelter (I would like to think a very small possibility), but I'm sure there are laws on the books about how long an owned dog must be held before any action is taken. The dog will be microchipped and when this is scanned, they can quickly find the owner. The owner goes to the shelter, shows their breeding permit, and brings their dog home intact.

The biggest thing about this law is that it gives the SPCA the authority to spay/neuter dogs that are picked up when it is revealed that the owner does not have a breeding permit.

 

[SaintBeau]

The biggest thing about this law is that it gives the SPCA the authority to spay/neuter dogs that are picked up when it is revealed that the owner does not have a breeding permit.

Why should a person have a breeding permit if they never intend to breed their dog? Not everyone who participates in dog shows will ever breed their dog--and sometimes they only own one show dog. Why, for that matter, should anyone who participates in a hobby that does not involve weaponry (hunting, gun-related hobbies for example) or use of public land (fishing, for example) require a permit at all?

 

[primadox]

As a breeder of show dogs, SaintBeau is right on the mark re: responsible show breeders are NOT part of the problem. Any dog not sold for show is generally required to be spayed/neutered BECAUSE they don't want their bloodlines ending up in puppy mills and backyard breeders hands, and EVERY breeder I've known has taken 100% responsibility for a dog for it's lifetime...they will take it back, no matter what, because they do NOT want the dogs they've produced to end up in a shelter. They brought the dog into the world; they maintain responsibility for it. And as I've said earlier, these same breeders are key players who support shelters and rescue operations, usually by taking pure bred or mixes of their chosen breed off the shelter's hands and therefore making room for another dog. They are not only "not the problem"; they play a key role in helping SOLVE the problem by being responsible beyond their own dogs. Responsible breeders will pay the fees, but again, I'm afraid the law will not have much effect on the actual problem, as I referred to in an earlier post.

Based on my experiences working in shelters and with dog owners as a professional trainer, this is my fear:

Backyard breeders won't care and won't comply--if they get caught doing something wrong, they are just as likely to get rid of the animals they have and simply get more after they are under the radar again.

Very true. Puppy mills do this all the time. For example, if there's a limit on the number of registerable offspring produced from one female over her lifetime, they don't stop breeding her. They have a stockpile of "phantom" registration forms, obtained when a litter is registered (when you register a litter, you list the number of pups. Puppy mills will list 7 when there are actually 5, register a "phantom" dog, and keep the extra papers). When the female reaches her maximum # of lifetime litters, she immediately obtains another identity via a phantom registration form, and she keeps producing. Puppy mills and backyard breeders will find ways around the laws, and therefore will keep producing more and more poor quality pups.

Now in terms of those who are simply owners with intact dogs, I find that there are many owners who simply DON'T CARE. The dog is a disposable item, period. When it becomes too much trouble or too expensive, they get rid of the "problem", usually by depositing it at a shelter or "taking it for a ride". I've seen it MANY times in my years as a trainer, when I'd volunteer to do behavior evaluations at our shelter. Here are some reasons I've seen people bring their dog to a shelter:

• They don't have someone to take care of it while they go on vacation.
• They don't have time to walk it.
• The dog is an intact female and it is too messy during its 2x a year heat cycles.
• The dog sheds too much.
• The family is moving and can't/don't want to take the dog with them.
• He was cute as a puppy but now he's too big.
• The dog didn't match the furniture (TRUE ONE).
• No time due to new baby.
• Didn't want to pay the pet damage deposit.

Now, if people are turning their dogs in for these reasons, do you REALLY think they'll all of a sudden comply with a mandatory spay/neuter? NO. They'll add this reason to my list of why dogs are turned in to shelters, and they all have one common theme...they don't want to take the time or money to do the right thing. For these people, they will not be motivated to spay/neuter; they'll be motivated to dump the dog.

I don't see the regulations as a bad idea hypothetically, but I do know how stretched the shelters already are, and I'd rather see the time and money invested in enforcing the laws on the books rather than putting the time and money into something that will likely not only have a small return, but will likely increase the shelter population, as indicated in an earlier post of mine. It's simply a matter of allocating slim resources to the most effective places, and IMO enforcing laws already on the books, and promoting responsible pet ownership by providing low-cost S/N, registration days, health fairs for pets, etc., to all, not just low income (since financial ability to care for the dog doesn't mean they'll actually DO it), would be the best use of money and manpower. JMO.

 

[jrdbrn]

All my pets are altered because I don't want them breeding or being bred. This is responsible behavior. What the hell are we supposed to do with all the damn strays and new litters of kittens every two months? Who pays for them to be housed until adoption or put down?

Shoot them with a pellet rifle

 

[SidelineSaint]

Why should a person have a breeding permit if they never intend to breed their dog? Not everyone who participates in dog shows will ever breed their dog--and sometimes they only own one show dog. Why, for that matter, should anyone who participates in a hobby that does not involve weaponry (hunting, gun-related hobbies for example) or use of public land (fishing, for example) require a permit at all?

The legislation states that anyone with an intact dog will be considered a breeder regardless of their intent to breed. This is for simplification purposes. That makes it easier to have a standard to enforce for the dogs they pick up or end up at the shelter. When the person come to get their dog, "Oh, I didn't have a permit because I didn't intend to breed him." Requiring all persons with intact dogs to have this permit make this excuse no longer plausible. Just think how many females in heat that dog who got loose had access to.

Your second question is a matter of rights vs. privileges, if that's how you want to look at this. Owning property is a right but uses of property are limited by law, thus privileges. You have the right to own a car; you earn the privilege to drive that car by obtaining a license. You have the right to own property; you earn the privilege of selling merchandise on that property by obtaining a permit. You have the right to own a dog; you earn the privilege of breeding that dog by proving you are responsible and earning a permit.

 

[SidelineSaint]

Now, if people are turning their dogs in for these reasons, do you REALLY think they'll all of a sudden comply with a mandatory spay/neuter? NO. They'll add this reason to my list of why dogs are turned in to shelters, and they all have one common theme...they don't want to take the time or money to do the right thing. For these people, they will not be motivated to spay/neuter; they'll be motivated to dump the dog.

I don't see the regulations as a bad idea hypothetically, but I do know how stretched the shelters already are, and I'd rather see the time and money invested in enforcing the laws on the books rather than putting the time and money into something that will likely not only have a small return, but will likely increase the shelter population, as indicated in an earlier post of mine. It's simply a matter of allocating slim resources to the most effective places, and IMO enforcing laws already on the books, and promoting responsible pet ownership by providing low-cost S/N, registration days, health fairs for pets, etc., to all, not just low income (since financial ability to care for the dog doesn't mean they'll actually DO it), would be the best use of money and manpower. JMO.

Yes, this proposed law will likely motivate some people to turn their dogs into the shelter. BUT it is better for that person (who already doesn't care enough to get the dog s/n'ed) to surrender their dog than let their selfishness or carelessness produce god know how many more pups. Those pups will also remain intact, and the cycle continues. "An unspayed female dog, her mate and all of their puppies, if none are ever neutered or spayed, amount to 67,000 dogs in six years. Source: Spay USA"

This cycle has to stop somewhere. If we don't do anything about this now we are going to be in SERIOUS trouble.

I can't say this enough, this law is not meant to hurt the responsible breeder, it is meant to give the LA-SPCA the authority they need to get this overpopulation problem under control.

 

[SaintBeau]

Your second question is a matter of rights vs. privileges, if that's how you want to look at this. Owning property is a right but uses of property are limited by law, thus privileges. You have the right to own a car; you earn the privilege to drive that car by obtaining a license. You have the right to own property; you earn the privilege of selling merchandise on that property by obtaining a permit. You have the right to own a dog; you earn the privilege of breeding that dog by proving you are responsible and earning a permit.

I guess my question is "why?" If I were going to breed guinea pigs, would I still need a permit? What about a horse? If I don't need a breeding permit for a small animal or a farm animal, then why do i need one for a dog? And if I do need one for a dog, then how long will it be before you need a permit for others?

Yes, this proposed law will likely motivate some people to turn their dogs into the shelter. BUT it is better for that person (who already doesn't care enough to get the dog s/n'ed) to surrender their dog than let their selfishness or carelessness produce god know how many more pups. Those pups will also remain intact, and the cycle continues. "An unspayed female dog, her mate and all of their puppies, if none are ever neutered or spayed, amount to 67,000 dogs in six years. Source: Spay USA"

This cycle has to stop somewhere. If we don't do anything about this now we are going to be in SERIOUS trouble.

I can't say this enough, this law is not meant to hurt the responsible breeder, it is meant to give the LA-SPCA the authority they need to get this overpopulation problem under control.

The numbers that are created for the Spay USA thing are ridiculously inflated. Do the math yourself, using a three to five year average life span (feral dogs rarely live to ripe old ages), two litters a year, producing an average of five puppies (large breeds have up to ten puppies, but small dogs typically have one to four pups in a litter), and taking into account that only (approximately) fifty percent of those puppies will be producing puppies themselves. NOW, if Spay USA (through figures probably provided by the HSUS) is willing to inflate those numbers, how reliable are they on other "facts?" Over 70% of all pet dogs are already voluntarily spayed or neutered and I'm still not clear how forcing people to spay or neuter their pets will prevent feral dogs from reproducing. The only efforts that will affect the feral population is enforcing the already existing legislation that is in place for feral animals and providing more funds for more animal control officers to do so.

The LA/SPCA is *not* a law enforcement agency. They are not restricted by the laws that govern law enforcement agencies and they should not be given the power that goes along with those kinds of agencies. Many of the LA/SPCA volunteers are either affiliated with or sympathetic to the values of animal rights organizations. Animal rights organizations do not want to protect animals; they are not concerned with animal welfare. Their ultimate goal has always been and remains to this day to "end animal exploitation," which they have always identified with ownership and use of domestic animals. Giving the LA/SPCA is like giving the fox the keys to the hen house because the farmer is taken in by the fox's border collie costume.

 

[SidelineSaint]

I guess my question is "why?" If I were going to breed guinea pigs, would I still need a permit? What about a horse? If I don't need a breeding permit for a small animal or a farm animal, then why do i need one for a dog? And if I do need one for a dog, then how long will it be before you need a permit for others?

Because selfish people can't make big money off of selling guinea pigs. They won't try with horses because of the obvious space requirements. That's a ridiculous argument.

These selfish people are pumping out dogs faster than anyone can find homes for them. They don't see this and don't care. All they see are $$$$. THIS is why this ordinance is focused on dogs. The only logical expansion for this would be to cats. Not guinea pigs and horses.

The numbers that are created for the Spay USA thing are ridiculously inflated. Do the math yourself, using a three to five year average life span (feral dogs rarely live to ripe old ages), two litters a year, producing an average of five puppies (large breeds have up to ten puppies, but small dogs typically have one to four pups in a litter), and taking into account that only (approximately) fifty percent of those puppies will be producing puppies themselves. NOW, if Spay USA (through figures probably provided by the HSUS) is willing to inflate those numbers, how reliable are they on other "facts?"

I don't find this to be a "ridiculously inflated" number. Yes, it's the highest possible outcome, but that was the point. To show people what could happen. The figure is simply intended to show people the potential impact of an intact dog in the hands of a very irresponsible owner.

Over 70% of all pet dogs are already voluntarily spayed or neutered and I'm still not clear how forcing people to spay or neuter their pets will prevent feral dogs from reproducing. The only efforts that will affect the feral population is enforcing the already existing legislation that is in place for feral animals and providing more funds for more animal control officers to do so.

I'm not sure of the source of that figure, but even if it is true (highly unlikely for New Orleans) the other 30% of the people are who this ordinance is clearly targeting.

Yes, roaming dogs are a problem in New Orleans, but in most instances these loose dogs are not feral. We do not have free range packs of feral dogs reproducing in this city. We have loose dogs coming from irresponsible peoples' houses that are eventually picked up by AC. Within a few weeks, days in certain areas, these dogs are replaced by new loose dogs. The city needs to be able to find the sources of these loose dogs, the irresponsible people behind the problem. In many, many cases the location of these people are known. There are just no laws on the books that can force these people to s/n their dogs. This is where the the new ordinance can stop this viscous cycle.

Many of the LA/SPCA volunteers are either affiliated with or sympathetic to the values of animal rights organizations. Animal rights organizations do not want to protect animals; they are not concerned with animal welfare. Their ultimate goal has always been and remains to this day to "end animal exploitation," which they have always identified with ownership and use of domestic animals. Giving the LA/SPCA is like giving the fox the keys to the hen house because the farmer is taken in by the fox's border collie costume.

Are you referring to the nut-jobs at PETA? Those crazies have nothing to do with this. I highly doubt that any LA-SPCA volunteers want anything to do with PETA anyway. AND volunteers have nothing to do with this. LA-SPCA and AC employees do. This ordinance will in no way support ending the ownership of domesticated animals. That is another ridiculous argument.



It's really a shame that people cannot see what is happening in their own city.

This argument is exhausting; and so is working in rescue. Ever tried it?

 

[SaintBeau]

Because selfish people can't make big money off of selling guinea pigs. They won't try with horses because of the obvious space requirements. That's a ridiculous argument.

There are already regulations in place that address commercial kennels. Therefore, mandatory spay/neuter will have no effect on people making money off dogs, given that we've already established that backyard breeders have no regard for following laws. In addition, the small animal trade can be pretty lucrative, especially because people who breed small animals can fly under the radar. In any case, you do realize that there is a huge issue with homeless horses in the United States right now, right?

These selfish people are pumping out dogs faster than anyone can find homes for them. They don't see this and don't care. All they see are $$$$. THIS is why this ordinance is focused on dogs. The only logical expansion for this would be to cats. Not guinea pigs and horses.

I want to see your evidence for this "fact." The truth is that all of the hobby breeders in the United States are incapable of meeting the annual demand for pets.

I don't find this to be a "ridiculously inflated" number. Yes, it's the highest possible outcome, but that was the point. To show people what could happen. The figure is simply intended to show people the potential impact of an intact dog in the hands of a very irresponsible owner.

I'm not sure of the source of that figure, but even if it is true (highly unlikely for New Orleans) the other 30% of the people are who this ordinance is clearly targeting.

That's an appeal to emotion and not based on fact. It has the same value as the scare tactics people used back when Geraldine Ferraro was being considered for Vice President to then-Democratic candidate Walter Mondale. (If the president died, she'd have her finger on the nuclear button. If she had PMS, goodbye civilized world!)

Yes, roaming dogs are a problem in New Orleans, but in most instances these loose dogs are not feral. We do not have free range packs of feral dogs reproducing in this city. We have loose dogs coming from irresponsible peoples' houses that are eventually picked up by AC. Within a few weeks, days in certain areas, these dogs are replaced by new loose dogs. The city needs to be able to find the sources of these loose dogs, the irresponsible people behind the problem. In many, many cases the location of these people are known. There are just no laws on the books that can force these people to s/n their dogs. This is where the the new ordinance can stop this viscous cycle.

Then you're talking about a stray problem, not a breeding problem. Once again, a better use of the money that this new ordinance would cost is to enforce existing laws.

Are you referring to the nut-jobs at PETA? Those crazies have nothing to do with this. I highly doubt that any LA-SPCA volunteers want anything to do with PETA anyway. AND volunteers have nothing to do with this. LA-SPCA and AC employees do. This ordinance will in no way support ending the ownership of domesticated animals. That is another ridiculous argument.

PeTA and the HSUS, as well as other affiliate animal rights organizations, are behind a large percentage of the proposed mandatory spay and neuter ordinances in the country. This fact is well documented, if you choose to look at individual ordinances that cite them. The goal of these organizations is to eliminate the ownership and use of all domestic animals. Believe it or not, there it is. In any case, when I attempted to volunteer with the LA/SPCA and was informed that I was "part of the problem" for owning intact animals, the LA/SPCA seemed pretty hot on the AR message, even if they were not directly affiliated.

It's really a shame that people cannot see what is happening in their own city.

This argument is exhausting; and so is working in rescue. Ever tried it?

Yes, it is a shame. Every time a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance is passed and every time the wording in animal-related laws and ordinances is changed from "owner" to "guardian," pet owners lose more footing to the animal rights activists. It's really a shame that people can't see it. After two abortive attempts to volunteer at two different shelters, however, I stopped bothering to try--no way was I going to "admit" how "wrong" I was and spay and neuter my pets to satisfy someone's sense of justice. I do, however, give money and goods to local shelters and have purchased more than my share of cookbooks, photos, and other memorabilia from them even though I never use them.

If you think working in a shelter is exhausting, try convincing people of a growing threat that they refuse to see as you see the possibility of the loss of your beloeved companions and favorite pastimes looming before you. It's extremely demoralizing.

 

[SidelineSaint]

I'm sorry, but I cannot continue this conversation if you fail to see how unregulated breeding results in pet-overpopulation.

We'll just have to wait and see how this ordinance pans out in the future.

Have a good day.

 

[SaintBeau]

I'm sorry, but I cannot continue this conversation if you fail to see how unregulated breeding results in pet-overpopulation.

We'll just have to wait and see how this ordinance pans out in the future.

I wish you the best of luck with your breeding endeavors. I do commend you for being responsible about it. This ordinance is aimed at those who do not have that sense of responsibility.

Have a good day.

I guess that I can't understand how this ordinance will help with the feral pet overpopulation problem, since you've never explained how it will. I've also failed to see how this ordinance will protect the right of people who choose to be responsible breeders while punishing those who are indiscriminately producing unhealthy or mixed breed dogs. I really don't understand how you can say "I wish you the best of luck with your breeding endeavors" when I've spoken more about my being "an active member of the dog fancy." The two are not synonymous and your response seems rather dismissive.

Do you think that you could clear those questions up for me before you go?

 

[primadox]

I'm sorry, but I cannot continue this conversation if you fail to see how unregulated breeding results in pet-overpopulation.

We'll just have to wait and see how this ordinance pans out in the future.

Have a good day.

I don't think that many of us would disagree that some regulations are needed to tackle pet overpopulation, really. But some of us who have been close to the situation as breeders and as shelter workers are just questioning the practicality of specifics surrounding the legislation, and how, realistically, it will actually help the problem. I just hate to see precious and already insufficient $$ and manpower resources spent on a potentially small return, when perhaps putting those same resources towards enforcing the laws on the books would be a better use of those resources. It's nice to say "require spay/neuter or a breeding license", but without a practical, effective plan of action to implement it, we'll just be spinning our wheels and not reaching those who are at the root of the problem. I'd like to see, in writing, how they plan to reach those who simply will not voluntarily comply (as with dog licensing; it's also a law but few comply) and how they plan to enforce compliance without sacrificing the manpower and $$ they're already so short of.

 

[SidelineSaint]

I guess that I can't understand how this ordinance will help with the feral pet overpopulation problem, since you've never explained how it will. I've also failed to see how this ordinance will protect the right of people who choose to be responsible breeders while punishing those who are indiscriminately producing unhealthy or mixed breed dogs. I really don't understand how you can say "I wish you the best of luck with your breeding endeavors" when I've spoken more about my being "an active member of the dog fancy." The two are not synonymous and your response seems rather dismissive.

Do you think that you could clear those questions up for me before you go?

I've already addressed your misdirected concern with feral dogs: "in most instances these loose dogs are not feral. We do not have free range packs of feral dogs reproducing in this city. We have loose dogs coming from irresponsible peoples' houses that are eventually picked up by AC. Within a few weeks, days in certain areas, these dogs are replaced by new loose dogs. The city needs to be able to find the sources of these loose dogs, the irresponsible people behind the problem. In many, many cases the location of these people are known. There are just no laws on the books that can force these people to s/n their dogs. This is where the the new ordinance can stop this viscous cycle."

And, sorry I mixed you up with the other poster who is a breeder, I immediately noticed my error and corrected the problem.

 

[SidelineSaint]

without a practical, effective plan of action to implement it, we'll just be spinning our wheels and not reaching those who are at the root of the problem.

But many of the people who are the root of the problem will be reached. This ordinance will be implemented in conjunction with existing condition checks, cruelty reports and stray intake. People with questionable conditions for their dogs, alleged cruel habits, and those who allow their dogs to roam, ARE precisely the problem. Again, this is where this ordinance is focused.

 

[SaintBeau]

But many of the people who are the root of the problem will be reached. This ordinance will be implemented in conjunction with existing condition checks, cruelty reports and stray intake. People with questionable conditions for their dogs, alleged cruel habits, and those who allow their dogs to roam, ARE precisely the problem. Again, this is where this ordinance is focused.

If that is where the ordinance is focused, then it need not address breeding limits, since breeding is not associate with letting dogs roam or with cruelty. In fact, I wonder how this ordinance does not duplicate laws already on the books that already address the legal status of wandering dogs and cruelty issues. The issue is one of containment, not breeding. Before we go into "replacement" issues, do you honestly think that people who are so unthinking as to let their dogs wander will really obtain breeder permits or honor the commitment to spay or neuter their dogs? This legislation will indeed target the people who are law-abiding to begin with, not those that its proponents present it as affecting.

I am firmly behind breeding legislation that prohibits people from creating designer dog breeds or that prevents people from breeding dogs that do not participate in conformation, obedience, rally obedience, hunting/hunting trials, agility trials, herding, tracking, or other performance or working events with the AKC, UKC, Canadian KC, or the breed- or group-affiliated working or performance clubs that exist all over the country. I do not support legislation that forces hobby breeders to pay exorbitant fees or fees that are based on the number of dogs that they have or per-dog fees or whatever punitive fees that the community seeks to create.

I would also like to see a clear definition of "breeder" and of "facility." It would be interesting to hear what people think of when they think of the term "breeder" in general and what they think of the term "hobby" breeder. I think that education is key in this situation: breeders are being demonized no matter what level of breeding they do, when in truth there is no single face to a "breeder." Unlike what the AR proponents say, there *is* such a thing as a good breeder and that breeder can't be defined by numbers. I would like to see "facility" being defined in terms of space and scope and restrict access to people's homes, as well as set a reasonable schedule of on-demand inspections if a breeder uses his or her home as the "facility." I think that the power for making decisions in terms of what is appropriate needs to be taken out of the hands of the LA/SPCA and placed into the hands of people who represent the veterinarians, breeders, pet owners, and law enforcement agencies of the communities that make up NOLA.

I agree that some legislation is necessary, but there is perfectly good and enforceable legislation already written and a great deal needs to be done before this extremely dangerous and vague legislation is forced into law. If the ephemeral "breeder" is going to be controlled by this new legislation, then he or she needs to be represented and defined and given the opportunity to represent him or herself. Breeders should not have the definition of appropriateness written by people who believe that even one new animal is one new animal too many.