Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinances

Recently, many states and cities have either been discussing laws that require an individual to spay or neuter their cat or dog before a certain age. The city of Chicago is currently proposing such a law, which stipulates that a cat or dog must be sterilized by the age of six months. Exceptions to the law include "breeders," show dogs (and presumably show cats), and dogs or cats who, for health reasons, are unable to undergo the surgery. The goal of this act is to help curb the pet overpopulation problem that occurs just about everywhere in the country and others. However, a law like this will be difficult to enforce, and those that contribute the most to unhealthy and irresponsible dog and cat breeding practices will either simply not comply or be issued a breeders' permit, which would allow them to keep their cats or dogs intact. Therefore, I foresee a major problem with this act, and it's highly doubtful that it will alleviate the overpopulation problem in a beneficial way.
One potential effect I frequently think about in regards to laws like these is the long-term effect it will have on cats and dogs. Hypothetically, if states across the country all passed a similar ordinance to prevent or severely limit the reproduction of cats and dogs, someday in the future it may be likely that cats and dogs could become threatened species. And although people with breeders' licenses will still be breeding cats and dogs, that could create an unhealthy, limited gene pool, which is already a major problem in the breeding of purebred dogs today. The healthiest dogs out there are likely to come from a very mixed background, but it's those kind of dogs that are going to be prohibited from reproducing because of ordinances like these. People with breeding licenses are breeding purebred animals. And speaking of that, what will stop puppy mill breeders from getting a license? It's certainly true that many "breeders" pass USDA inspections whether or not they truly comply.
Also, the government should never mandate a surgical procedure. Even if your pet is a good candidate for surgery, it's still a surgery and has risks. Animals have died from spay and neuter complications. What happens when a person is forced by law to neuter their puppy, and then their puppy dies on the operating table? Will they be able to take legal action against the government? I have chosen for every one of my pets to be spayed or neutered. I would never want the government to tell me I had to do it, though. Another point to bring up is although spaying/neutering can create health benefits, such as prevention of testicular cancer (males) or a greatly decreased risk of mammary tumors (females), they also can create health problems. Some examples include greatly increased risk of hypothyroidism, obesity, orthopedic disorders, urinary incontinence (females), bone cancer, and increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations. Still think mandatory spaying/neutering is the fix-all of this problem? Many people don't realize that these surgeries have negative effects like those I listed above. I don't think I've ever been informed by a veterinarian or veterinary technician about these potential problems. And that's why the government shouldn't get involved in this manner. It's not fair to a pet guardian who wants to make an informed decision in regards to their pet's health. The government should not take that away.

Euthanization of Healthy Animals- Is it ethical?

Ever since I paid a visit to a nearby county's animal control shelter, the subject of euthanasia has been on my mind. The purpose of my visit was the retrieval of a kitten who had unfortunately been brought in the day before. While waiting, I looked at a few of the dogs that were available for adoption. One was an approximately 5 year old female Cur named Candy. She had been brought in as a stray and had been there since December. Therefore, she had been a resident for about 3 months. No doubt due to her lengthy stay and the shelter's limited space, she was being offered for adoption for a fee of only $25, contrary to the normal fee of $70 for dogs. Although the thought did not immediately cross my mind, it seems inevitable that Candy, a perfectly healthy, friendly dog will be euthanized for no reason other than lack of space if she's not adopted soon. In the state of Florida (and in every other state, I imagine), according to Statute 828.058, it is perfectly legal for this to occur, so long as the euthanasia is performed by a "licensed veterinarian or an employee or agent of a public or private agency, animal shelter, or other facility that is operated for the collection and care of stray, neglected, abandoned, or unwanted animals, provided the employee or agent has successfully completed a 16-hour euthanasia technician certification course," and is performed in a humane manner.

But this doesn't mean that euthanizing a healthy animal is ethical. The first thing to do is to consider the ways in which the situation can be improved to insure that no animals are needlessly killed. Ideally, perhaps, a good solution would be the building of more animal shelters to adequately meet the demands of a community. A proposal such as that requires a lot of time and money, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. Secondly, one of the biggest reasons why animals are dropped of at an animal shelter is that the owners are moving and/or they simply no longer want the pet. These reasons are only justifiable if you view companion animals as mere "things" or property. Although companion animals (cats and dogs, generally) are gaining more rights and a higher status in terms of the law, it is obvious that the majority of people who surrender a pet to a shelter are not enlightened as to what it means to be a responsible and caring guardian of animals. Adopting a pet, like choosing to have a child, is not something that should be taken lightly. There are certainly many people who neglect their children in one way or another, however, so it comes to no surprise that even more people treat their pets in that manner. While child neglect is taken seriously in this country, neglect of a companion animal, in Florida, according to Statute 828.13 will only result in first degree misdemeanor charges, resulting in imprisonment for no longer than a year, or a fine of $5000, or both. Neglect of a child, however, according to Statute 827.03, brings about 2nd or 3rd degree felony charges, which is either up to 15 years or 5 years in prison, respectively. Perhaps if animal neglect was treated more seriously, or even if animal laws in general were taken more seriously, the kind of people who would be predisposed to treat their pets poorly wouldn't bother getting them in the first place, and there might be less dogs and cats surrendered to animal shelters. But this is not a perfect world.

There are numerous other reasons why animal shelters across the country are overflowing. Euthanizing healthy animals, however, just seems to counteract the goal of an animal shelter. While it's important that all of the animals staying in a shelter be well-cared and provided for, there's clearly not room for everyone. It only seems logical that the immediate solution to this problem is to create more shelters to house these animals. Why is it justifiable that the animals who have been at the shelter the longest must die simply because no adopted them within the time limit? That hardly seems fair. There are many "no-kill" shelters across America, though, although I wonder how many animals they must turn away because they're already filled to capacity. Whether you're euthanizing an animal to make room for a new one, or turning away an animal because there's no space, someone's always going to lose. This is an issue that needs to considered more thoroughly and shouldn't be ignored.

Having seen Candy 2 days ago now, I wonder how much longer she has. Perhaps she's been adopted, but maybe not. Perhaps she's already been euthanized. It is very difficult for me to sit idly by when I could help her, but then again, a lot of those cats and dogs could use my help. I would love nothing more than to adopt her, but I'm struggling with the fact that it very likely won't happen. If I knew she would be safe from death I probably wouldn't be worrying about her, but it could be her fate. Hopefully someday this sad reality at animal shelters will cease to exist.

Dog Shooting Case in Orlando, FL

Thanks to the report on the Animal Legal Defense Fund website, I just found out about a case that is currently in court proceedings here in Orlando, FL. In May 2008, two Siberian Huskies were found on a ranch in Orange County supposedly bothering a calf, or a herd of cows. A passer-by, Christopher M. Comins, saw the dogs and repeatedly shot them, even when one had fallen and the other one was no longer around the cows. The owner was also not far away and not long after the shooting began, he ran up to the shooter to plead with him to cease fire. There were many witnesses, including one who shot a video. That video can be seen here. Luckily, both of the dogs survived, but one did lose an eye. The trial is finally going to court, with the trial on March 16 and the hearing on April 3, both at the Orange County Circuit Court in Orlando, FL. Comins is charged with two counts of 3rd degree felony for animal cruelty, which is the strongest charge against animal cruelty in the state of Florida. According to Statute 828.12, he is facing a maximum penalty of 5 years and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Of course, he is being charged with two counts.

Normally, animal cruelty cases are not treated as seriously as they should be, and I don't think I've ever heard of someone being sentenced with the full 5 years of confinement. However, due to the shocking video, exactly what happened is readily available, and I believe he is much more likely because of it to receive a high penalty. Let's hope he does.

To read the article on the Animal Legal Defense Fund website, click here.

Furthermore, the 2 dogs, Hoochie and Raley, have their own Dogster (like a myspace for dogs) pages, which you can view here:

Raley: http://www.dogster.com/dogs/797665
Hoochie: http://www.dogster.com/dogs/797639

Responsible Pet Ownership

It really offends me when I hear of or see people who have pets but view them as expendable property, and not as members of the family. Why get a companion animal when you're not going to view that animal as a companion?

Many people adopt pets and later grow tired of them. People need to be aware of the amount of care animals require. Not just basic needs, but also the need for love and companionship. Dogs and cats are not solitary creatures, and if you go to locations where stray cats and dogs are prevalent, you will see that they roam and live in groups. I think it's incredibly cruel to adopt an animal, live with it for a while, and then suddenly drop it off at an animal shelter (or worse, abandoning it on the street, which by the way is a misdemeanor in the state of Florida). Unless the pet was living in terrible conditions and was being beaten, it's probably not happy to have been taken from its home and the people it knew. How do you think the pet feels to be abandoned? Cats and dogs have complex personalities and are no doubt affected by life-changing events such as this. Hopefully these pets are placed in new, loving homes, but that, of course, is not always the case. And it's the animal that loses over and over again. What makes people believe that this is acceptable?

If you're going to adopt a pet, make sure everyone in your family is aware of the responsibilities. If someone in the family, even if it's only one person, isn't willing to care for the pet, then you probably shouldn't adopt a pet at all. It may seem unfair to the members of the family that want the pet and are willing to care for it, but it's in the pet's best interest. Animal lovers should see the logic in that. It deeply saddens me to see a pet suffer because one member (or more) of the family doesn't want it. I've seen it too many times, and it simply shouldn't occur.

Tail Docking and Ear Cropping in dogs-right or wrong?

For my inaugural post, I would like to discuss a bill that is currently in the works in the state of Illinois. The bill, called Senate Bill 139 The Crop/Dock Bill, would call for severely limiting the practice of animal ear cropping and tail docking to medical reasons only. Other reasons, such as cosmetic purposes, would be considered "animal torture." The bill is now being rewritten after its initial hearing, so the new restrictions might change somewhat.

I find the practices of these procedures to be cruel and usually unnecessary. Some breeds, like the Cocker Spaniel, traditionally had their tails cropped in order to prevent their long, furry tail from catching and being injured on brush while hunting. Most people don't hunt with dogs anymore, so the practice today should be obsolete. Ear docking, on the other hand, is done mainly for cosmetic purposes, although I believe it also allows the formally floppy-eared dog to hear better (which would be invaluable to guard dogs, such as the Doberman Pinscher). Despite these reasons, there's no denying the fact that the procedures are painful to go through. And they're also not necessary in the sense that the dog will die without undergoing these surgeries.

Tail docking is done when puppies are a few days old. The tail is then cut to a certain length depending on the breed. The procedure is quick and no anesthetic is provided, although the puppies cry out in pain and distress. Ear cropping is done at roughly the age of 3 months. After the surgery, where parts of the ear are cut off, the ears are taped up in the correct position. The healing process is painful and sometimes the surgery fails.

The American Kennel Club is against this Bill because it would seriously affect the breed standards of all the dogs that are required to have cropped ears or docked tails. I think it's time that the AKC head in this direction. After all, these practices are illegal in the UK. Watch the Crufts Dog Show and you won't see any dogs with cropped ears or docked tails. It works just fine for them, why should the American dog show world be so resistant? Just because it is in the history of the breed doesn't mean it needs to be a part of its future. This bill will never pass as long as the AKC interferes as it has been, and their attitude seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, unfortunately.

I would like to know what the general public feels about a law like this. Many dog show breeders and handlers of cropped or docked breeds are inherently biased, although I assume there must be some who would prefer to not subject their dogs to these procedures. The AKC is urging people to write to the Bill's sponsor and other elected officials to inform them of their displeasure regarding the bill, but I wonder of there have been any breeders or handlers who have voiced their agreement of the proposed law.