Councillor's "animal Killers" Claims Puts Pet Desexing I

[NoKillAustralia]

What a load of crap.

Couldn't agree more. The first step to no pets and the one's which will suffer (die) are the dogs.

So, you support the breeding of crossbreeds for "pets" - what's wrong with purebreds?

Nothing providing it's done correctly. PDE showed it isn't, unlike your beutiful darlings PF. Are they just sow ponies or do u do agility with them? (Off topic I know)

[NoKillAustralia]

Two reason's I have heard a lot for NOT desexing an animal is:

1. Too expensive

2. Can't be bothered

And yes I know there are others, like those who show animals and registered breeders, so enforcing desexing is not the answer nor is being penalised for not doing so.

So why can't the councils for each area and the vets of the animal owners choice both come to the party and do the desexing at a discount, both donating towards some of the costs involved, so the initial outlay for the owner is not such a huge burden as it is for some people. There would be more desexed animals then there are atm.

Of course there will always be people who want an animal but still don't give a toss about its health or desexing, but these kind of people are the ones that never seem to get caught, and they continually do things that affect others.

Bluefairy

Excellent suggestion. Mandatory laws don't work and simply end up killing dogs.

[SpikesPuppy]

I agree with ML I think it's a great solution, anyone who really wants to keep their dogs entire can do so they just have to fork out the extra cash. Council will enforce it because it's great for revenue, has the dual purpose of collecting breeder registration fees and reducing the costs associated with poundies. If people wont fork out $300 for a breeder license they aren't going to fork out however much in vet fees anyway so I really doubt it's going to make much difference there.

Another $300 on top of CC registration, shows, super premium diet, chiropractic treatment to keep dogs in tip top shape, entry fees etc???? It may not seem a lot to you but for exhibitors and sometime breeders, it's a HUGE extra expense. I would much rather spend that on spoiling my dogs.

And for those who never intend to breed but choose to keep their dogs entire for other reasons (educated to the possible dangers, exhibit, working animals, dogs who cannot be desexed due to health issues, etc) it's alot of money.....

[Kissindra]

I agree with ML I think it's a great solution, anyone who really wants to keep their dogs entire can do so they just have to fork out the extra cash. Council will enforce it because it's great for revenue, has the dual purpose of collecting breeder registration fees and reducing the costs associated with poundies. If people wont fork out $300 for a breeder license they aren't going to fork out however much in vet fees anyway so I really doubt it's going to make much difference there.

Another $300 on top of CC registration, shows, super premium diet, chiropractic treatment to keep dogs in tip top shape, entry fees etc???? It may not seem a lot to you but for exhibitors and sometime breeders, it's a HUGE extra expense. I would much rather spend that on spoiling my dogs.

And for those who never intend to breed but choose to keep their dogs entire for other reasons (educated to the possible dangers, exhibit, working animals, dogs who cannot be desexed due to health issues, etc) it's alot of money.....

the people in this category would not be up for paying the money.

I think the councillor gives a damn about dogs - which is to be encouraged, but I also think they need someone to have a word to explain some points. Would be good for people in the area to get in contact.

[MolassesLass]

And for those who never intend to breed but choose to keep their dogs entire for other reasons (educated to the possible dangers, exhibit, working animals, dogs who cannot be desexed due to health issues, etc) it's alot of money.....

It would be and completely unnecessary - why would you buy a breeding permit and then not breed?

Pertinent part of the article:

The new rules will mean anyone wanting thier pet to have a litter will be forced to pay $300.00 plus for a breeder's license. Compulsory desexing is not included in the new Local law.

Edited February 25, 2010 by molasseslass

[WreckitWhippet]

I agree with ML I think it's a great solution, anyone who really wants to keep their dogs entire can do so they just have to fork out the extra cash. Council will enforce it because it's great for revenue, has the dual purpose of collecting breeder registration fees and reducing the costs associated with poundies. If people wont fork out $300 for a breeder license they aren't going to fork out however much in vet fees anyway so I really doubt it's going to make much difference there.

You'd think that idea would work but it doesn't. Take the ACT for example, you pay extra to keep an animal entire, yet the pound is still seeing a large numbers of entire dogs and dogs that are not even registered.

It makes not an ounce of difference to those who do not intend to do the right thing and it's just another cost and piece of red tape for those who do are responsible with their animals and wish to keep them entire.