Animal Groups Want All Pet Dogs Desexed

[Guest Arcane]

When did it change? When I was showing they had to be entire. Gawd I'm old.

a little while back (maybe 1-2 yrs??) the neuter classes were introduced.

The Neuter classes were added on 1 January 2001, The Neuter Championship title was added on 1 July 2010.

TY

[Christina]

The 33% of dogs euthed in pounds would be old, sick and unsuitable dogs -- as per the RSPCA and other stats.

This is not quite accurate. Of the dogs that are not claimed by owners far more than 33% are euthanised. With cats the figure is much higher

Its a business. They do not make money if they spend it keeping animals until they find a home so a few are chosen & many that are not old,sick or unsuitable are disposed of.

It is mass slaughter really by a so called caring society & absolutely disgusting.

I am not sure if I agree with this or not but something needs to be done.

[Sheridan]

I find it so sad that these people hate dogs so much that they want them extinct.

[LizT]

How is the dog attack mentioned in the story at all related to desexing?! That's laughable.

Because entire dogs are savage and dangerous don't ya know! According to the "experts" anywho.

[LizT]

I find it so sad that these people hate dogs so much that they want them extinct.

So then the only dogs will be those bred by the "Underworld". I can see it now. "Underbelly - the dogs".

These people are idiots. They are so close to the mark but keep missing it.

[Steve]

I don't understand why the dog attack was brought into the article, totally irrelevant. But I do agree that unless you are registered breeder, or showing your dogs, then I think pet dogs should be desexed. It would stop a lot of BYB & Puppy Farmers, plus the people who want to let their little girl have one litter. There would be a lot less dogs in pet shops, pounds & being PTS.

So you believe that the general population should have to do what they are told by a government regardless of whether they think it is what is best for their dog in case someone somewhere else they don't know might have unwanted litters? Sorry not me.

Before we go making new laws about stopping where we think dumped dogs come from to a point where it reduces all dog owner rights to non existent we need accurate stats.

No one has a hard time selling puppies, there is a constant demand for them and none of this is addressing the demand or why people dump them.

[Steve]

I don't understand why the dog attack was brought into the article, totally irrelevant. But I do agree that unless you are registered breeder, or showing your dogs, then I think pet dogs should be desexed. It would stop a lot of BYB & Puppy Farmers, plus the people who want to let their little girl have one litter. There would be a lot less dogs in pet shops, pounds & being PTS.

My only question is why showing dogs gives people the right to keep entire dogs?? People that do protection work should have the same rights, as should people that do herding. Not all these people are registered with an organisation recognised by the Govt but they should be allowed to breed.

Agreed - its about a dog owners rights and we shouldn't be so quick to chuck that away especially when the numbers who do show are radically reducing every year.

[Steve]

The 33% of dogs euthed in pounds would be old, sick and unsuitable dogs -- as per the RSPCA and other stats.

This is not quite accurate. Of the dogs that are not claimed by owners far more than 33% are euthanised. With cats the figure is much higher

Its a business. They do not make money if they spend it keeping animals until they find a home so a few are chosen & many that are not old,sick or unsuitable are disposed of.

It is mass slaughter really by a so called caring society & absolutely disgusting.

I am not sure if I agree with this or not but something needs to be done.

Cats a whole new ball game and should be looked at separately including how many are ferals. There are different health issues for desexed cats and completely different reproductive systems.

Its not just mass slaughter by a caring society - its a complete balls up by how the whole thing form go to wo is looked at.

Everyone has come at it with assumptions and accusations, and demand action without understanding the whole issue and certainly without understanding why it happens.

You have academics in this country yelling about how much better unpredictible cross bred mutts are and touting their assets of hybrid vigour and greater health etc without one small word about how it might cost you a squllion a year to keep the thing groomed, or another sqillion to build a ten feet high fence.

The way they have chosen to educate the public about how to buy a puppy is based on everything but the most important - if you choose a purebred dog you are less likely to get a box of chocolates which you dont like much and which puts demands on your lifestyle you cant cope with .

Some people can live with any old dog but most cant and that is the reality and its time they focused on that - which would make people more conscious of what dog best suits them - then of course it wont do much good if by the time they get it there is no one left breeding predictable purebred dogs.

there is a much bigger picture here and fanatics like this one are calling the shots.

[liverchips]

I don't understand why the dog attack was brought into the article, totally irrelevant. But I do agree that unless you are registered breeder, or showing your dogs, then I think pet dogs should be desexed. It would stop a lot of BYB & Puppy Farmers, plus the people who want to let their little girl have one litter. There would be a lot less dogs in pet shops, pounds & being PTS.

So you believe that the general population should have to do what they are told by a government regardless of whether they think it is what is best for their dog in case someone somewhere else they don't know might have unwanted litters? Sorry not me.

Before we go making new laws about stopping where we think dumped dogs come from to a point where it reduces all dog owner rights to non existent we need accurate stats.

No one has a hard time selling puppies, there is a constant demand for them and none of this is addressing the demand or why people dump them.

Exactly. Where are the stats to support all the claims made by these extremist groups Even the number of dogs destroyed every year seem to change every time an expert quotes the number of pets PTS every year. At some stage the blame needs to be put onto the people who dump their dogs. If every dog was chipped you could track that dog all the way back to the breeder and even the vet who chipped it.

We should try and understand exactly why these dogs are being dumped rather than making emotional assumptions about why they are dumped, otherwise we will waste a heap of time and energy targeting the wrong type of breeder or business and achieve nothing for these dogs.

[mita]

We should all be responding to the official survey if we live in NSW. I did mine this afternoon.

There is some clear empire building going on by some of the members of the taskforce. I find this rather sobering given that there is no power of review over their actions.

Link to survey off this site, think carefully about whether extra regulation will fix people who will never comply anyway, who sell BYB unregistered dogs off the local shopping mall noticeboard to uninformed ill-prepared people whose only qualification is that they have the cash or just the willingness to take the pup away.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_generalindex.asp?sectionid=1&areaindex=CATASK&docu

Good on you! I hope lots of NSW folk take up your suggestion.

I don't know the specifics of the NSW 'taskforce'. But such a group should exist not just for individual members to press their their own agenda. It should be a 'round table' affair where members step outside their own agendas to listen to other perspectives. And there would need to be some review process that oversees their work.

[Steve]

After being involved with their idea of a round table and watching them load the bases and really taking from it exactly what they wanted when they first walked in - Ive little faith in any of their current systems .At the end of the day the loudest noise wins and they have to say they have consulted with interest groups .

The round table held in the ACT where not one single breeder group agreed to a licensing system was used to petition for a licensing system and when they say they consulted with breeder groups the assumption is that it was something breeder groups agreed with . Back then Dogs NSW said No but now they are asking that we ask if it is to be that their members get exemptions. The MDBA is also now afforded the same exemptions so any they get we will get and of course if it is to be we wont knock back exemptions if we can get them - however, fact is none of us want licensing but they consulted with us.

[mita]

I don't like the notion of calling "pets" "companion animals" as Ingrid wanted. It is much easier to ban "companion animals" than "pets". The word "pet" has entirely different connotations than "companion animal".

A pet is a comfortable, friendly, family sort of a thing, a friend, a face licker for little kids, someone to talk to for the elderly and alone .... whole lots of things.

Companion Animals are nothing much, and yes, easily dumped, and easily disposed of forever by wanting to neuter everything and anything.

I'll meet you half-way, Jed....with 'companion pets'. (OK, I know that's redundant! :) ).

Your description of a 'pet', is spot on. I only want to add 'companion' to stress that pet dogs have to be developed to be alongside humans in their lifestyle. And that 'development' is in the hands of humans....the decisions they make about breeding, how they raise, socialise, care for, and train puppies/dogs to be 'companion pets. (OK, I know it sounds clunky :) ).

But it's all those requirements that get left out of media reports and public comments, after 'pet' dogs go beserk and cause serious damage to humans (or other dogs). There's evidence that these dogs just didn't have effort put into them, from the earliest age to the present, to make them safe 'companions' to humans.

But, just because many people are using the term 'companion dogs', it doesn't mean they know what's required to develop dogs into trusted companions. And this OP report is a good example. From a case of (truly horrible) dog against human aggression.....they go right to blaming lack of mandatory desexing and anyone who breeds dogs. Not one word that shows knowledge of how dogs have to learn from humans in their lives how to be safe alongside humans. And managed accordingly.

Nor is there a mention that, statistically, one group of breeders has been found to be more likely to give their puppies an essential base of good socialisation. And so less likely to develop dog against human aggression.

Even tho' I've just argued for 'companion pets'....I think it could be equally argued to bring back 'pet'....as it's a simple and realistic word, which means a very special closeness. Like you've said....a pet cuddles up to children, grans and other family members.

It could even be a potent weapon against 'puppy farming'. Puppies destined to be 'pets' should be bred and raised in their early weeks by mother dogs that are treated as 'pets'. Evidence (and commonsense) is that mother dogs are puppies' first model of doggy behaviour.

Edited May 26, 2012 by mita

[Steve]

I can cope with companion or pet but when they start talking guardian instead of owner I start to break out in a sweat.

[klink]

The government in their wisdom banned among other things tail- banding for dogs' without any scientific evidence to prove that it was against the welfare of the dog and instead listened to a lot of incorrect claims from the anti- dog lobby. These same groups and their supporters are now trying to stop the breeding of dogs, be it ever so stealthily and if we are all not very careful it will happen in some form or another. Proposed licences etc. is the beginning, be aware!

Around the world as mentioned previously in this forum countries have now finally decided that it is the owners of the dogs that allow indiscriminate breeding not the dogs and it is about time we did the same with owners/breeders who do not provide the correct care and attention for their animals.

If we are not vocal and militant about this issue we will all pay the penalty.

[Steve]

Yep and by asking for exemptions if licencing comes in it lets them know we will go off like lambs to the slaughter even though we don't want licensing

The time for asking for exemptions is after what we want is lost - after we had a spit about losing it - too late now - its lost and we may as well have said go ahead.

[moosmum]

Buts its very counter productive to keep saying"one group of breeders' stands out as a better example in all these arguments.

Why do they stand out? Because they have a community of people they work, with,consult with,compete against,peer pressure and readily available information.Thats what enables them to stand out,and what stands in the way of many other dog interest groups.

With every new bit of legislation,dogs are further removed as a "community" interest and pushed further out of the community.Becoming unknown and unpredictable to any one who hasn't owned one....Leading to more intolerance and mismanagement.And finger pointing.And legislation ultimately.

We need unity in the dog world.

Any welfare aimed at preserving dogs a place in society needs to engage that society,not issolate it.

Learn to celebrate dogs as a community and encourage family oriented events where ALL dogs are welcome and theres an incentive to learn from each other.

When breeders say "But we are better and should be exempt" they issolate themselves and can teach no one.On top of that,they create resentment.

They miss out on other points of view that are no less valid and help to keep the the dog community divided and themselves on their own,with ever dwindling numbers.

All sectors are under attack and registered breeders in general are just as happy to see that as long as they get exemptions,because they have set themselves apart as better.Should dog owner ship,and breeding become near impossible for Joe public,pedigree breeders will be more issolated than they ever dreamed.

Every sector can has lots of room for improvement,including pedigree breeders,and every sector can learn from the other,but theres no community or common ground in dog ownership for that to happen. Untill there is,no ones going to HAVE the broader view needed for change.

[Steve]

Buts its very counter productive to keep saying"one group of breeders' stands out as a better example in all these arguments.

Why do they stand out? Because they have a community of people they work, with,consult with,compete against,peer pressure and readily available information.Thats what enables them to stand out,and what stands in the way of many other dog interest groups.

With every new bit of legislation,dogs are further removed as a "community" interest and pushed further out of the community.Becoming unknown and unpredictable to any one who hasn't owned one....Leading to more intolerance and mismanagement.And finger pointing.And legislation ultimately.

We need unity in the dog world.

Any welfare aimed at preserving dogs a place in society needs to engage that society,not issolate it.

Learn to celebrate dogs as a community and encourage family oriented events where ALL dogs are welcome and theres an incentive to learn from each other.

When breeders say "But we are better and should be exempt" they issolate themselves and can teach no one.On top of that,they create resentment.

They miss out on other points of view that are no less valid and help to keep the the dog community divided and themselves on their own,with ever dwindling numbers.

All sectors are under attack and registered breeders in general are just as happy to see that as long as they get exemptions,because they have set themselves apart as better.Should dog owner ship,and breeding become near impossible for Joe public,pedigree breeders will be more issolated than they ever dreamed.

Every sector can has lots of room for improvement,including pedigree breeders,and every sector can learn from the other,but theres no community or common ground in dog ownership for that to happen. Untill there is,no ones going to HAVE the broader view needed for change.

I agree however, we worked pretty hard to get our members equal benefits as the ANKC - we didn't set the system up and until recently there was only one group who could get any exemptions if they were ever on the table. It only means that the group agrees to police their members which theoretically lets the people who are supposed to be policing it need to take a lesser look at them.

In an ideal world it wouldn't be so bloody over regulated and there would be no need to beg for exemptions. They justify it by saying its less administration for members of one of the groups which are exempt from the fees. It doesn't mean they are exempt from having to follow the same laws as everyone else - just means they get a reduction in council fees. There is no statement that one group is better just that one group is promising to police their members and so get a reduction in fees.

[moosmum]

Buts its very counter productive to keep saying"one group of breeders' stands out as a better example in all these arguments.

Why do they stand out? Because they have a community of people they work, with,consult with,compete against,peer pressure and readily available information.Thats what enables them to stand out,and what stands in the way of many other dog interest groups.

With every new bit of legislation,dogs are further removed as a "community" interest and pushed further out of the community.Becoming unknown and unpredictable to any one who hasn't owned one....Leading to more intolerance and mismanagement.And finger pointing.And legislation ultimately.

We need unity in the dog world.

Any welfare aimed at preserving dogs a place in society needs to engage that society,not issolate it.

Learn to celebrate dogs as a community and encourage family oriented events where ALL dogs are welcome and theres an incentive to learn from each other.

When breeders say "But we are better and should be exempt" they issolate themselves and can teach no one.On top of that,they create resentment.

They miss out on other points of view that are no less valid and help to keep the the dog community divided and themselves on their own,with ever dwindling numbers.

All sectors are under attack and registered breeders in general are just as happy to see that as long as they get exemptions,because they have set themselves apart as better.Should dog owner ship,and breeding become near impossible for Joe public,pedigree breeders will be more issolated than they ever dreamed.

Every sector can has lots of room for improvement,including pedigree breeders,and every sector can learn from the other,but theres no community or common ground in dog ownership for that to happen. Untill there is,no ones going to HAVE the broader view needed for change.

I agree however, we worked pretty hard to get our members equal benefits as the ANKC - we didn't set the system up and until recently there was only one group who could get any exemptions if they were ever on the table. It only means that the group agrees to police their members which theoretically lets the people who are supposed to be policing it need to take a lesser look at them.

In an ideal world it wouldn't be so bloody over regulated and there would be no need to beg for exemptions. They justify it by saying its less administration for members of one of the groups which are exempt from the fees. It doesn't mean they are exempt from having to follow the same laws as everyone else - just means they get a reduction in council fees. There is no statement that one group is better just that one group is promising to police their members and so get a reduction in fees.

And theres no blame in that.I'd have done the same in your shoes.

I guess what gets to me most is that there is no other group in a better position to improve the lot of ALL dogs and breeders/interests.For the most part they choose to distance themselves.Dog shows are not a welcome place for any who want to say anthing positive about their own dog,unless its also a pedigree,same as DOL.

Yet the majority of dog owners have cross breds,be they working cross,D.D, back yard accidents,Aunty Socials cute terrier cross.If they could just put some the "dogma" aside long enough to connect with these people as dog lovers,so much more could be acheived.Instead the focus is always on what they don't know,the irresponsibility and lack of planning etc..Very patronising for people who are quite happy with what the've got.

Some good ald fashioned community pet shows,where any old mutt can have a category against the world champion Guatamalan dog of splendour.Allow little old pensioners and 15 year old boys with their dogs to rub shoulders with Brazillian Lizard Hounds.That might start the ball rolling.

Edited May 26, 2012 by moosmum

[moosmum]

There is nothing inherently wrong about deliberatlely breeding cross breds.Its when its not a well informed decision,with the breeder willing to take responsibility for the results,and for the quality of life they will live that causes problems in any part of the dog world.

[Salukifan]

There is nothing inherently wrong about deliberatlely breeding cross breds.Its when its not a well informed decision,with the breeder willing to take responsibility for the results,and for the quality of life they will live that causes problems in any part of the dog world.

Met one of those yet? Don't hold your breath.

And as for the good old fashioned pet show? Why on earth would the ANKC want to organise one. They already allow neuters to compete and frankly my guess is they've got enough battles on their hands protecting the interests of PAYING members - and they include owners of crossbred Associate dogs.

Little old ladies and 15 year old boys can be seen in the ring at ANKC dog shows on any weekend you choose.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Haredown Whippets