Journals > General > View Entry

Jessica,

Thanks for contributing your thoughts. Your points are valid, and you seem well-informed. Potentially, more so than I.

But I would like to clear up a few points, as well as some details that need clarification.

I did begin by stating my background (i.e., non-professional), and that I randomly selected Merced County. The selection was based entirely upon the availability of easily accessible historical data. I did not want to utilized data of less than four years minimum, and Merced was the first I came upon that fulfilled my own requirements. After finding Merced County, I did not continue looking. For the record, I am not a current resident of California.

After re-examining my data, I realize now that I did use the word "pets" in some places where they used the word "animals." Their information used the word animals throughout, including "animals claimed by owners," "animals claimed by rescue groups," etc. It was not a deliberate attempt to mislead, but an oversight. I did not find where they listed animals by species. The numbers themselves are the same, tough they could, and probably are a combination of animals that include previous pets, as well as those that were never pets, including domestic animals raised in the wild.

Your definition of a "problem" is probably accurate, but I'm not sure if there is really a so-called problem with my presentation of the facts collected. I never indicated, nor attempted to imply anything beyond what was stated.

As I also previously stated, Merced County's own statistics showed a drop in euthanasia rates, except for one year during the period used for analysis. Comparing 1999 to 2006, the percent of animals euthanized was virtually half. During those years, though, there was legislation passed increasing holding times for animals, as well as the institution of volunteer rescue programs. Therefore, it's difficult to tell whether pet-owners are becoming more responsible, or if legislation and volunteer programs have had more of an affect in reducing euthanasia rates.

I made *no* mention, whatsoever, of mandatory spay/neuter legislation, though you include part of it as a quote. You are certainly *not* quoting me. You did state that "... responsible owners SHOULD spay and neuter their pets ..." and that's the problem. I believe *responsible* owners have always been aware of pet overpopulation, and have acted accordingly. It's all the other pet owners, those who are uninformed, who continually add to the problem.

The rest of your comment reinforces your concern about forced spay/neuter programs, again, a topic I did not even address. If you actually knew me, you'd know that I believe we have way too many laws already. I believe that special interest groups, often religiously-motivated, or commercially-motivated groups with revenue as a motive, are often behind much legislation restricting our freedom.

And what I find sad is that many, if not most Americans seem quite OK with that. As an example: the Patriot Act. Passed through Congress during the night, with not one member of congress reading it prior to making it law. Though, in the name of terrorism, it strips us of some constitutional rights, and it was a document produced way before 911. Why do you think it was called the "Patriot Act"? That's a marketing ploy. Who would say no to patriotism? But if it were named what it actually contained, would everyone accept it so easily?

Many people think we live in a democracy, and of course, we do *not*. We live in a republic. Our representative government is too big now. In no way am I in favor of more government involvement, and losing more of our freedom.

Again, thank you for your insight.

Thanks for the interesting response... I got the impression from your journal that you were in favor of mandatory spay/neuter (which many zootooers are). I'm glad you clarified that you are not in favor of MSN.

When I read your comments, I re-read your journal and saw that you weren't talking about MSN... although I'm sure people could use your statistical argument as a reason to support MSN. That's why I had to jump in and say something about the statistics.

I didn't mean to imply that I was quoting *you* in my response, it was a generic quote. Sorry about that!

Not a problem. Thanks.

>> "I don't think it fair or accurate to judge the whole country by 1 county's records."

Neither do I (and here I thought I may have been overstated my caveats).

>> "... in ten years ... we will not have a ... pet population problem at all."

Wouldn't that be great? That would be simply amazing. Even looking at each of those years in Merced County showed movement in that direction.

Ten years, though ... considering the size of the problem, that may be just too amazing. I would certainly like to believe that, but I don't think we'll even be out of Iraq by then.

That line should have been one of these (but not both):

"Neither do I (and here I thought I may have overstated my caveats)."

"Neither do I (and here I thought I may have been overstating my caveats)."

I had two dwarf bunnies I trained and donated to a teacher for autistic children many years ago and they were spayed and neutered accordingly. They were so friendly that the children responded by talking more to their counselors in order to play with them as that was their reward for interacting. They were healthy and lived long and happy lives!

>> "... not to do it so early in dogs ..."

I've always done what the vet told me. What would be considered too early, or maybe, better yet, what would be the ideal age range? Also, does the adult-size of the dog have any affect on that? Such as a Great Dane vs a Chi as puppies?

I can only say what other Belgian working dog owners have been discussing about appropriate ages with their vets and that that two years seems to be a good age. This allows the hormones to function normally so that the bones and attached tissues (ligaments and muscles) aform correctly as well as other intricate needs of the body. Dogs sterilized earlier tend to have longer legs and weaker cruciate (and maybe other) ligamnents. I recommend reading the research before making any dramtaic decision. As fra as smaller dogs, I do not know if they feel its OK to sterilize earlier since my dog is larger.

OK, this is the third time my comments are submitted without me hitting submit--especially when I haven't done my spell check --Argghhh....

"While it may seem that interest in early age altering is a recent phenomenon, it has not only been talked about, but it has been practiced for over 25 years in North America. Early age altering usually refers to spays and neuters done between the ages of 8 and 16 weeks instead of the conventional 5-7 months. Attention has recently focused on early age altering of animal shelter pets before adoption. Early age altering is proposed as a more reliable means of preventing shelter pets from reproducing after adoption. Surgical sterilization is recognized as the most common and effective means of reproductive control in dogs and cats. Studies show that, despite economic incentives, many cats and dogs adopted from shelters have one litter before they are sterilized. Owner compliance with sterilization programs is often under 50%, despite screening of adoptive homes, prepayment of or discounted surgery fees, contracts requiring altering and follow up by shelter personnel. In turn, about 1/3 of cats and dogs are relinquished at shelters because they are from an unwanted litter."

Source: http://catvet.homestead.com

NOTE: I attended one of Dr Little's lectures at the University of Maryland. She is a well-known cat expert. She currently sits on the Health Committee of the Cat Fanciers' Association, the world's largest pedigreed cat registry, and sits on the board of the Winn Feline Foundation.

Very good comment. I only mentioned "reduced cancer risk" in a comment at the bottom.

The health benefits are real and very valuable. They cannot be overstated.

Choir or not ... thank you!

It took me a little longer than expected to pay a visit to brightlion.com

That was way beyond sobering. Too bad that those who should visit are very unlikely to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Spay neutering saves countless animals from being euthanised in shelters because of space. In NYC alone 15,768 cats and dogs were euthanised in 2007 for lack of space. Do you know how upsetting and heartbreaking it is to see a completely healthy nice animal being put to death because noone wants him? He did not do anything wrong and now he has to die because of irresponsible humans. Every time a cat or dog has a litter, approximately 4 puppies, those puppies and kittens will have babies. A female cat can have 3-4 litters in one year. The pet store I buy my supplies at has had 4 boxes of kittens left in garbage bins next door in the past year. They always look the same so we can only assume they are coming from the same mom, the same bodega owner. He is not spaying his cat so she has had 12 babies in the last year. The owner then puts them in a box in the garbage next to a pet store, why not leave them at the pet store.
12 kittens needed to be saved.
The other MAJOR reason to spay neuter is health. If your animal is fixed they have less of a chance getting cancer, male cats won't spray, male cats and dogs are less aggressive, females don't have to suffer thru days of heat. Please spay neuter. We owe it to them. Shelters have lots of pure breds so there is no reason to make your animal reproduce.

Did you actually read the statistics above before you wrote that? Assuming you did, your position is not due to being uninformed.

Therefore, in attempting to determine the basis of your argument, all I can come up with is selfishness. I suggest you call your local office of the Humane Society, explain your position, and ask them if you are being a responsible pet owner.

See if you get their blessings.

I don't agree with them, but I can at least partially understand why some people believe that even some humans should be sterilized.

A gruesome--but appropriate--reminder.

I was truly shocked as I pulled the numbers together — it's difficult to comprehend.

I remember when the new 101 Dalmatians movie had a holiday release the year it came out. Many parents thought it would be cool to give their kid a Dalmatian puppy for Christmas. Beginning about April the following year, young Dalmatians began filling animal shelters. I've never owned one, but I believe they can be fairly hyper, and most people didn't expect it, based on the movie pups. So, as sad as it is, people can simply throw away a pet. In any event, a child cannot be a responsible pet-owner ... it's not a toy.

Also, as I look over the past 20 years, there's very little I've done, or do now, that I was ever trained in. Part of my gray matter is purely analytical — it helps balance and contributes to the creative part ... I think. I'll need to analyze that to be sure.

Thanks, Michelle. I spay/neuter all my rescues. My most recent, Zetau (I'm *his* namesake) has not yet been neutered — the vet will not perform the procedure on him due to a medical concern.

It is estimated that "Zee" is 6-8 years old. As with the others, he's either in the house or the fenced yard. If and when it is deemed safe to neuter him, I still will. If nothing else, there's always the benefit of reduced cancer risk.

Some folks will never get it. They think if their pet has just a litter or two a year, who would notice? *That* is the problem.

The numbers are correct for Merced. But, extrapolating those numbers, out to the national level, can only have one of two results: close or not.