Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: De-sexing

  1. #21

    Default

    How much of your taxes go to drug companies for lethabarb that gets used at the local pound? Did you know that animal body bags cost over a dollar each? How fast does that add up? Vet fees for pts days?

    And guess who gets to pay for it. Renovate the local pound? There's a good couple of hundred grand. Or more - a new pound facility starts at about 5 million. Each ranger - 50k a year in salary alone, without super or insurance, or vehicles etc. How many more do we need?

    The point is, the majority of unwanted pets come from uncontrolled breeding of pets. Is there a better way for governments to spend some of the funding that is constantly being funnelled into this problem? Or is the system as good as it gets right here and now?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    The fact is, the amount of unwanted dogs comes from irrsponsible ownership.

    Desexing is really not the issue because an irresponsible owner is not going to get their dog desexed whether it is subsidised or not.

    Disclaimer: I dont assume all owners with entire dogs are irresponsible (obviously as I have an entire dog)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Yeah, they're Pugs Hyacinth. It is me who needs the training. I am too lax with them and it is hard because they adore people.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nattylou View Post
    How much of your taxes go to drug companies for lethabarb that gets used at the local pound? Did you know that animal body bags cost over a dollar each? How fast does that add up? Vet fees for pts days?

    And guess who gets to pay for it. Renovate the local pound? There's a good couple of hundred grand. Or more - a new pound facility starts at about 5 million. Each ranger - 50k a year in salary alone, without super or insurance, or vehicles etc. How many more do we need?

    The point is, the majority of unwanted pets come from uncontrolled breeding of pets. Is there a better way for governments to spend some of the funding that is constantly being funnelled into this problem? Or is the system as good as it gets right here and now?
    My taxes possibly do cover all those things. Fact is though, DESEXING DOES NOT STOP THIS.

    I can not state that enough. DESEXING DOES NOT STOP DOGS DYING IN POUNDS.

    I wish there was proof. I wish it was true. BUT IT ISN'T!

    Desexing is NOT the answer.

    I will not pay for the luxury of dog ownership. Simple. I would rather pay for law enforcement than desexing.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    I outright REFUSE and OBJECT to my taxes paying for people to have the luxury of owning a dog and then having it desexed.
    I outright REFUSE and OBJECT to my taxes paying for people to procreate... Oh wait, I can't pick and choose what they go to and it doesn't matter who I vote for because they'll all do this anyway!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Having children is a social issue AngelanBatty. It is nothing to do with dog ownership or desexing which is a want, not a need.

    Would people willingly pay for cat owners to desex their cats?
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    @ Villain and Flirtt

    Ten points to you!
    Glad you got that as I meant it

    My dogs, too are veritable ratbags with sometimes atrocious recall...

    Sorry, OT!!

  8. #28

    Default

    Since when is having children simply a need?

    That is a want as well. Yes in order for people to continue into the future procreation is a necessity, and if those people want pets then there will still be a requirement for breeders.

    I see absolutely no reason why I should contribute to schooling programs, the baby bonus crap or anything else when I will never have children. And, for the record, I would rather see my taxes go toward animal welfare causes than to those for children of any circumstance.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    My taxes possibly do cover all those things. Fact is though, DESEXING DOES NOT STOP THIS.

    I can not state that enough. DESEXING DOES NOT STOP DOGS DYING IN POUNDS.

    I wish there was proof. I wish it was true. BUT IT ISN'T!

    Desexing is NOT the answer.

    I will not pay for the luxury of dog ownership. Simple. I would rather pay for law enforcement than desexing.
    Anne is right. Desexing does not stop dogs dying in pounds. BUT desexing does reduce dog population numbers, surely? And if population decreases, then shouldn't pound specific populations similarly decrease? And if pounds have fewer animals, shouldn't the number of dogs being PTS decrease, too?

    I agree A+B doesn't = C, but it stands to reason that desexing is a factor, yes?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I am not sure how the equations stack up Villian. I can only judge by the statistics and studies that have been undertaken and collated.

    I wnet on a determined search, in order to push a point about the benefits of desexing and it slowly dawned on me that I was barking up the wrong tree. I had been duped. I had wholeheartedly believed that desexing was a key issue in welfare.

    It isn't. We are wasting time, money and resources in pushing for stronger laws and or mandatory desexing to help stop dogs dying in pounds and shelters.

    Sure, desexing may stop a dog producing more puppies. It ceetainly redcues the risk of them being picked up and owned for breeding purposes and accidental matings, but it does not stop or redcue the numbers of dogs being discarded.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •