Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: De-sexing

  1. #31

    Default

    Sheesh. try not to let logic or rationality get in the way of self righteous arguments.

    As excessive quantities of domestic animals evidently come from somewhere, we can safely assume that somewhere is most likely to be entire parent animals. Right? Whether we research or not, it is a basic fact of science and nature.

    So, effectively sterilising those entire animals will reduce the potential for the production of offspring, so beginning a reduction in population numbers. If they are not bred, they cannot be discarded.

    The key word here is effective. The sterilisation of entire animals has to be at such a high percentage that breeding activities are actually slowed or ceased.

    I have no idea of the extent of your research Anne, but a prime example of an effective sterilisation program upong population reduction and control was undertaken by the North Carolina group "Outer Banks Spay/Neuter Fund" program called TNR (Trap-Neuter-Return - try googling that one for some initial research) which began in 1994 in an attempt to control a feral cat population.

    This program was opposed and condemmed by groups such as the SPCA, HSUS and PETA alike.

    The proponents of that program persevered, and TNR is now successfully used to reduce feral cat numbers, and reduce feral cat destructions in many areas.

    So if effective sterilsation programs can have a direct effect on the numbers of unwanted animals breeding and being destroyed in a feral population, imagine how well they could work if effectively implemented into a population under human control, which further controls breeding behaviour!

    If the originators of TNR had said "But desexing isn't part of the answer, more desexing does not contribute to the production of less unwanted animals" etc etc would those programs have ever had a chance to succeed??

    Increased sterilisation of non-breeding animals is one piece of the puzzle in reducing the next generation of unwanted domestic animals. It just needs to be implemented at a level that makes it effective in creating that reduction. Making it more and more accessible is one way of increasing it's potential effectiveness.

    Saying "I can't", "It won't work" etc etc, never solved anything.

    As for objecting to what your taxes fund, you can go your hardest. I object to my taxes being used to house and provide for recidivist paedolphiles and mass murderers in the justice system, or subsidising methadone for recovering addicts. But I haven't yet seen a little box on my tax forms that lets me tick for where and when that money gets spent. It will get spent where is has to be spent, whether we like it or not.

  2. #32

    Default

    $300 does seem a bit excessive, for a female stafford not in season we pay about $180 and the males are a little less... maybe you can find a vet that is cheaper... there are also some councils that offer discounts to health card holders.... atm Wangaratta pound is offering cheap desexing for example... desexing is done for various reason other than unwanted puppies... it greatly reduces the risk of some cancers... and offers your dog life without unwanted hormonal changes.....

  3. #33

    Default

    My bitch was done for $180, my male was $130.

    I had my male done because of his incessant marking in the house and because I had an intact male show dog coming.
    He hasn't marked in the house once since he was neutered 2 years ago and I have had no territorial problems or fighting.

    I will desex any pet dogs or bitches I have here. I don't want to have to put up with whining from males because they can smell a bitch in season or bitches bleeding everywhere twice a year.

    It's not that I don't trust my ability to keep them separated... it's just more convenient.

    I don't expect the government to pay for me to desex my dogs, if I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't have bought them in the first place.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nattylou View Post
    Sheesh. try not to let logic or rationality get in the way of self righteous arguments.
    Self-righteous? Nice Natty, real nice. Lets throw out veiled petty comments when someone has an opposing argument.

    There is simply no proof to support your arguments, only assumptions and sheep.

    Instead of making your assumptions, produce EVIDENCE that CLEARLY SHOWS DESEXING MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Provide evidence that shows that numbers in pound reduce when widespread and or mandatory desexing is introduced.

    Every document and study I have found shows there is no difference to numbers of dogs in shelters when desexing measures are introduced.

    Provide evidence while you are at it that there is an 'excessive' number of animals?

    We routinely kill animals because we can. We dump them because we can.

    As for cats - different species and a different topic altogether. I support widespread desexing of cats, amongst other measures, in order to rectify the issues we see in cat population numbers and health across Australia. As you have clearly stated above, there is AMPLE evidence to support widespread desexing of cats. THERE IS NONE THAT SHOW THE SAME FOR DOGS!

    Animal welfare in Australia at times seem to be moving towards an animal activist momentum and the thought of this concerns me.

    I would rather the pet owning population understand the benefits and risks of desexing, the benefits and energy required to own a dog and the financial considerations of that ownership. I would rather that pets remain a luxury and not a given right to own. I would rather that the pet owning public, 90% of whom are responsible and caring, be given the choice to do desex or not.

    Lastly, I would rather not have my tax money go towards paying for someone to own what I consider a luxury and a responsibility, a pet.
    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. #35
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    By all means though Natty, if you have evidence that supports your argument, please show me. I am currently putting together another paper to have policies changed to include desexing of animals impouned and resold. I would LOVE to be able to show further evidence to support why this should be so.
    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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    And, for the record, I would rather see my taxes go toward animal welfare causes than to those for children of any circumstance.
    I'd rather my taxes go towards humans and the society we live in. Health, transport and education amongst other things. I am taxed heavily enough just with these issues, without adding more burden to it by allowing people to own pets and not be 100% financially responsible for them.
    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. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Rockhampton
    Posts
    622

    Default

    here the local animal rescue group offers a subsidy for desexing to low-income earners. That I'm ok with as they're a private group and receive no government funds.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    I'd rather my taxes go towards humans and the society we live in. Health, transport and education amongst other things. I am taxed heavily enough just with these issues, without adding more burden to it by allowing people to own pets and not be 100% financially responsible for them.
    Yes because that was exactly my point....

    To recap... My point was our taxes go wherever the government decides it is to go.

    I don't like paying for other people to have children. I would rather see off shore funding going towards helping our homeless etc. I would rather see the issues that we have here in our country eradicated before we jump in to 'fix' other countries issues. That doesn't happen. It's a pipe dream. Once the issues in our country are solved then we can go on and conquer the rest.

    There is NO proof (that I can find, nor that I am aware of) that backs your statements that compulsory desexing wouldn't ease the problem that we have with pounds. Can you show me the proof of compulsory desexing not solving the over population problem please? I am aware that you don't believe there is one, so here's some numbers for you: between 2009 - 2010 the RSPCA alone recieved 159,007 animals? Of those 68,746 were dogs. Of those dogs 24,223 were reclaimed, 19,007 were rehomed and 20,177 were euthanised.

    If there wasn't an issue with it, the euthanasia rate would be MUCH lower. Yes some would have been euth'd still but that is because they are not suitable for pets, or due to severe health problems. There were 38,642 cats & kittens euthanised too. Most are euthed because of behaviour problems (over 10,000 in that period).

    http://www.rspca.org.au/assets/files...s2009-2010.pdf

    There's the report if you don't believe the numbers. It's on page 2. That's the RSPCA alone too btw. That's not nationwide or statewide, that is just the national number for ONE organisation. How may rescues/pounds/animal facilities are there in this country?

    There are a multitude of things that need to change. For starters pets being seen as a commodity, people being held responsible for their pets and the pets they've produced, and people actually socialising, training and treating their dogs as part of the family. That's just for a start.

    The reason there is no solid data to back what you are saying is because there are NO tests that have been done to check it. The tests have been done with hundreds of feral cats all around Australia and the results of those speak for themselves. Nothing has been done in this regard with dogs. How do we provide you with data that doesn't exist?

  9. #39

    Default

    The national desexing network (National Desexing Network | Home) provides low cost desexing for low income earners.

    My council provides cheaper registration for desexed animals.

    I certainly don't need another tax.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    Yes because that was exactly my point....

    To recap... My point was our taxes go wherever the government decides it is to go.

    I don't like paying for other people to have children. I would rather see off shore funding going towards helping our homeless etc. I would rather see the issues that we have here in our country eradicated before we jump in to 'fix' other countries issues. That doesn't happen. It's a pipe dream. Once the issues in our country are solved then we can go on and conquer the rest.
    Yes, I understand that we have no choice. However, the fundamental and MAJOR difference is that these issues are all SOCIAL ISSUES.

    Desexing a dog is not.

    There is NO proof (that I can find, nor that I am aware of) that backs your statements that compulsory desexing wouldn't ease the problem that we have with pounds. Can you show me the proof of compulsory desexing not solving the over population problem please? I am aware that you don't believe there is one, so here's some numbers for you: between 2009 - 2010 the RSPCA alone recieved 159,007 animals? Of those 68,746 were dogs. Of those dogs 24,223 were reclaimed, 19,007 were rehomed and 20,177 were euthanised.
    Sorry, but quoting death rates at the RSPCA does not show anything. It shows how many dogs are killed. It bears no relevance on statistics in areas with mandatory desexing.

    As a rescuer, I am more than aware of how many dogs die across Australia each year.

    If there wasn't an issue with it, the euthanasia rate would be MUCH lower. Yes some would have been euth'd still but that is because they are not suitable for pets, or due to severe health problems. There were 38,642 cats & kittens euthanised too. Most are euthed because of behaviour problems (over 10,000 in that period).

    http://www.rspca.org.au/assets/files...s2009-2010.pdf

    There's the report if you don't believe the numbers. It's on page 2. That's the RSPCA alone too btw. That's not nationwide or statewide, that is just the national number for ONE organisation. How may rescues/pounds/animal facilities are there in this country?
    Again, what is the relevance?


    There are a multitude of things that need to change. For starters pets being seen as a commodity, people being held responsible for their pets and the pets they've produced, and people actually socialising, training and treating their dogs as part of the family. That's just for a start.

    The reason there is no solid data to back what you are saying is because there are NO tests that have been done to check it. The tests have been done with hundreds of feral cats all around Australia and the results of those speak for themselves. Nothing has been done in this regard with dogs. How do we provide you with data that doesn't exist?
    There is data that exists. The data that exists is extensive, althugh there isn't much from Australia. We tend to be a little behind here.

    I haven't the files with me at present, but they are there. I am not in the habit of lying or exaggerating.

    In 2013, a report will also be finalised showing statistics of unwanted animals in Victoria (I think it is in Vic, but it may be another state) after mandatory desexing has been introduced. Going on all other studies, there will be no reduction.

    When collating statistics with cats, you will also find that there are several studies that showed cat numbers did not reduce with mandatory desexing, and these studies are Australian. However, I have also viewed several studies that show the opposite, and as I am actually on the welfare side of animals, I choose to hold on to those studies that show it has worked with cats in some instances.

    Interesting, it seems that many here are forgetting that I am a former rescuer. I don't want to see dogs die in pounds. This is precisely why I seek the facts and the truths so that solutions can be found to stem the tide. I don't want to see dogs or cats dying uneccessarily. I will not waste a minute fighting for soemthing that is not going to work though.

    Now getting back to the original topic - I WILL NOT PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DESEX THEIR DOG. Ownign a dog is a luxury and it is not one that people should be beholden if they can not meet the COMMITMENT!
    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
  •