ot-pets & responsiblities

food for thought on a monday morning:


Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?


By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: July 30, 2007

Recently a controversial bill - Assembly Bill 1634 - was withdrawn
from a committee of the California State Senate by its sponsor,
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys. The bill would
have required the mandatory spaying or neutering of all cats and dogs,
applying statewide the kind of regulations that have already been
enacted in some cities across the country.

In its various drafts, Mr. Levine softened the basic provisions of the
bill, changing the mandatory age of compliance from 4 months old to 6
months, allowing even later compliance if it was recommended by a
veterinarian, and adding an amendment that would let local agencies
issue "one litter" permits for the family pet. The bill would also
have required breeders to obtain an "intact animal permit."

None of these changes satisfied the bill's main opponent, the American
Kennel Club. The A.K.C. argues that this bill threatens "the right to
o
wn and breed dogs responsibly." In fact, what the bill attacks is the
habit of breeding dogs and cats irresponsibly.

In California last year, 450,000 cats and dogs were euthanized. The
real thrust of the A.K.C.'s argument is economic. Dog fanciers have
been reluctant to bring their animals to dog shows in municipalities
with mandatory spaying and neutering laws. The trump card politically?
Loss of local and state revenue.

There may be better ways than a statewide law to reduce the number of
unwanted pets. But the opponents of mandatory neutering make it sound
as though the problem can be solved mainly by teaching owners to spay
or neuter their pets voluntarily. That might be true, if we thought
more rationally about our pets. But keeping pets isn't about
rationality. When it comes to them, Americans are lost in a seemingly
endless act of transference.

It's apparent in the obesity of our dogs and cats, and in our
increasing spending on veterinary care and gourmet pet food and
dietary supplements and everything else that helps us treat them as
our superconsumerist equals.

This transference extends to how we think about the sexuality of our
pets, which is, all too often, a projection of our own.

Many owners feel a sense of implicit posterity, a kind of family-
values virtue - think a litter of kittens in a warm corner of the
kitchen - in the reproductive potential of their pets.

Others feel what, in America, is an even more basic emotion, the
conviction that they have an absolute right to do with their property
exactly as they like. But too often the result is the same: another
cat joins the enormous tribe of feral cats, whose effect on the bird
population is catastrophic, and another dog finds itself in jail
awaiting execution.

For humans, these are deep psychological waters. We expect to find as
much innocence in our pets as we do in newborn children, which may be
one reason why so few older pets are adopted from shelters.

We want the pleasures of neoteny - the adorable sustained appearance
of infancy - in part because it helps us forget how much
responsibility is involved in owning and training a dog.

Americans are consumers of pets just as we are consumers of everything
else. We expect gratification without responsibility. We see only the
easy pleasure, not the work. The rate at which dogs are purchased and
euthanized in this country is not a sign of our affection for them.
It's a sign of our indifference.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:49:58 -0700, ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

>Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?


As the owner of a rescued Pit Bull, I vote YES.

I would like to see a day where people fight over the privilege to
even own a pet rather than trying to decide which country road to
dispose of the unwanted pet.

All of my pets (2 dogs, 2 cats) are critters than someone else didn't
want. I am doing my part.


Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Jul 30, 7:08 am, Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:49:58 -0700, ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?

As the former director of a humane society in southern Utah, I vote an
emphatic yes! There was such an easy come, easy go attitude there
about dogs and cats. California is a lot better, but abandoned
animals do turn up all too often on the back road we live on.
Les

>
> As the owner of a rescued Pit Bull, I vote YES.
>
> I would like to see a day where people fight over the privilege to
> even own a pet rather than trying to decide which country road to
> dispose of the unwanted pet.
>
> All of my pets (2 dogs, 2 cats) are critters than someone else didn't
> want. I am doing my part.
>
> Dana
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

sage hen wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:08 am, Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:49:58 -0700, ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals

Yes; and if they don't want to do so, they should be required to
purchase a non-neuter license - say for $1000 - or surrender the
animal to animal control. That would cover the breeders and
those who want to breed the family pet and those who object based
on health or "personality" reasons.

Of course, I also think being allowed to have human children
should require obtaining a "parental fitness" license...

FurPaw


--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

ellen wrote the following on 7/30/2007 9:49 AM:
> food for thought on a monday morning:
>
> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?

Absolutely. All of our cats are rescues. In my area a license for a
neutered animal is $5, $25 for unaltered. Not necessarily much of an
incentive to alter to save money, plus, many of the people dumping
unwanted kittens and puppies never license them anyway.

One of our cats was recently dxed with hip dysplasia. She looks and
behaves exactly like the descriptions of Norwegian Forrest Cats I've
read, but I assumed that she couldn't be because no one would have dumped
a valuable purebred cat at the pound. While researching hip dysplasia in
cats I discovered that the larger breeds -- such as NFCs -- are screened
for it as kittens, and Autumn was dumped shortly after the age she would
have been screened. Our gain -- she is a wonderful cat.

Karen R.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:55:46 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
wrote:

>sage hen wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 7:08 am, Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:49:58 -0700, ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals
>
>Yes; and if they don't want to do so, they should be required to
>purchase a non-neuter license - say for $1000 - or surrender the
>animal to animal control. That would cover the breeders and
>those who want to breed the family pet and those who object based
>on health or "personality" reasons.

I am not sure. What does that bill say about breeders?

>Of course, I also think being allowed to have human children
>should require obtaining a "parental fitness" license...

And forsed sterilisation? That's been practice just before ww2 and
some time after in some places. I don't think i want that returned.

R

Ratatosk, Jola

--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

ratatosk wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:55:46 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> sage hen wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 7:08 am, Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:49:58 -0700, ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals
>> Yes; and if they don't want to do so, they should be required to
>> purchase a non-neuter license - say for $1000 - or surrender the
>> animal to animal control. That would cover the breeders and
>> those who want to breed the family pet and those who object based
>> on health or "personality" reasons.
>
> I am not sure. What does that bill say about breeders?
>
>> Of course, I also think being allowed to have human children
>> should require obtaining a "parental fitness" license...
>
> And forsed sterilisation? That's been practice just before ww2 and
> some time after in some places. I don't think i want that returned.

I wouldn't advocate forced sterilization, just use of birth
control until the license was granted...

I'm joking - half joking, that is. I've seen so much damage done
by people who don't have a clue as to how to raise a child - even
well-meaning people, that I wish 'how to parent' was a compulsory
part of education.

The problem is, I wouldn't trust a government - especially our
current US government - to decide what constitutes 'good' parenting.

:-/

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

ellen wrote:
> food for thought on a monday morning:
>
>
> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?
>
>
> By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
> Published: July 30, 2007
>
> Recently a controversial bill - Assembly Bill 1634 - was withdrawn
> from a committee of the California State Senate by its sponsor,
> Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys. The bill would
> have required the mandatory spaying or neutering of all cats and dogs,
> applying statewide the kind of regulations that have already been
> enacted in some cities across the country.
>
> In its various drafts, Mr. Levine softened the basic provisions of the
> bill, changing the mandatory age of compliance from 4 months old to 6
> months, allowing even later compliance if it was recommended by a
> veterinarian, and adding an amendment that would let local agencies
> issue "one litter" permits for the family pet. The bill would also
> have required breeders to obtain an "intact animal permit."
>
<snipping EXcellent article>

YES, and i would add that all adopted animals be microchipped
so that slack owners can be identified when the animal is found
abandoned.

I live in a resort area where the incredibly stupid mentality of
"Ooo lets have a puppy while we're here, then release it before we
go home!" is rampant. Feral cat and dog population exploding. A
pack of wild dogs that undoubtedly used to be pets is roaming the
area and killing cats and small dogs. Locals are shooting the dogs
-or trying to- and of course often just wounding them which is too
cruel for me to think about, but animal control is virtually useless.
They will get them eventually, but they will cause awful destruction
meantime. They just head back into the wilds of the state park.

And it's the x-owners i'd like to sh-.... i mean, give a good talking to.


--
pax,
ruth


Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1185803398.852129.197100
@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?
>

No no no no no no no. What I do with my own pets is my business. If
they want to enact a law that says anyone caught dumping animals is
subject to arrest and jail, fine. But nobody has any business telling me
what to do with mine.

What's next, telling me that I can't have five cats? (I don't, I have
two.) There are already laws in place to prevent people from having more
animals than they can care for.

This really sucks. Yes, there are irresponsible people. But the
government can't make people behave responsibly, and I don't want their
ham handedness anywhere near my babies.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

"Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns997DD222E6E22chakolatehotmailcom@207.115.1 7.102...
> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1185803398.852129.197100
> @z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?
> >
>
> No no no no no no no. What I do with my own pets is my business. If
> they want to enact a law that says anyone caught dumping animals is
> subject to arrest and jail, fine. But nobody has any business telling me
> what to do with mine.
>
> What's next, telling me that I can't have five cats? (I don't, I have
> two.) There are already laws in place to prevent people from having more
> animals than they can care for.
>
> This really sucks. Yes, there are irresponsible people. But the
> government can't make people behave responsibly, and I don't want their
> ham handedness anywhere near my babies.
----------------
Are you saying your cats *aren't* spayed/neutered? Or is this strictly
philosophical?

Eva

I belong to a Weimaraner Board and this has been in discussion for months. I
have spent a great part of my life rescuing and placing orphan animals, so
of course I believe in sterilization ...however I do feel for the reputable
breeder who show (Not Backyard breeders or puppy mills) AKC has put allot of
pressure on this bill and it looks like it just might not be able to hold
its own.
I remember telling a friend that I was going to have my Setter spayed(she
was having false pregnancies and we were waiting for he teats to shrink) My
friend said but she has never known how enjoyable sex can be...LOL..I said
most animals don't really climax like we do..they mate because the female is
in heat and mother nature tells the male that they must mate to breed.
Female cats can actually do damage to the male after they mate...she will
turn on him in a heart beat I used to train people at the Humane
Society so they would be able to be part of the adoption team. When I
brought up that all animals adults and young would be sterilized before they
left the shelter. A young girl about 19 or so ...asked what happens, when we
spay and neuter them all ? Then we won't have any more animals out there. I
told her as long as there are irresponsible people in this world there will
always be pets out there for us to save

"ellen" <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185803398.852129.197100@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
> food for thought on a monday morning:
>
>
> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?
>
>
> By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
> Published: July 30, 2007
>
> Recently a controversial bill - Assembly Bill 1634 - was withdrawn
> from a committee of the California State Senate by its sponsor,
> Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys. The bill would
> have required the mandatory spaying or neutering of all cats and dogs,
> applying statewide the kind of regulations that have already been
> enacted in some cities across the country.
>
> In its various drafts, Mr. Levine softened the basic provisions of the
> bill, changing the mandatory age of compliance from 4 months old to 6
> months, allowing even later compliance if it was recommended by a
> veterinarian, and adding an amendment that would let local agencies
> issue "one litter" permits for the family pet. The bill would also
> have required breeders to obtain an "intact animal permit."
>
> None of these changes satisfied the bill's main opponent, the American
> Kennel Club. The A.K.C. argues that this bill threatens "the right to
> o
> wn and breed dogs responsibly." In fact, what the bill attacks is the
> habit of breeding dogs and cats irresponsibly.
>
> In California last year, 450,000 cats and dogs were euthanized. The
> real thrust of the A.K.C.'s argument is economic. Dog fanciers have
> been reluctant to bring their animals to dog shows in municipalities
> with mandatory spaying and neutering laws. The trump card politically?
> Loss of local and state revenue.
>
> There may be better ways than a statewide law to reduce the number of
> unwanted pets. But the opponents of mandatory neutering make it sound
> as though the problem can be solved mainly by teaching owners to spay
> or neuter their pets voluntarily. That might be true, if we thought
> more rationally about our pets. But keeping pets isn't about
> rationality. When it comes to them, Americans are lost in a seemingly
> endless act of transference.
>
> It's apparent in the obesity of our dogs and cats, and in our
> increasing spending on veterinary care and gourmet pet food and
> dietary supplements and everything else that helps us treat them as
> our superconsumerist equals.
>
> This transference extends to how we think about the sexuality of our
> pets, which is, all too often, a projection of our own.
>
> Many owners feel a sense of implicit posterity, a kind of family-
> values virtue - think a litter of kittens in a warm corner of the
> kitchen - in the reproductive potential of their pets.
>
> Others feel what, in America, is an even more basic emotion, the
> conviction that they have an absolute right to do with their property
> exactly as they like. But too often the result is the same: another
> cat joins the enormous tribe of feral cats, whose effect on the bird
> population is catastrophic, and another dog finds itself in jail
> awaiting execution.
>
> For humans, these are deep psychological waters. We expect to find as
> much innocence in our pets as we do in newborn children, which may be
> one reason why so few older pets are adopted from shelters.
>
> We want the pleasures of neoteny - the adorable sustained appearance
> of infancy - in part because it helps us forget how much
> responsibility is involved in owning and training a dog.
>
> Americans are consumers of pets just as we are consumers of everything
> else. We expect gratification without responsibility. We see only the
> easy pleasure, not the work. The rate at which dogs are purchased and
> euthanized in this country is not a sign of our affection for them.
> It's a sign of our indifference.
>

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:9Owri.8758$ug4.5336@trndny07...
>
> "Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns997DD222E6E22chakolatehotmailcom@207.115.1 7.102...
>> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1185803398.852129.197100
>> @z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?
>> >
>>
>> No no no no no no no. What I do with my own pets is my business. If
>> they want to enact a law that says anyone caught dumping animals is
>> subject to arrest and jail, fine. But nobody has any business telling me
>> what to do with mine.
>>
>> What's next, telling me that I can't have five cats? (I don't, I have
>> two.) There are already laws in place to prevent people from having more
>> animals than they can care for.
>>
>> This really sucks. Yes, there are irresponsible people. But the
>> government can't make people behave responsibly, and I don't want their
>> ham handedness anywhere near my babies.
> ----------------
> Are you saying your cats *aren't* spayed/neutered? Or is this strictly
> philosophical?

There's a neighborhood older male kitten who's been hanging around for the
last few months, no collar, I don't know where he lives. Needs neutering.
I'd love to just up & make an appt. for him... it'd be a quick in & out in a
day snip job. Owners - whoever they are - may not even notice, for all I
know. But I'm not quite that audacious. Sigh...

Cathy


>
> Eva
>
>

You wouldn't believe how many Pure Breeds I have had to find new homes for.
Look up online to any breed rescue group...they are often overwhelmed with
the numbers of their breed that have been abandoned or brought to them. I
know all of the Weim rescue groups are maxed. People just don't take time to
learn about the breed of animal they want, before they buy it...then their
cute little puppy because hyper and out of control and they no longer want
it. I helped start a orphan kennels on a AF base in Florida. We had a
couple come to us with their Borzoi and asked us to find a home for him...it
seems they were splitting up and would not have room for him. I had a family
bring me their Rhodesian Ridgeback to find a home for. Cockers were brought
to us allot. I rescued my second Weimaraner from the Humane Society. She was
"Dropped off " because she was 5 and to old to be bred anymore. When the HS
went to spay her the Vet found her uterus was brittle and real thin...they
bred her twice a year...staring at her first heat at 20 months old.
Well I guess it is time to get off of my soap box I no longer rescue
because of health issues...but still donate money
Jacquie




"Karen R." <krez56@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:CCsri.13558$Od7.9484@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
> ellen wrote the following on 7/30/2007 9:49 AM:
>> food for thought on a monday morning:
>>
>> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?
>
> Absolutely. All of our cats are rescues. In my area a license for a
> neutered animal is $5, $25 for unaltered. Not necessarily much of an
> incentive to alter to save money, plus, many of the people dumping
> unwanted kittens and puppies never license them anyway.
>
> One of our cats was recently dxed with hip dysplasia. She looks and
> behaves exactly like the descriptions of Norwegian Forrest Cats I've read,
> but I assumed that she couldn't be because no one would have dumped a
> valuable purebred cat at the pound. While researching hip dysplasia in
> cats I discovered that the larger breeds -- such as NFCs -- are screened
> for it as kittens, and Autumn was dumped shortly after the age she would
> have been screened. Our gain -- she is a wonderful cat.
>
> Karen R.

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in news:9Owri.8758$ug4.5336
@trndny07:

> Are you saying your cats *aren't* spayed/neutered? Or is this strictly
> philosophical?
>

Strictly philosophical. I would never keep indoor cats which were not
neutered - it's torture, IMO. And I wouldn't let a cat run loose
unneutered, either. But that's me, my choice, and the government has no
business imposing their restrictions on me.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:31:17 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>Strictly philosophical. I would never keep indoor cats which were not
>neutered - it's torture, IMO. And I wouldn't let a cat run loose
>unneutered, either. But that's me, my choice, and the government has no
>business imposing their restrictions on me.


Wait a minute. The government would be telling you to do something
that you already do, right? I think the spay and neuter law would be
aimed at the low life morons that indiscriminately breed and dump
their animals. You are a responsible pet owner. So, it wouldn't effect
you. I have no problem with making the ignorant ones take care of
their pets, after all its for the pet's sake.

Have you ever watch Animal Planets series following the animal control
officers in different cities? Every city has a different show title,
but the theme is the same. Rescuing abused pets from their
owners....those are the people that need to be watched.

I still say yes. It won't effect me or my pets. All my pets are
neutered and have all their shots and are on heart worm medicine.
Since all of my critters came from the streets they are much better
off and happier for being with me. And I love them.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Jul 31, 8:48 am, Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:31:17 GMT, Chakolate
>
> <chakolateDeathToSpamm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Strictly philosophical. I would never keep indoor cats which were not
> >neutered - it's torture, IMO. And I wouldn't let a cat run loose
> >unneutered, either. But that's me, my choice, and the government has no
> >business imposing their restrictions on me.
>
> Wait a minute. The government would be telling you to do something
> that you already do, right? I think the spay and neuter law would be
> aimed at the low life morons that indiscriminately breed and dump
> their animals. You are a responsible pet owner. So, it wouldn't effect
> you. I have no problem with making the ignorant ones take care of
> their pets, after all its for the pet's sake.
>
> Have you ever watch Animal Planets series following the animal control
> officers in different cities? Every city has a different show title,
> but the theme is the same. Rescuing abused pets from their
> owners....those are the people that need to be watched.
>
> I still say yes. It won't effect me or my pets. All my pets are
> neutered and have all their shots and are on heart worm medicine.
> Since all of my critters came from the streets they are much better
> off and happier for being with me. And I love them.
>
> Dana
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

i had a feeling that this topic would elicit a good discussion. i
also had a feeling that many of us in this group are pet owners.

if you've seen the detroit based humane society show on animal planet,
then you are seeing the shelter close to my house. there is another
one run by the state anti-cruelty association that is even nearer to
my neighborhood. i deal with both shelters since i am the unofficial
house in our neighborhood for abandoned animals. wonderful people at
both places with very difficult jobs & working conditions. i really
don't know how any of them maintain their sanity when dealing daily
with the people responsible for the neglect & abuse, & the awful
consequences to these animals.

so i just divulged my background bias.

i agree that we should always be cautious about examining the role of
government in our private lives. but i think that as civic life has
continued to erode & the social institutions that have buttressed us
as a society continue to disintegrate, we have been left as a whole
quite disengaged from a discussion on the role of government in a
democratic & civil society. many people want rights without
responsibility &. the politicians are too busy trying to stay in
office by any means necessary to actually have honest dialogue about
government & its citizens. the media has done nothing but further
damage reasonable & more comprehensive dialogue about serious issues.
i have no hope for more esoteric discussion about ideals, values, &
the rest as it affects the systems at hand. (but somehow, even as i
actively avoid it, i seem to know about the sad drunken exploits of
minor celebrities.)


laws help us to create the type of society that we deem desirable &
safe (the protection & the welfare of the group but not at
unreasonable loss of rights/costs to the individual). we already
restrict in communities what type of animals can be owned & how many
may reside in a home. i don't know if vaccinations like rabies are
required, but i think so if we require that dogs have to be licensed.
this is all aimed at group welfare & protection. i have no problem
extending such restrictions to encompass the breeding of pets. it
doesn't seem excessively burdensome to the individual. & it seems
like at some point in our 'evolution' we should better consider our
obligations to other sentient beings.

hope this made some sense; i've been cognitively & spatially
dysfunctional lately. am glad that i own no expensive breakable
objects & have found that i can actually inadvertantly hit my head on
a doorframe...

ellen

jacquie wrote the following on 7/30/2007 11:46 PM:
> You wouldn't believe how many Pure Breeds I have had to find new homes for.

I know that happens with cats also. But Autumn was a young kitten when we
found her -- sweet and adorable and absolutely gorgeous in the bargain.
Very well socialized, also. My guess is that she went straight from her
birth home to the pound and then to the rescue group where we found her.

Karen R.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:48:25 -0400, Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:31:17 GMT, Chakolate
><chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Strictly philosophical. I would never keep indoor cats which were not
>>neutered - it's torture, IMO. And I wouldn't let a cat run loose
>>unneutered, either. But that's me, my choice, and the government has no
>>business imposing their restrictions on me.
>
>
>Wait a minute. The government would be telling you to do something
>that you already do, right? I think the spay and neuter law would be
>aimed at the low life morons that indiscriminately breed and dump
>their animals. You are a responsible pet owner. So, it wouldn't effect
>you. I have no problem with making the ignorant ones take care of
>their pets, after all its for the pet's sake.
>

I don't think forcing someone to neuter/spay a pet makes him/her not
dumping it.

R

Ratatosk, Jola
--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:18:55 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
wrote:

>ratatosk wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:55:46 -0600, FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> sage hen wrote:
>>>> On Jul 30, 7:08 am, Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:49:58 -0700, ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals
>>> Yes; and if they don't want to do so, they should be required to
>>> purchase a non-neuter license - say for $1000 - or surrender the
>>> animal to animal control. That would cover the breeders and
>>> those who want to breed the family pet and those who object based
>>> on health or "personality" reasons.
>>
>> I am not sure. What does that bill say about breeders?
>>
>>> Of course, I also think being allowed to have human children
>>> should require obtaining a "parental fitness" license...
>>
>> And forsed sterilisation? That's been practice just before ww2 and
>> some time after in some places. I don't think i want that returned.
>
>I wouldn't advocate forced sterilization, just use of birth
>control until the license was granted...

It is a slipery slope. I don't think you can force somone to take any
kind of meds.

>I'm joking - half joking, that is. I've seen so much damage done
>by people who don't have a clue as to how to raise a child - even
>well-meaning people, that I wish 'how to parent' was a compulsory
>part of education.

At least some couples do need guiding.

>The problem is, I wouldn't trust a government - especially our
>current US government - to decide what constitutes 'good' parenting.
>
I woundn't trust our politicians either.

R

Ratatosk, Jola

--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
news:vcbua35p4nri1r8hp3a0g1jje3pqff39t1@4ax.com:

> I still say yes. It won't effect me or my pets. All my pets are
> neutered and have all their shots and are on heart worm medicine.
> Since all of my critters came from the streets they are much better
> off and happier for being with me. And I love them.

And I wish every pet owner felt that way.

But forcing neutering is just wrong, IMO. You can't force
responsibility, you can't force people to love their animals, you can't
force respect for animals, you can't force anybody to do the right thing.
All a law like this will do is ... well, I can't think of anything it
will do. Responsible people already do this, and irresponsible people
won't bother obeying the law.

Remember Marilee talking about the guy next door who let his large
aggressive dogs run free? People don't even obey leash laws. And the
government shouldn't be in the business of telling people they can't
allow their pets to have a litter. I don't think they should, but
passing a law that forces it is intrusive and overbearing.

Passing a forced sterilization law will be about as effective as passing
a law that says people who even think of cloning their beloved pets have
to donate an equal amount to an animal shelter. It's good-hearted, but
wrong-headed.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:19:08 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>Passing a forced sterilization law will be about as effective as passing
>a law that says people who even think of cloning their beloved pets have
>to donate an equal amount to an animal shelter. It's good-hearted, but
>wrong-headed.


You are missing the whole point of sterilization.....fewer and fewer
animals. Eventually these block heads wouldn't be able to get their
hands on an animal without paying a high price and being checked out
to see if they are suitable owners.

In my perfect world every animal, including wild ones (I hate hunting)
would be cherished and cared for. Just look at that football player
involved in the dog fighting. He has no regard for animals at all, and
he owned 40? Killed them when they didn't perform! I own an American
Pit Bull Terrier. He is not a fighter. He would have been
electrocuted, shot, body slammed or beat to death just because he
wouldn't fight.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:19:08 GMT, Chakolate
> <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Passing a forced sterilization law will be about as effective as passing
>> a law that says people who even think of cloning their beloved pets have
>> to donate an equal amount to an animal shelter. It's good-hearted, but
>> wrong-headed.
>
>
> You are missing the whole point of sterilization.....fewer and fewer
> animals. Eventually these block heads wouldn't be able to get their
> hands on an animal without paying a high price and being checked out
> to see if they are suitable owners.
>

And that worries me. We've bred dogs to the point where some of them
can't survive without medical help - I fear the day that cats are
inbred to that extent and the "moggy" dies out.


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Aug 1, 12:56 pm, Jette <bossl...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
> Dana© wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:19:08 GMT, Chakolate
> > <chakolateDeathToSpamm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Passing a forced sterilization law will be about as effective as passing
> >> a law that says people who even think of cloning their beloved pets have
> >> to donate an equal amount to an animal shelter. It's good-hearted, but
> >> wrong-headed.


Yes, Dana, that is exactly the point. Easy come, easy go. Why bother
getting vet care for a sick dog or cat, or keeping it from getting run
over, or shot for chasing sheep, when you can go to the grocery store
and take your pick from all the litters being given away at the front
door? At the animal shelter in Cedar City, Utah, where they put down
2,000 dogs and cats a year, they were happily giving them away to any
Tom Dick or Harry. Then there's the research labs, who like getting
all the abandoned dogs and cats they can for experiments, because it's
easier to do cruel and painful things to former pets. All this horror
would be a lot less possible if dogs and cats weren't a dime a dozen.
Les

>
> > You are missing the whole point of sterilization.....fewer and fewer
> > animals. Eventually these block heads wouldn't be able to get their
> > hands on an animal without paying a high price and being checked out
> > to see if they are suitable owners.
>
> And that worries me. We've bred dogs to the point where some of them
> can't survive without medical help - I fear the day that cats are
> inbred to that extent and the "moggy" dies out.
>
> --
> Jette Goldie
> je...@blueyonder.co.ukhttp://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
> ("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:17:35 -0400, Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com>
wrote:

>You are missing the whole point of sterilization.....fewer and fewer
>animals. Eventually these block heads wouldn't be able to get their
>hands on an animal without paying a high price and being checked out
>to see if they are suitable owners.

Sorry, the only thing that's going to happen is the pets get more
expensive so riche jerks can buy them and poor jerks can't.

R

Ratatosk, Jola
--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:06:39 +0200, ratatosk
<ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote:

>Sorry, the only thing that's going to happen is the pets get more
>expensive so riche jerks can buy them and poor jerks can't.


You don't usually see abused or neglected animals living in high
income homes. And I am talking about real pets, not fighting, racing
or hunting dogs.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:36:44 -0700, sage hen <desertnymph@cwo.com>
wrote:

>Yes, Dana, that is exactly the point. Easy come, easy go. Why bother
>getting vet care for a sick dog or cat, or keeping it from getting run
>over, or shot for chasing sheep, when you can go to the grocery store
>and take your pick from all the litters being given away at the front
>door? At the animal shelter in Cedar City, Utah, where they put down
>2,000 dogs and cats a year, they were happily giving them away to any
>Tom Dick or Harry. Then there's the research labs, who like getting
>all the abandoned dogs and cats they can for experiments, because it's
>easier to do cruel and painful things to former pets. All this horror
>would be a lot less possible if dogs and cats weren't a dime a dozen.


That's where I got one of my cats. The lady was standing in the cat
section of PetSmart with a box of kittens and the mother. She was
handing them out to anyone that wanted one. She didn't know me from
Adam and didn't care....just get rid of the kitties.

Maybe mass sterilization isn't the correct solution, but for the life
of me I can't find fault with it. Even if it means I won't have a pet
because I can't find one I can afford. At least the critters will all
be valued.

I am sick of seeing starving animals roaming the highways. My mother
told me about a lady she worked with that came into the office
laughing about the miniature collie she had dumped on the highway
chasing her car when she drove away. She was in heat. My mother told
me that story 50 years ago and I still think about it. Sick, ignorant
people do sick things. If you make it hard for them to own
animals...be it too costly or not available ...that's fine with me.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:06:39 +0200, ratatosk
> <ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, the only thing that's going to happen is the pets get more
>> expensive so riche jerks can buy them and poor jerks can't.
>
>
> You don't usually see abused or neglected animals living in high
> income homes. And I am talking about real pets, not fighting, racing
> or hunting dogs.

Uh, yes you do. They can afford to buy off the press to avoid
publicity though.

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:11:19 GMT, Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com>
wrote:

>Uh, yes you do. They can afford to buy off the press to avoid
>publicity though.


Well, it didn't work for Mr Vick, did it? I hope he rots in hell.


Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

"ellen" <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185803398.852129.197100@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
> food for thought on a monday morning:
>
>
> Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?
>
>
> By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Verlyn Klinkenborg? Wow!

"Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?" ALL pet owners
should be required to neuter their animals. They have no business breeding
their pets. Fluffy's one litter is most likely to end up euthanized in a
shelter because there are TOO DAMN MANY CATS AND DOGS.

"deja.blues" <deja.blues@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IHSsi.97$mw4.58@trndny09...
>
>
> "Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?" ALL pet
owners
> should be required to neuter their animals. They have no business breeding
> their pets. Fluffy's one litter is most likely to end up euthanized in a
> shelter because there are TOO DAMN MANY CATS AND DOGS.
----------------
Don't hold back--tell us how you *really* feel!

Eva

On Aug 4, 4:14 am, "Eva" <EvaDStruction...@NOTverizon.net> wrote:

I wonder how long the southern Utah custom of throwing your excess
kittens out the window on the freeway would last if they couldn't
easily get their hands on more? That's how we got our present cat--
she was sitting frozen on a dividing line, cars going by 70 MPH.
Course, what's to stop them from breeding their own?
Les


> "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:IHSsi.97$mw4.58@trndny09...
>
> > "Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?" ALL pet
> owners
> > should be required to neuter their animals. They have no business breeding
> > their pets. Fluffy's one litter is most likely to end up euthanized in a
> > shelter because there are TOO DAMN MANY CATS AND DOGS.

Bred by too damn many people.
>
> ----------------
> Don't hold back--tell us how you *really* feel!
>
> Eva

sage hen wrote:
> On Aug 4, 4:14 am, "Eva" <EvaDStruction...@NOTverizon.net> wrote:
>
> I wonder how long the southern Utah custom of throwing your excess
> kittens out the window on the freeway would last if they couldn't
> easily get their hands on more? That's how we got our present cat--
> she was sitting frozen on a dividing line, cars going by 70 MPH.
> Course, what's to stop them from breeding their own?
> Les

Cats? or children?

FurPaw


--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.