Do you think it should be legally require for non-animal breeders to "fix" their cats and dogs?

Question

I'm just curious. If the animals are not pure-bred and you have no reason or plans to breed them (these plans would have to be put in writing), should you be legally required to spay or neuter them?

Just to be clear: I would never own a cat or dog without spaying or neutering it. I think it is a part of responsible pet ownership. But, there currently is no legal stance on it. What do you think?

Sorry about the typo in the heading--legally required is what I meant. It's very early in the morning here; I am usually very good at catching those things.

Answer 1

Yes it should be a requirement. One small city in northern KY does have a spay neuter ordinance and it is helping. THe fines are also helping the county shelter rescue and save more animals.

Answer 2

I completely agree, but it would never work with America. It is already being practiced to some extent in Germany with horses to keep only the best traits in breeding- if your horse doesn't pass the inspection as a good reprsentative of that breed, it gets gelded. Americans would go on about their free right to breed animals (no matter how many extra we have around) and it would cost billions to maintain, and someone would have to pay the cost for spaying. If the rules hypothetically pass, I would say the breeder would have to pay to spay/nueter them.
I do have an issue with the purebred thing however. You can have great dogs that are mutts (some prized hunting dogs are, for example). I would change the hypothetical law to say that any dog, of whatever background, must prove that it is a good representation of the dog species with intent to breed (ie some inspections).

The concept- I love it, especially requiring cats (many more homeless cats than dogs), but feasibly possible in the US? I don't think so.

Answer 3

While on the surface it sounds tempting, there are several problems.

For instance, people have financial problems, and so might not be able to afford the operation. So resources should be made available to them.

And then if they can't, they might even try to claim that the critter isn't theirs so they don't have to be responsible.

And of course, it will do nothing about the illegal puppy and kitten mills, or the people who actually mean well and think that their females should be allowed to have one litter before they're fixed (which is a bunch of Malarckey). Or who think that letting their kids witness 'The Miracle Of Birth' would be good.

No, I don't think that requiring spaying and neutering is a good idea. However, tax breaks for the people who do might encourage it.

Answer 4

i don't think its choose with some people i think its the price that puts a lot of people off . I know if your unemployed you can get help but £150 for the spay of a small dog is a lot for even the people that work.if they made it a legal requirement then i think a lot more dogs would be dumped and at the moment there is enough in dogs homes without adding to it

Answer 5

I agree with you. Legislastion needs to be passed to stop indiscriminate breeding. When you see all the poor dogs and cats in shelters desperately needing homes, I think it is wicked to allow non-registered breeding. when I worked in kennels, any puppy sold had to be spayed, new owners had to sign a contract stating that this would be done, and provide a vets' letter stating it had been carried out. If not my boss retained the right to remove the dog. He was very strict and absolutely worshipped dogs. Best guy I ever trained with.

Answer 6

No, I don't think it should be mandatory. I believe it IS part of responsible pet ownership, but I'm also a big proponent of personal freedoms, rights, and responsibilities. I don't think the government should force people to be responsible.

It wasn't too long ago that 'mentally deficient' PEOPLE were sterilized because it wasn't 'responsible' to give them the right to reproduce. While pets don't have any legal rights themselves, the owners do. Right now a person might not have any intention of breeding their non-purebred dog, but there's nothing to say that might not change in the future.

Answer 7

I think I already live in the most restricted "free country" in the world, and some things should be our choice.

I think animals that are not to be used to better a breed/species should be spayed/neutered. however I do not believe I should be required by law to do so.

Answer 8

Yes I definitely would like to see a law like that in place. However, cost and availability of vets are going to be the limiting factors. I know a lot of people that don't get their animals fixed just because they don't have the money.

Also, I don't think that the only exception for breeders should be "pure breeds." I like mutts.

=)

Answer 9

Grapes, raisins, seeds and pits are all considered toxic to dogs. You can however give your dog slices of apple, seedless orange, etc. The fact that these people who are feeding their dogs fruits that are considered harmful and the dogs are still fine would be because it takes time for some things to damage the body. For instance, grapes are known to cause kidney failure. This does not occur over-night. It takes time and prolonged exposure for effects of the toxin to show. For example: A smoker who just started smoking doesn't instantly die of lung cancer. It takes time for the body to show the long term affects.

Answer 10

Cats? Yes. The world doesn't need anymore of those vermin. As for dogs, I think that it's the choice of the owner. I have a dog and I'm not a breeder. That doesn't mean that I should spay my animal. I may want her to have pups someday. It is the purpose of every living thing to procreate. That's what we do, pass on our genes. It's no different with animals. Are there irresponsible pet owners whose dogs get pregnant? Yes! Should they spay them because they are outside dogs or in an environment where they could get pregnant? Probably. But no one has the right to tell me I need to spay my dog.