I don't know why I should expect more of elected representatives when it comes to dogs than I do of the general public. Perhaps it's because these people can actually impact dog owners by passing good or bad legislation. Lately, they seem to be infatuated with breed bans and mandatory spay/neuter laws, neither one a particularly good idea. And I'm sure there are some dog-loving right-thinking (as in correct, not right-wing) representatives out there. But it's the other kind that I've been hearing about.
Back when the Republicans were still vying for the chance to run for president, a bit of news came out about Mitt Romney. It barely made a ripple in the general media, but it sure made some BIG waves among the dog writers. It seems that the Romney family includes an Irish setter. And every year, when the family set off for their summer holiday, the dog would be loaded in a crate and then strapped to the roof of the family car for the ride to wherever their destination. That's right, the dog rode on the roof, outside the car. The Romneys seemed to feel that this was normal, acceptable behavior.
But that's old news, and I wouldn't have mentioned it. . . except that another story about an elected representative and a dog surfaced recently. It first arrived via the Internet, so the facts had to be checked before anyone got too excited. But when the story was confirmed, it turned out to be even worse than initially reported.
State Senator Kent Williams of South Carolina adopted a female German Shepherd from his local shelter. That sounds like a good thing. Until you get to the part where you learn that the dog was kept in a fenced portion of the yard, with an automatic feeder and automatic waterer. Sounds like a lot of human care went into this dog, right? Well, the senator became annoyed that the dog repeatedly jumped the fence and ran away (perhaps looking for a little human companionship?). After several such episodes he turned her back into the shelter, saying that he was worried the dog would be hit by a car. And that's when it turned out that the Shepherd was pregnant - she gave birth only a few weeks later.
There is a state law in South Carolina requiring that all shelter animals be spayed or neutered. When asked why he hadn't had the Shepherd spayed, Williams replied that he had hoped to breed her! Apparently, he didn't see anything wrong with this reply. You get a dog from the shelter and you compound the problem by breeding more dogs from her. Yikes!
This is just one reason that we dog writers sometimes despair, when we chat with each other, of ever having any effect on the problems of dog ownership. When we write for dog magazines, we are "preaching to the choir," as only the more informed dog owners actually read dog magazines. When we write for the mainstream magazines (not something any of us are allowed to do very often), we may get our message out there better, but this doesn't happen nearly often enough. And yet, we keep trying. And maybe here in the blogosphere, if enough of us speak up, we can gain a little more traction in getting our message out.
I've read two studies recently that confirm the old-time "common wisdom" that six months old is just about the perfect time to have a dog spayed or neutered. While some of the toy breeds may actually go into heat before then, most dogs won't, and you can get all the benefits of the surgery without much worry over impacting bone closure or temperament. Yet the most recent bit of spay/neuter legislation mandates altering by the age of four months. Elected representatives, if you are out there and you read this, feel free to contact me before you write a piece of legislation that's going to impact dog owners. I can point you to the science behind the issue and help you craft a bill that might actually do some good.
Showing posts with label spay/neuter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spay/neuter. Show all posts
Apr 14, 2008
Apr 4, 2008
Oprah's Show on Puppy Mills
It's been an interesting week in the media, dogwise. Word started flying around late last week that Oprah was going to do a show on puppy mills. Some of the dog writers were merely interested, some were trepidatious. Most of us probably watched.
But before the show aired, almost as soon as word got out, in fact, several of us received a long email from a man who appeared to be speaking for the American Sporting Dogs Alliance. I have not confirmed that with the organization, but he included their name prominently in his email. He was livid over this show (which had not yet aired), and demanding that everyone boycott Oprah's sponsors, because she was certainly going to get it wrong!
Well, after I wrote my last blog about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you can imagine how well this went over with me. I put the show on my calendar so I wouldn't forget to watch, and reserved judgment.
I have just finished watching the show, and I have to say kudos, Oprah. I thought it was a very fair-minded and, for a lot of people, probably eye-opening account.
First a man involved in rescue and Oprah's reporter Lisa Ling went to several puppy mills. That was combined with some footage from the HSUS. It showed dogs crammed in little wire cages, or larger dogs in small fenced areas in the mud. The rescuer was taking dogs the puppy millers no longer wanted. He often had to carry the dogs to his car because they had never walked on ground before.
They talked about pet shops getting most of their dogs from puppy mills, and the rescuer noted that no responsible breeder would sell their pups to a pet shop.
The show followed some of the dogs that had been rescued, showing them cutting off the chain collars, shaving them down because they were so matted.
Then the focus switched to animal shelters, the municipal kind, and how many dogs are euthanized. They showed a shelter manager going through and choosing which dogs would die that day.
Then they talked about spay and neuter. Oprah's vet was there, and gave some of the benefits of spaying and neutering. The show did NOT encourage, or even mention, legislation regarding spay/neuter, they simply encouraged owners to have their pets spayed and neutered. They talked about free or low-cost clinics, and said that money was not an excuse.
Other that what was probably an inflated percentage of how many dogs in shelter are purebreds, I found nothing in the program to quibble about.
What would be absolutely fantastic would be a follow-up show. On the off-chance that someone from Oprah's staff stumbles over this blog, a look at how successfull education combined with low-cost clinics has been at reducing the number of dogs in shelters would be a great next step. We don't need legislation. The legislation won't have any effect on most of the guilty parties, makes hard feelings with the responsible breeds, and accomplishes little.
Good job, Oprah. And Mr. nobody from American Sporting Dogs Alliance, I hope you might open your eyes and realize that you were WAY out of line.
But before the show aired, almost as soon as word got out, in fact, several of us received a long email from a man who appeared to be speaking for the American Sporting Dogs Alliance. I have not confirmed that with the organization, but he included their name prominently in his email. He was livid over this show (which had not yet aired), and demanding that everyone boycott Oprah's sponsors, because she was certainly going to get it wrong!
Well, after I wrote my last blog about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you can imagine how well this went over with me. I put the show on my calendar so I wouldn't forget to watch, and reserved judgment.
I have just finished watching the show, and I have to say kudos, Oprah. I thought it was a very fair-minded and, for a lot of people, probably eye-opening account.
First a man involved in rescue and Oprah's reporter Lisa Ling went to several puppy mills. That was combined with some footage from the HSUS. It showed dogs crammed in little wire cages, or larger dogs in small fenced areas in the mud. The rescuer was taking dogs the puppy millers no longer wanted. He often had to carry the dogs to his car because they had never walked on ground before.
They talked about pet shops getting most of their dogs from puppy mills, and the rescuer noted that no responsible breeder would sell their pups to a pet shop.
The show followed some of the dogs that had been rescued, showing them cutting off the chain collars, shaving them down because they were so matted.
Then the focus switched to animal shelters, the municipal kind, and how many dogs are euthanized. They showed a shelter manager going through and choosing which dogs would die that day.
Then they talked about spay and neuter. Oprah's vet was there, and gave some of the benefits of spaying and neutering. The show did NOT encourage, or even mention, legislation regarding spay/neuter, they simply encouraged owners to have their pets spayed and neutered. They talked about free or low-cost clinics, and said that money was not an excuse.
Other that what was probably an inflated percentage of how many dogs in shelter are purebreds, I found nothing in the program to quibble about.
What would be absolutely fantastic would be a follow-up show. On the off-chance that someone from Oprah's staff stumbles over this blog, a look at how successfull education combined with low-cost clinics has been at reducing the number of dogs in shelters would be a great next step. We don't need legislation. The legislation won't have any effect on most of the guilty parties, makes hard feelings with the responsible breeds, and accomplishes little.
Good job, Oprah. And Mr. nobody from American Sporting Dogs Alliance, I hope you might open your eyes and realize that you were WAY out of line.
Feb 25, 2008
Mandatory Spay/Neuter
This is a tough one for me. Most of my dogs have been rescues, and I understand the need to keep the unhomed pet population from growing. But I also understand the physiological and perhaps psychological effects of early spay and neuter.
Los Angeles recently passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and I understand that they may want animals altered as young as four months. While this has been fairly common with shelters doing adoptions - insisting that the animal be spayed or neutered before being adopted out - it hasn't been common among dog owners who obtain their canines from other sources.
So how young is too young? Well, four months just might be too young. At a veterinary conference I attended recently, the presenter gave the pros and cons of neutering earlier and later, and concluded that six months, as common wisdom has long held, is probably the correct age for altering a dog.
Yes, spaying before the first heat does greatly reduce the risk of mammary cancer. And that's certainly a terrific benefit. But it also may make females prone to urinary incontinence later in life. And the closure of the growth plates in the long bones (in this case, the dog's legs) is regulated by the normal hormones, which aren't present in the usual quantities if the animal is spayed. The effect on bone growth may be even more pronounced in male dogs.
So this is a balancing act. Shelters certainly have a strong impetus to be sure that the animals they adopt out can't add to the population. But for others to be forced to spay or neuter earlier than the best medical knowledge may indicate, well, that's just bad legislation.
And just in case someone from the Los Angeles city council happens by to read this, I would like to say that mandatory spay/neuter has not yet solved an animal population problem. The same people who ignore leash laws, license laws, and general animal welfare will ignore the spay/neuter laws. But you're probably going to make a lot of reponsible dog owners unhappy.
Los Angeles recently passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and I understand that they may want animals altered as young as four months. While this has been fairly common with shelters doing adoptions - insisting that the animal be spayed or neutered before being adopted out - it hasn't been common among dog owners who obtain their canines from other sources.
So how young is too young? Well, four months just might be too young. At a veterinary conference I attended recently, the presenter gave the pros and cons of neutering earlier and later, and concluded that six months, as common wisdom has long held, is probably the correct age for altering a dog.
Yes, spaying before the first heat does greatly reduce the risk of mammary cancer. And that's certainly a terrific benefit. But it also may make females prone to urinary incontinence later in life. And the closure of the growth plates in the long bones (in this case, the dog's legs) is regulated by the normal hormones, which aren't present in the usual quantities if the animal is spayed. The effect on bone growth may be even more pronounced in male dogs.
So this is a balancing act. Shelters certainly have a strong impetus to be sure that the animals they adopt out can't add to the population. But for others to be forced to spay or neuter earlier than the best medical knowledge may indicate, well, that's just bad legislation.
And just in case someone from the Los Angeles city council happens by to read this, I would like to say that mandatory spay/neuter has not yet solved an animal population problem. The same people who ignore leash laws, license laws, and general animal welfare will ignore the spay/neuter laws. But you're probably going to make a lot of reponsible dog owners unhappy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)