Is it right to force people to get their pets fixed?

[Asuka]

I just watched on the news the other night that the state of California is trying to pass a law that will require pet owners to get their dog/cat fixed by the time their four months old. If they are caught and their pet is not neuter/spayed they will have to pay a hefty fine. Now if you can be exempt from this law if you have a legal liscense to breed animals. They say they're doing this to reduce the amount of abandon pets on the streets and to stop the overcrowding of pounds. So what do you think is it right for a state to force people into getting their pets fixed?

I live in california and I've seen the many animals on the streets. I have to say that right now I agree that this law should be passed. Because it will help lower the number of pets on the streets and the ones that end up in pounds. But of course I don't think this law should stay in effect forever. Maybe until they get things under control and reduce the increased abandon animal population.

[yahhzoo]

I don't think it is right to force someone to fix their dog or cat because it should be the owners choice, but on the other hand it would lower the population of stray animals. I still don't think it is right unless they would be giving people money to get the operation.

[Vampyrelord]

Sky, zarakiscars, DireCry short posts are not allowed.

Other than that, interesting debate.

/moved

[Asuka]

I don't think it is right to force someone to fix their dog or cat because it should be the owners choice, but on the other hand it would lower the population of stray animals. I still don't think it is right unless they would be giving people money to get the operation.

@Nathan: Sorry about the short post. I knew better.

@Yahhzoo: Now they do help people of low income get their pets fixed for a lowered price, but they don't help people who can afford it but just choose not to. While I agree that it should be the owners choice it's getting kinda of out of hand. Maybe people will start adopting the animals in the pound if they can't find a puppy or kitten.

[yahhzoo]

Yeah I deffiantly agree that people should start adopting more pets from a pound. I got my dog from a pound and he is a great dog. Its good that they do help people who cant afford the operation. Still all the owners who dont want to do it are going to be a problem.

[Guy]

Hmm... I live in California, but I didn't knwo they are passing this law... back to the topic.

I think it's the owners' fault for not caring for their animals. If you don't want unwanted babies, then why let them have babies? I'm sorry if this sounds naive, I don't own a dog or a cat, so I'm not sure if it's that difficult to control breeding habits. Therefore, I don't think it should be a law.

[Monkey_man]

i think it is wrong to make people nuder their pets they might want to have a one blood line from one dog i think they should have a free service when u buy a pet but to enforce it where does it even say that you have to even nuder your pet in us laws

Nathan: Still a bit on the short side, mate...

[M-50]

I do not think that law should be passed. Firstly if you want to lear the pounds and streets of animal, advertise the local animal shelters more so people who are looking to buy a pet also know that they can get animals from there as well as pet shops. Second for any animals like rabbits, foxes aka animals that can live natrually in the wild (I do not know what animals roam the streets of cali so am making a guess here) why not just capture them and take them to a national park or a forest?

[emoloz]

I think it should be owners choice as in some cases people feel its very unethincal to neuter a dog or cat.

[Asuka]

I do not think that law should be passed. Firstly if you want to lear the pounds and streets of animal, advertise the local animal shelters more so people who are looking to buy a pet also know that they can get animals from there as well as pet shops. Second for any animals like rabbits, foxes aka animals that can live natrually in the wild (I do not know what animals roam the streets of cali so am making a guess here) why not just capture them and take them to a national park or a forest?

Well it's not for wild animals like foxes and rabbits. It's only for domestics pets. And they do lots of advertisement for shelters. Pet companies hold adoptions on the weekly basis. The problem is that some people get animals they grow up and then they don't want them anymore. So they get another pet but throw that one out. If this law is in effect for only maybe a year I think people will get their petsfrom the pound.

[Miyagi Rikku]

Well I got 2 puppies of my own and theyre like almost 4 months old.
From what I remembered the vet said we have to wait at least 1 more
year to get neutur/spayed for them but I wish it would be our decision
and not be forced by some law.

[mooks]

Although personally i find any jabber regarding pets useless (animals, man... animals)

I do think this law is an excellent idea. If the situation was not so dire... then it definately should be owners choice... But considering the cost of keeping unwanted pets in pounds, euthenasia process and so on... it becomes costly for the state and they should take control of the situation which seems to be getting out of control.

I mean, people have a stronger sense of sensetivity and morality regarding pets, but a lesser sense of responsiblity. I think this has led to such an increase of unwanted animals all over the place. And ofcourse, the state is going to revoke such a priviledge if the situation gets out of hand.

[II Xion II]

I don't think so. Scooping out an animal's genitalia should not be something mandated. I, for one, think it awful, although all of my pets were fixed (my parents' views).

Sure, I don't want them dying on the street and over-populating, but THERE MUST BE ANOTHER WAY!!!

I once had to carry a dying cat (it wasn't mine) to the nearest vet, I think it was a direct result of overbreeding. Although I would not protest it, I still think it's wrong, though maybe necessary.

I'll adopt all the kittens who aren't wanted!!! They're just too cute!!! Must...not...get...anymore...kittens.. :\

[ZER(o)]

It sounds like a good plan, but there's somewhat of a double standard involved.
I hear a lot of people complaining about it being "inhumane" to have your pets declawed, but those same people find it perfectly acceptable to have them fixed, or vice versa. Then, of course, just about everyone tends to overlook the fact that by domesticating pets, we've made them involuntary slaves of our needs/wants. People purchase pets, take them from their parents, and even crossbreed them for purely superficial purposes, not to help catch dinner or something useful. So before too many people cry about how it's unfair to the animal to have them fixed by law, we should all take everything in account here. And I for one consider it far more humane to get a pet fixed than to let it have babies doomed to wander the streets, contract diseases, bite children, and starve to death. That's just my take.

[Sirius]

This is yet another case of government running wild in California. The government has no right to demand people neuter their pets and I for one think neutering pets is animal cruelty.

When humans have testicular cancer and need to get their testicles removed their bodies undergo physical changes unless they're given artificial testosterone. Even with treatment severe mental problems usually develop, and I'm sure deep depression is one of them.

What makes you think it's any different for your animal?

Animals can be fixed without destroying their sex lives. A female can be fixed so she can still have sex (just not have puppies or kittens), but it costs more and most people don't want to have to shell out more money for their pets.

Another reason people have their dogs neutered is because they don't want to have to see their animals having sex. So the selfish bastards make sure they can't. People treat their pets like objects instead of living creatures with thoughts and feelings of their own and it's disgusting.

It's bad enough that people do this, but to mandate it? Bah! I hate Californian law.

[Sushi]

Every living being has the same capability of having the same thoughts and feelings that we have.
If you wouldn't want your balls chopped off, don't go chopping other peoples off!
Real surgeons do not perform surgery unless the person getting the surgery is fully aware of what they are going to do, how they are going to do it, and the risks involved.
I have never once heard of a veternarian informing the animal in question of the surgery they are about to get.
And I guarantee you, if we understood animal behavior enough, and could communicate with them back and forth, almost every animal that has been spayed/neutered would object to them recieving the procedure.
So this is just another example of how people in power with nothing better to do with their lives, go off and ruin other lives.
Just because the pet cannot respond, doesn't mean it is agreeing with you!
how ignorant can the human race become? It baffles me more and more.

[SaberBlade]

It isn't right to force people to fix their pets. It's the duty of any responsible pet owner to make sure their pet is taken care of, and that any litter is responsibly taken care of whether or not it's wanted.

It's my understanding that pets are considered property of their owner, therefor no one has the right or the authority to tell that person what they can or can not do with their property unless it violates the law, which this doesn't.

I did get my pet (a black lab mix) fixed, yet it was something that the entire family discussed. We weighed the pro's and the con's about it, we expressed our personal beliefs (and I do believe that it's not right to take away the animal's ability to breed) and then it was done as a family.

My dog loves to be outside, she loves to run, she loves to explore new places and smell new things. You leave the front door open, she's gone. She'll be all over the street smelling and running and if you try to catch her, she'll run away from you so this was our biggest reason. People can't watch their pets 24/7, you also can't keep them locked up 24/7 so there are instances when they will be up to things you have no idea about.

For a state to just demand that all animals be spayed or nuetered because they don't want to deal with bad pet owners or strays is wrong. Animal lovers would want their pet to breed at some point because like people, we want our pets existance to continue. I never liked the idea that my pet could be the last of her family but in the end, my dog now longer risks the chance of catching numerous diseases nor does she risk having a litter that my family is not able to take care of, pay for or even make sure get new and better homes.

If anything, it's people who need to be nuetered or spayed. I'd live to see California pass that law, but it's always nice and ethical for people to draw a line where it's okay for pets but not for people.

[ichi-ichi-tactic]

Sure you can say that they may feel different with their genitalia removed, but we can't really know that. Plus animals generally run on instincts so things like depression mean nothing to them. It doesn't exist. However their instincts are controlled by hormones and therefore their behavior could change, but generally it's for the best. They usually become less aggresive. I still think we should be allowed to neuter/spay animals, but the califorian law should not be passed. That is just stupid. If they want to lower the population they should just make a law that prohibits breeding unless you certified (I am not sure if this law already exists). That way the only animals that would breed uncontrolled would be strays, which should in theory be in a pound/animal shelter so that shouldn't be a problem. This method would take a great deal longer to cut the population down, but it would leave the public feeling more in control.

[Sandal Hat]

No.

[EndlessSky]

Every living creature has the same thoughts we have? I doubt that I don't see dogs or cats with a developed language system, making art and other forms of culture.

They may have the same feelings as we do, fear, sadness, happiness, etc but they do not have the same level of thought process and is different from the human brain and dont even say their brains are the same as ours you can't be that ignorant.

On this earth and out of all the creatures we know of, humans have the most complex brains.

Anyway, I agree we shouldn't determine how and what the lifestyle of any living thing should be but do they really have it that bad? They only have it bad when they are abandoned in shelters or have bad or abusive owners.

Also, they seem pretty happy with good owners and if they have such inhumane circustamces why do they stay with their owners, come back home, excited to see them etc?

In the present, domesticated pets wouldn't stand a chance in the wild anyway with all the predators and lack of habitat

All the arguments so far make it seem like we treat them so inhumanely and poorly just because we neuter them.

They treat them much much worse in other parts of the world like china where they hang dogs from poles and beat them while they are still alive to make the meat they eat from them more "tender". Also the ones who breed a very small size of dog just so they can put them in tiny bottles and sell them. Then there is the people that make animals fight to the death for pure entertainment. Yea, vets neutering pets is very inhumane after all.....

[Sirius]

Animals generally run on instincts so things like depression mean nothing to them. It doesn't exist.

Humans are the most intelligent animals on the planet but that does not mean other life is devoid of advanced feelings.

Have you ever kept a couple of dogs together for several years, then observed the behavior of one of them after the other dies? The dog cannot communicate with words but depression is obvious.

Elephants for example have been seen mourning other dead elephants. They've been known to use their trunks to gently caress the bones of other dead elephants they come across in the wild. Elephants often kill for revenge, or out of anger. They act human-like in many ways.

Sure you can say that they may feel different with their genitalia removed, but we can't really know that.

However their instincts are controlled by hormones and therefore their behavior could change, but generally it's for the best. They usually become less aggresive.

This kind of thinking absolutely disgusts me.

We know hormone levels and sex has dramatic impact in human emotions, what makes you think it's any different for your animal? You simply don't know. You can't know what your animal feels because they can't communicate with words, but from all observation they do in fact experience emotions. But hey! - It changes the animal's behavior in a way that makes things easier for you!

I intended to keep this thread primarily about the Californian government stepping over its bounds but I never imagined so many people would try to justify neutering animals.

They treat them much much worse in other parts of the world like china where they hang dogs from poles and beat them while they are still alive to make the meat they eat from them more "tender". Also the ones who breed a very small size of dog just so they can put them in tiny bottles and sell them. Then there is the people that make animals fight to the death for pure entertainment. Yea, vets neutering pets is very inhumane after all.....

Yeah, what we do is wrong, but look at these guys, they're even worse! That's not really an effective argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Also, they seem pretty happy with good owners and if they have such inhumane circustamces why do they stay with their owners, come back home, excited to see them etc?


Well, does the animal see the owner as being responsible for what happened to them? If you were to kick a dog maliciously I'm sure it would most likely attack you.

If you were to sedate the dog and kick it when it's asleep, it would regard you no differently when it woke up because it was not conscious to perceive you kicking it.

The owner normally isn't even the one who does the deed, so it stands to reason the dog has no reason to be unhappy with it's 'good' owner.

That does not mean the dog isn't experiencing pain, just that it does not see you as the one responsible for that pain.

[ichi-ichi-tactic]

This kind of thinking absolutely disgusts me.

It's called science. Without it you wouldn't be able to comprehend such matters because you wouldn't understand it. You just say things like "No, it's mean". The world runs on science and so our decisions are going to be based on science. It's quite simple really. If you don't like it then oh well, you're just another citizen you can't do anything alone right? So if
(Lost train of thought -_-")

Have you ever kept a couple of dogs together for several years, then observed the behavior of one of them after the other dies? The dog cannot communicate with words but depression is obvious.

I'm not sure about elephants, but I do know dogs well. It's more like a routine. Say you do something everyday, all year. Then one day you just don't or can't. You get perturbed. It's the same for animals. I watched a documentary on human raised cheetahs and their assimilation into the wild a few days ago. It was done with two cheetahs and after a couple years one was killed by lions. The second did not mourn over the body, but simply went through it's usual routine. It was confused of course and looked around for the other, but it never acted upon it's partners death or it's dead body. This continued for the next couple of days (Doing it's usual business while stopping momentarily as if to ask "Where is my friend? He should've been here").

[EndlessSky]

Alright, well then ask yourself this when a human goes into surgery and is put to sleep for the duration of the procedure and is worked on, is that considered inhumane? That is the same thing, of course it is usually for our benefit and by our consent. Also, when children get vaccianted it causes them great pain,etc and is against their will but it does them good doesn't it?

The point I'm trying to make is it's not like we torture them or anything during the operation, yea your gonna be sore after a operation but come on its not that bad. So what makes it inhumane? because we don't give them a choice?

And, like I said if we didn't neuter some of them the population would go out of control and they have no habitat and arent' meant for the wild. So if we didn't neuter them alot of them would starve, die young, etc.


I think giving a nice place to live with food, water, caring people is worth getting neutred instead of the alternative for the animal.