German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Chicago has proposed an ordinance that will require mandatory sterilization by 6 months old of dogs and cats. There are exceptions for show and competition dogs, service dogs and K-9s. All breeders must obtain breeding permits ($100 annually per dog)and be subject to a criminal background investigation. Breeders will be limited to a total of one litter per year and must provide name, address and phone to the city of everyone they sell or adopt to. Dogs and cats who are picked up and end up in a shelter cannot be released to their owner until they are sterilized and microchipped. No exception for dogs who don't live in the city so it appears to apply to dogs visiting or just passing through, although show and competition exemptions apply. This is just a summary, I have the entire ordinance if anyone wants it. It appears similar to the draconian legislation passed in Louisville, which is going through a long court battle.

Here's info on the status:

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: PERRY <[email protected]>
To: karen perry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:15:22 PM
Subject: [Medallionrottweilerclub] CHICAGO STERILIZATION ORDINANCE information URGENT



Permission to crosspost given.

I am sending you the newly revised ordinance (Alderman Burke sponsor and Alderwoman Rugai as co sponsor) which will also can be manipulated somewhat up until the joint committee hearing on Tuesday...at least that is what the aide I have been talking to in Alderman Burke's office said.

He was also the one who told me that they were looking at the LA ordinance for polishing this up. (I tried not to scream on the fone).

We are to be at The City Hall Building 121 North La Salle Street, Chicago on Tuesday the 29th of July at 10 am for the the Joint Committee hearing (Alderman Burke's Finance Committee and Alderman Schulter's Committee on License and Consumer Protection ). It is on the second floor and supposed to be in the City Council Chamber. I would strongly suggest if people can get there at least by 9 am if not earlier we might have a little chance to get organized. Not sure now but would expect 2 minutes each to talk, and also that people would have to be signed up ahead of time. Business casual or business attire, and respectful statements.

The gang problem is not going to be solved by mand. spay and neutering ordinances, and the bites will not be solved by that, and the euthanizing of animals in the shelters is not going to be solved by that. Only responsible ownership of animals and better police enforcement of leash laws and dangerous dog laws that the state has in place. Animal Cruelty laws are also in place already when those problems arise. Creating an ordinance that puts a burden on the law abiding citizen is not what Chicago should want to do.

Any questions... please email me .

Attatched is the pdf...notice the number of breedings allowed in one year , the annual permits, the information in the beginning about dog fighting, dog cruelty, dogs not being controlled.. .we have all of that as ordinances and laws ALREADY. And also that this included dogs AND cats.


thanks

Karen
Karen Perry RN,MSHHA
[email protected] l.net
CorBen Rottweilers
American Rottweiler Club Legislative Liaison for Illinois
AKC Legislative Liaison/ Illinois
Medallion Rottweiler Club BSL ARC Liaison for Illinois
Member PAIDO (Parents Against Irresponsible Dog Owners)
MRC Representative Illinois Dog Breeders Club of America
Member in good standing of ARC/MRC/CRC( Colonial Rottweiler Club)and CRRC(Columbia River Rottweiler Club)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,887 Posts
The more I read of these things the more I start to feel that we should simply not obey bad laws.

Part of me wants to say that if you allowed your dog to get picked up by a dog warden then your dog SHOULD be speutered without delay regardless of how accomplished he or she is.

However, after the incident where they waited for the guy to go to a dog show with some of his dogs, and then kicked in his door to steal his bitch and pups (the authorities did this, not ordinary thieves), these dogs too would probably not be released to him without a speuter -- even though he fought and won his dogs back.

As I get older, I no longer like the idea of declaring myself to anyone. The yayhoo down the road with a dozen or so mongrels is not bothering to register them. But when our local legislatures get a bug up the behind that two people in the county in the past twenty years were found to be hoarding animals and needed to have them rescued, so now they will determine a limit of two or three or four animals. Who exactly ARE they going to call??? Not the feller with all the mutts on chains in his back yard, No, they will call all the people who paid an excruciating fee to do it all legally.

And even if they CHOOSE to grandfather in existing animals (because they do not HAVE to), I am in dire need of a puppy and have plans for a puppy. Why should they arbitrarily say that I have too many animals??? I take better care of my eight than many people take of 1 or 2.

Nobody who has not broken any law should be forced to 1. rehome a dog because a limit law changed to now put them over the limit; 2. spay or neuter an animal that they own; and 3. submit their finger prints for a background check like a criminal.

Why are people begging to have their rights removed???

I just do not get it.

When you hear about hoarders, puppy mills, and dog fighting rings being arrested and having their animals confiscated, it means there are laws already on the books to handle these things. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE NEED MORE LAWS TO PREVENT THEM.

ok, I need a breather.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
We all need to actively fight this. We're seeing it more & more throughout the country, and in this remote northwoods county I live in there was a proposed ridiculous 6' leash law that thankfully didn't pass as originally written. Bad thing is no one knew about the proposal except the county board until it was in the paper, not even our animal control officer. I wrote my email, asked for the ordinance so I knew it, never got it.
Politics...grrr! How do you police the government???
Sue
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Dallas just passed a version of this and I think it's wonderful. I don't see why you need to keep a dog intact if you aren't planning on breeding him. And any non-byb should understand and be willing to be for a breeder's license. I think it'll cut down on shelter dogs and unnecessary breeding. I believe that there are enough pups to go around. Pure bred pups should be available, but there's nothing wrong with getting a mutt. And this law will cut down on both. I think it's in the best interest of everyone, dogs and people alike. There was also a no tethering law as part of ours and I think that is wonderful. Driving through Dallas neighborhoods, you see so many poor pups tethered to their yards and they're so vicious you can tell they aren't socialized and are solely used as guard dogs. I've also seen too many dogs hung to death because their owners left them tethered outside and never watched them. I don't mean to diminish or insult any of your opinions, but this is simply what I believe.


Edit: There are also too many dumb people with animals they shouldn't have because they got it for the idea or because it's cute and not because they intend on raising it properly. The shelter we adopted Brutus from screened the applicants, and if they didn't think you were fit, you weren't allowed to take home the animal. I think there should be MORE screening. Animals don't deserve to be mistreated so that you can have a pretty cuddly thing for the day. And if you are going to care for them properly, you'll have no problem passing the screening and I for one appreciated it for the animals' sakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,796 Posts
Originally Posted By: untsmurfDallas just passed a version of this and I think it's wonderful. I don't see why you need to keep a dog intact if you aren't planning on breeding him. And any non-byb should understand and be willing to be for a breeder's license. I think it'll cut down on shelter dogs and unnecessary breeding. I believe that there are enough pups to go around. Pure bred pups should be available, but there's nothing wrong with getting a mutt. And this law will cut down on both. I think it's in the best interest of everyone, dogs and people alike.
...
I don't support mandatory spay/neuter laws and think it's a terrible idea. It upsets me that anyone could legally mandate that I would have to have major surgery performed on any of my animals, especially surgery that may adversely affect their health in the future. I don't want you, the governement, or anyone else telling me what to do with my dogs as long as I don't abuse them and provide them with food, water, shelter, and medical care when needed.

I keep reading about some shelters "importing" animals for adoption from other areas and even bringing them in from out of the country. IMHO, this practice should be outlawed before anyone even considers forceing me, or any dog owner, to endanger a dog's health and well being with mandatory spay/neuter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
The surgery isn't major though. It happens everyday. And as far as the health risks go, this is what I was able to find

These are the most commonly mentioned benefits, by veterinarians, of castration in dogs:

Decreased aggression (supported by studies)

Decreased urine marking (supported by studies)

Decreased roaming (neither supported nor refuted by studies)

Reduction in benign prostrate hypertrophy (supported by studies)

Reduction in prostatic infections (could not find supportive studies)

Elimination of testicular cancer (no studies -- obvious conclusion)

These are the most common worries among pet owners:

Personality changes such as decrease in "maleness" or courage (not
supported or refuted)

Weight gain (studies show that a percentage of castrated males gain weight - the exact percentage and rate of weight gain vary from study to study)

These are two concerns that dog breeders have that rarely are mentioned by pet owners:

Increased risk of prostate cancer (no conclusive studies -- but it is
clear that there is no protective effect associated with castration)

Increased risk of orthopedic disorders / conformation problems (no studies directly relating castration and orthopedic disorders but studies do show that increased weight gain during growth can cause problems with hip dypslasia, so by combining weight gain and orthopedic studies some risk is likely)


Now I'm not a vet, but it seems to me that the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't understand, outside of breeding purposes why a dog has to be intact his/her entire life. In fact, I think it makes owning the dog easier because it cuts down on certain bad behaviors. And I think that if it was THAT bad it wouldn't be such a widely used practice. And vets wouldn't DEMAND it before allowing you to adopt an animal. I think that s/n a dog that isn't going to be used as a breeding dog or in some working area that requires a more aggressive dog (K-9 etc) is a good thing. If your dog got out, it could impregnate another dog, therefore making unwanted pups. And I know everyone thinks their yard/house is secure, but things happen. That's why so many dogs are microchipped now. And if you're scared enough for your dog's sake to microchip him/her for the off chance they get loose, you should also s/n for that same off chance.

Just out of curiosity, do you want your dog intact its entire life, or do you just not like the gov't telling you you HAVE to s/n him? If you do want him intact, would you mind telling me why? I've never known anyone that didn't use their dog for breeding/working that didn't have them neutered. This concept is new to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,887 Posts
There is only one reason that there are dogs dying in shelters: there are irresoponsible owners of dogs dropping them off.

It has nothing to do with people having puppies. And for law-abiding people to speuter their pets, it will not keep irresponsible owners from dropping their dogs off in shelters.

I know that people die, become ill, become unemployed and lose their homes, and some of these own dogs that end up in shelters -- not all of them do. When my brother in law died I kept his dog for two years until my brother could take care of her. But some of them do. This is why we have shelters.

The reason we have an overage of dogs dying in shelters is because people move without considering the dog, they can drop him at a shelter; people didn't bother to train the dog or ante up for classes and now the dog is "no good" or "stupid"; people remoddeled their home or yard, and sparky doesn't fit any more; people don't think it is a good idea to have a dog with a new baby. Frankly, I haven't seen anything in any law that is going to force people to be responsible.

Spaying and neutering your dog does not make you responsible.

It is not "the responsible thing to do" to spay or neuter your dog.

It is the convenient thing to do.

There are way too many health reasons why spaying and neutering dogs is not a good idea, that it should not be mandatory for anyone.

The responsible thing to do is to contain your dog and protect your bitch so that unwanted pregnancies do not happen. Some people are irresponsible. They do let accidents happen. Some people are irresponsible about driving and drive under the influence of alcohol. Should we ban cars or ban alcohol because some people misuse and abuse?

It is so frustrating to hear people say that they think it is a great idea. Look you speutered your dog. Hooray for you!!! Pat yourself on the back and throw yourself a party!!! Suddenly because you did it everyone should??? I told the cable company I had no desire for cable TV. They did not run cable down my road. Throw a party!!! I do not have TV!!! Yippee!!! Why don't we make a law putting an end to cable? Let's charge the people that buy cable an extra tax because they have it. Let's charge them, $100 per year per television in their home to be able to use it. Let's make everyone register their TVs, that way when we decide to ban them altogether, we will know where they are located.

It sounds silly, I know. But that is what people are doing. They are begging the government to force their beliefs on others and take away freedoms that we currently have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Irresponsible people do own animals and do drop them off for the wrong reasons. Which is why I believe there should be tougher screening during the adoption process. Because lets face it, some people are dumb and shouldn't have animals. But the gov't tries to regulate our stupidity. Which is why it's ILLEGAL to drink and drive. They don't ban drinking because most do it responsibly and the same for driving. The law is there for those people that are irresponsible. Just like this law. If you are a responsible breeder, you should have no problem proving it. If you're not, why keep the dog intact and risk the possible outcome? I just don't understand that mentality. It doesn't hurt them to be fixed. If it did, it wouldn't be such a common practice. I just don't understand why you NEED your dog intact if it isn't breeding/working. It seems to me that it's a personal choice to have it. And because there is no way to only make the irresponsible people do things, we have to make broad laws that effect everyone. Like a speeding limit, not everyone will drive 120 in a 35 if the sign isn't there. But some well. So we regulate EVERYONE to stop the FEW. Which is what I believe this law is trying to accomplish. S/N a non-breeding/working dog will not have a massive ill-effect. All breeds of dogs will still be available, there's just the possibility that less will be running wild and living in the streets. Which is better for the dog, IMO. If we can do ANYTHING to reduce the amount of Shelter dogs, I say do it! If there was a way to get rid of the "Urgent Section" on this forum by putting a s/n law into place, I say do it! Because if ONE less dog gets put down everyday because of this law, I say it works!

I'm very sorry if I've offended anyone, this is just something I'm passionate about. I love ALL animals and want to protect them all. Unfortunately, my yard is big enough and my DH won't let me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Update.....Not surprising that HSUS is behind this. Another attempt at their goal of eliminating pets:

FYI . . . .

begin forwarded message . . . .

PLEASE LISTEN TONIGHT SUNDAY 7/27 . Tuesday is the city council Joint Committee meeting on this ordinance!!! This is when we most need people to PHONE their Aldermen - from the PAWS alert sent out and from other sources, PAWS and HSUS will contend we are a vocal minority - solely breeders who do not want this....Steve' s point will be - no, lots of people don't want this - the MAJORITY of pet owners who responsibly now s/n and even non-pet owners do not want this.... WE NEED TO BE VOCAL NOW... See below and also call ALL the CHICAGO Alderman on MONDAY if you can... or just call one office but DO IT.

Call MAYOR DALEYS office : (312) 744-5000 They will take a message and relay it to him... SAY NO TO THE ANIMAL ORDINANCE ON MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTERING.

Below is the info on the Radio show tonight You can all listen via computer see info below. It is CST 8pm to 10....
Karen
Karen Perry
[email protected] l.net


Tonight on Pet Central on WGN Radio, Dr. Sheldon Rubin, incoming president Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association; and Dr. Shannon Greeley, president of the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association announce publicly for the first time their strong opposition to mandatory spay/neuter for Chicago. Lou Auslander, president of the International Kennel Club of Chicago will talk about the ad he took out to attempt to communicate with all dog owners.


Also, representatives of the Companion Animal Parasite Council are talking fleas, ticks, heartworm, roundworm - and all that fun stuff.


After 8 p.m. cst - you can listen in Chicago on WGN Radio (720 AM) as well as http://www.wgnradio. com. We may take some call on the issue as well. Call-In Line: 312-591-7200



Steve Dale
(please cross post)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
Discussion Starter #10

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,796 Posts
Sorry, your rationale for mandatory spay/neuter just doesn't make it with me.

No surgery is minor - just because it's common doesn't mean it's without risk. And I repeat, I don't want anyone telling me to have major surgery performed on one of my animals.

As far as the so called reasons you state for spay/neuter, even if the reasons you give are true (which I personally feel are unfounded), it should be up to the owner to consider spay/neuter to avoid the problem, not some fool with his head up his butt on the local city council.

IMHO these so called benefits do NOT outweigh the risks. What you may consider a "benefit" is not what I consider a benefit. I've been around dogs all my life. I got the first dog of my own (versus family pet) when I was 12 and have always had at least one since then - over 50 years. During this time, I have NEVER had a dog with aggression, unwanted urine marking, roaming problems, prostatic infection, or the very rare testicular cancer. I've had one dog with benign prostrate hypertrophy which was corrected with neutering (my decision, not some moron in city hall forcing me to have the surgery).

Just because you can't understand why someone would want an intact dog who doesn't want to breed shouldn't be cause for supporting a mandetory spay/neuter law that infringes upon my rights as a dog owner.

IMHO it's stupid to equate having a dog chipped to knocking up some bitch in heat in the neighborhood.

To answer your question: 1. I don't want you or anyone else telling me to have major surgery performed on my dogs. 2. I don't want you or anyone else telling me to have a surgical procedure done that may affect the health of my dogs sometime in the future. 3. I prefer vasectomies. But that's my option and it should not be up to you or anyone else if I have the procedure done or not. 4. Just because you don't know anyone with intact dogs not used for breeding, doesn't mean I should have to get my dogs spayed/neutered. 5. Slider is intact and will be neutered when he's about 8 or 9 - my decision - not yours or anybody elses. The other Hooligans have been fixed - again - my decision - not yours or anybody elses.

I agree with Selzer, who said it so much better than I could. Leave the law abiding, good dog owners alone, and go after the bad ones.

Go after those irresponsible owners who dump their dogs in the shelters. If irresponsilbe people didn't buy dogs and dump them in shelters, then the irresponsbile breeders would stop breeding when the market dries up. Don't punish me, and those like me, because someone else is irresponsible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,796 Posts
Originally Posted By: untsmurfIrresponsible people do own animals and do drop them off for the wrong reasons. Which is why I believe there should be tougher screening during the adoption process. Because lets face it, some people are dumb and shouldn't have animals. But the gov't tries to regulate our stupidity. Which is why it's ILLEGAL to drink and drive. They don't ban drinking because most do it responsibly and the same for driving. The law is there for those people that are irresponsible. Just like this law. If you are a responsible breeder, you should have no problem proving it. If you're not, why keep the dog intact and risk the possible outcome? I just don't understand that mentality. It doesn't hurt them to be fixed. If it did, it wouldn't be such a common practice. I just don't understand why you NEED your dog intact if it isn't breeding/working. It seems to me that it's a personal choice to have it. And because there is no way to only make the irresponsible people do things, we have to make broad laws that effect everyone. Like a speeding limit, not everyone will drive 120 in a 35 if the sign isn't there. But some well. So we regulate EVERYONE to stop the FEW. Which is what I believe this law is trying to accomplish. S/N a non-breeding/working dog will not have a massive ill-effect. All breeds of dogs will still be available, there's just the possibility that less will be running wild and living in the streets. Which is better for the dog, IMO. If we can do ANYTHING to reduce the amount of Shelter dogs, I say do it! If there was a way to get rid of the "Urgent Section" on this forum by putting a s/n law into place, I say do it! Because if ONE less dog gets put down everyday because of this law, I say it works!

I'm very sorry if I've offended anyone, this is just something I'm passionate about. I love ALL animals and want to protect them all. Unfortunately, my yard is big enough and my DH won't let me.
You don't offend me, however, IMHO your logic leaves a lot to be desired. Equating laws that are for the safety of the citizens - drunk drives kill - speeding kills - to mandatory spay/neuter is, with all due respect, ridiculous.

And contrary to what you say, YES, it can hurt them to be spayed/neutered. There are certain cancers neutered males are more prone to. Spayed bitches often have incontinence problems. There are growth issues involved in early neutering. Some dogs die on the operating table. Yes, that does hurt them. So PLEASE don't tell me what's best for my dog!!!

I really don't care if you understand or not. If I want intact dogs or not, that's my business, not yours, not the governments. And yes, I think it's sad to read about dogs in shelters, but I didn't put them there. Neither did the majority of the responsible dog owners in the United States.

The HSUS and PETA's agenda are to eliminiate ALL COMPANION ANIMALS. They're doing it bit by bit. Spay/neuter here, spay/neuter there, then spay/neuter ALL animals, no breeders allowed, like the current proposed bill in CA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,887 Posts
Today it is mandatory spay/neuter
Today it is breed banning
Today it is dog limit laws
Today it is mandatory heartworm preventative for breeding dogs
Today it is no docking, no cropping, no dewclaws without a vet
Today no tethering

Today you may have one GSD that is neutered, on heartworm preventative and did not have to be docked or cropped or have its dewclaws removed, and you never tether.

The law does not affect you today. Good for you.

It affects the person who has three dogs, now they have to put one in the shelter because the limit suddenly became 2 and no grandfather clause. Can I get a hooray for stupid legislation!

It affects the locality in CA or PA that will not now host a dog show that would bring in tons of business because the AKC refuses to support such stupid laws by having their show there.

It does affect the owner of the Mastiff that suddenly found himself on the wrong side of a breed ban and now must get rid of his dog or move.

And what will it be tomorrow:

GSDs only legal for law enforcement officials?
Rottys and Dobermans banned
Old English Sheepdogs banned
Vaccinations required yearly for all dogs, even though it is proven that it is not healthy to over vaccinate. Well if it saves one dog from getting parvo, but causes hundreds of others to develop immune problems, tough the law is working.
Mandatory temperament testing, dogs not passing shall be euthanized.

Why not give more of our freedoms to the yayhoos in the government? How about people working all their lives, some of them fighting and some of them dying for freedoms.

Some of these laws they are proposing state that they can take people off the street, deputized them, and have them inspect your kennel for no reason at all. No probable cause. If you are a breeder, you are likely to be a criminal and must be fingerprinted and background checked. No one with nothing to hide will mind this...

Ok, I am done. I think Arycrest said it better than me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I'm going to keep my opinions to myself from now on. I feel it's getting a little too heated. Normally, I don't mind ruffling feathers, but not on a discussion board. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm going to stop before it reaches an inappropriate level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
FORWARDING PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED
LET'S GET THE WORD OUT!!!

Hello Everyone,

Well, tomorrow, July 29 2008, is THE DAY down at City Hall, where the
proposed Chicago MSN is scheduled to go before two very important
committees, the Finance Committee (chaired by Alderman Burke) and the
License and Consumer Protection Committee (chaired by Alderman
Shulter).

Just to repeat, here's where we will be:

We will be meeting together one hour before the actual time, at 9:00
am in City Hall (121 North La Salle Street, Chicago , second floor
Council Chamber) on the 29th Tuesday.

If you wish to take public transportation into the City (always a
good idea), here the RTA "Plan Your Trip" page which will help you do
this:

http://tripsweb. rtachicago. com/

Although the meeting does not start until 10:00, Michele Smith wants
me to remind you to please get there EARLY - before 9:00 am - to
guarantee yourself a seat and possible opportunity to speak should
you wish to do so. (We're still a bit unclear as to the speaking
arrangements, but most likely some of us will get to give a two-
minute statement. If you wish to speak, may I suggest that you
prepare and rehearse your speech this evening.) I have printed up
sticky paper name tags for tomorrow (your name plus "NO TO MANDATORY
SPAY NEUTER" at the bottom), so when you come tomorrow, please see
one of us to get a name tag so you can be visibly identified as "one
of us". Since people opposed to our cause will also be there it is
important that we can be identified as a group in opposition to
Chicago MSN!

Joan Miller, Legislative Coordinator of the powerful Cat Fanciers'
Association (CFA), just informed me that she is working to get cat
breeders out as well, so there will be more than just dog people
there in opposition! (And, I'll repeat my praise for the CFA as being
the best and the brightest of all purebred registries in the US in
the fight against MSN and other draconian anti-pet laws.)

We have information that at least two opposing groups, which advocate
for MSN throughout the United States, are actively encouraging people
from all over the Midwest to attend tomorrow. Therefore, again, no
matter what happens or is said, please act professionally and speak
courteously at all time. Our professional demeanor will reflect well
on our cause. And, as I've said, get there early (BY 9:00) to make
sure you get a seat.

Perhaps some of you were able to listen to Steve Dale's "Pet Central"
last night (Sunday). He had representatives of both the Chicago
Veterinary Medical Association (Dr Shannon Greeley, President) and
the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (Dr. Sheldon Rubin,
incoming President) there on his show. Both groups are strongly
opposed to the proposed Chicago MSN ordinance. Both organizations
have prepared and distributed white papers for all of the
aldermen/women on this subject, including journal citations, in
support of their position against the ordinance. Here are just some
of the many reasons that CVMA and ISVMA gave in stating their
opposition to Chicago MSN on Dale's show last night:

MSN would interfere with the practice of medicine by veterinarians,
since spay/neuter is a surgical procedure and a veterinarian should
be the one (not the City!) who makes a decision as to what is best
for each animal.
MSN would put aside all of the important decision making process that
takes place between the veterinarian and the pet's owner in deciding
what is best for that individual pet in the spay/neuter decision.
Recent studies have thrown into serious doubt the believe that
spay/neuter reduces aggression in dogs; in fact, one large recent
study has shown that spay/neuter may actually increase aggression in
many cases.
People choose not to spay or neuter their pets for a variety of
reasons, and many feel quite strongly about this issue. Most of these
people are still highly responsible owners, have their animals
vaccinated for rabies, and seek other appropriate veterinary care as
needed for their pets. If MSN is passed, many of these people would
be afraid to take their pets into the veterinarian for fear that they
would be reported to authorities for owning an intact animal.
Therefore, vaccination compliance would decrease and many pets would
not get adequate veterinary care should this ordinance pass.
There are many studies that show that spay/neuter is not the
universally benign and beneficial procedure that it was once made out
to be for dogs. Studies have clearly demonstrated an increase in
hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, hypothyroidism, urinary incontinence
in bitches, and prostate cancer in males, among the many examples of
health risks. Some of these associations may be breed related, others
related to the age of the spay/neuter. But in any case, mandating a
fixed six month age for spay/neuter for all pets is definitely not in
the best interest of our pets.
In addition, Lou Auslander of the International Kennel Club (IKC)
came on Dale's program (via telephone from Florida) and spoke
against the proposed Chicago MSN ordinance. He is taking out a large
advertisement in today's Chicago Tribune, so buy a Tribune and look
for it. Many of you know that Mr. Auslander has many decades of
dedicated and knowledgeable service to the purebred dog fancy, not
just the IKC but previously the AKC as well, as well as various
humane organizations in the state where he now resides (Florida). His
stated opposition to Chicago MSN is vital to our success, and very
much appreciated by us.

IKC has their own Alert for the Chicago MSN issue on their website,
and I encourage you to look at it - it is very good and gives
example of letters to write and where they should be faxed or mailed:

http://www.ikcdogsh ow.com/html/ alert.html

I have faxed Aldermen Burke and Shulter, and Alderwoman Rugai letters
of opposition to this ordinance. Please take a few minutes to write
and fax your own letter to them. It doesn't have to be extensive;
just a few short lines stating your opposition and reason why will
suffice. There's an example on the IKC alert for you to use.

Thanks again, everyone. And thanks to those of you who have emailed
me support and encouragement in all of this!

I'm hoping for a big turnout tomorrow for OUR SIDE to show our
opposition to the passage of MSN in Chicago. Please come and join us.
Always remember, numbers do count so we need you there tomorrow!

Margo Milde
AKC Legislative Liaison - Rand Park Dog Training Club Inc
AKC Legislative Liaison - Agility Ability Club of Illinois
Health Education Chair - Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
No action taken yesterday, although I did get tired of the news coverage of Bob Barker's appearance.

From the AKC site:

Yesterday, a vote by the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set.

AKC's Government Relations Department continues to actively monitor developments regarding the Chicago ordinance proposal, and continues to work with responsible dog breeders and owners in the Chicago area in opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable proposal.

For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail [email protected].
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,415 Posts
I agree completely. The two most recent studies I have read conclude that neutering a young male can be very harmful, and aside from not allowing the dog to fully develop, neutering causes more health problems then it alleviates.

My son's lab qualified for the Dock Diving World Championships which were held last week, yet he continues to regret the day he decided to neuter his lab. The dog is darn good, but the males that are a tad better have almost not been neutered. Of course there are other factors involved, but in the Championship round, the results spoke for themselve.

I could elaborate, but you and Selzer have contributed many positive comments to this post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,237 Posts
Health issues related to speutering.....

DOG NEWS – "Veterinary Topics" by Connie Vanacor
Nov. 2, 2007
It is on the AKC Canine Health Foundation National Parent Club Health Conference. Page 90
"Some of the other speakers were Dr. Peggy Root Kustritz, who spoke on
canine reproduction:"
"Dr. Kustritz talked about diseases related to reproduction. Although
spaying and neutering have advantages, there are also dangers.
Advantages include the elimination of testicular cancer and of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
On the negative side, males have a strong correlation to obesity after castration, though there is no definite cause and effect. Castrated dogs have twice the risk of developing prostatic adenocarcinoma as they age. They also run a higher risk of developing osteosarcoma as the age. There is a
predisposition in large and giant breeds of this occurring. Neutered
Rottweilers have a definite genetic predisposition to osteosarcoma. Acute Cranial Ligament injury is seen in greater numbers with castrated dogs."
In bitches, spaying reduces or eliminates the risk of mammary cancer and pyometra. However, it also increases the risk of osteosarcoma and transitional cell carcinoma. It also causes incontinence in up to 20 percent of females. Spaying before three months of age increases the risk of incontinence.....There is a strong hormonal relationship between spaying/neutering and the
diseases specific to each."
 
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
Top