Animation Source Forums

Just want to know what others think about the recent ordinances around the country requiring dog owners to either have a permit to own an intact dog(requiring a fine) or spay and neuter their animals.

I've seen the AKC articles shooting down these ordinances and calling them "inconvenient for dog fanciers". But it doesn't make since that a responcible breeder wouldn't want to give up convenience to ensure that only the healthiest, best conforming dogs are allowed to reproduce. The AKC should be more concerned about the health of the purebred dog population instead of how convienient it is for people to breed more dogs to add to it. If they can keep those members happy, they'll rake in more money because of it.

In the majority of the ordinances, the proposed law would:

~Require owners to spay or neuter all dogs six months of age or older.


~Require owners to apply for an intact dog permit.


~Provide civil penalties for non-compliance with the Act.


~Permit localities to impose more restrictive ordinances.

To people involved with rescue organizations(like myself), these kinds of things are what we've been arguing for so long to get. But the AKC is still trying to convince the authorities that leash laws and more public education are going to do the trick. They just don't seem to understand that there are many people who don't care either way about more dogs being euthanized in shelters and still a lot who flat out refuse to accept the idea of spaying/neutering. Leash laws aren't going to keep dogs from "slipping out" either. The ONLY way to control the population is to make it law. If you want to own an intact dog, you should have to pay the price for the possibility that it may add to pet overpopulation. Yes, this requires purebred fanciers to sacrifice; but conformation or "the fancy" is just a sport.....spaying and neutering is about life or death.

What do you think?

I think that both sides have valid arguments here. I certainly understand that dog fanciers want to breed animals and making them pay for a permit might be cost ineffective for them. However, I also think that if you aren't planning on breeding an animal, you ought to have it altered. So, I don't know, I think a law would be nice, but it will be easy for people to circumvent, just like current laws about animal cruelty and dog fighting.

I agree with it, but then I disagree with it.

You should spay or neuter your pets because without it they are vonerbull to even more diseases and if they get out and there are strays they'll get into ALOT of trouble

You are correct on that note. Neutering or spaying your dog can prevent many diseases and usually helps calm down wonderous male dogs. But, I beleive owners should have the choice to do this to their pets...

I disagree with this. I think that if too many dogs are fixed, the remaining unfixed dogs won't be able to restore the dog kind to what it is now. But some dogs that say have a hereditary disease, you should probably fix it to limit the number of dogs with the disease. Also, it would also be very inconvenient for people who breed dogs.

Personally, I believe that the government should not interfear with things like this. It's the owner's choice. If you are careless enough to let your dog wonder, get loose, whatever, then you should have to pay the consequences. But people who keep their dogs under control should not be punished as well. In the end, I believe that it's human carelessness that causes most problems. But that's me.

Id say, It depends on the owner of the animal and how he/she feels about it

Well Orion is right to a point, if we were to spay/neuter all of the purebred dogs then we wouldn't really have any more of those breeds left.

I do however, think that all 'mutts' should be fixed. It would do alot of good for the homeless dogs in shelters.

Yes, all crossbreeds and the like should be neutered. There are too many in dog shelters and people just don't want them. It is fairer to spay and neuter them.

As for pedigrees, it depends on the breed. There are more of some breeds than others. I can never go on a dog walk without a seeing a labrador. There are so many of them and there's always labrador pups for sale in the paper. You never see any husky pups for sale.. it seems that all of a sudden huskies are a rare breed. I think that breeds such as the labrador should be neutered as there are too many whereas rarer breeds should not.

Along with the show qualities and that, the dog's welfare should be considered. A bitch that is not spayed has a greater risk of getting cancer. She also suffers stress when she's on heat. A male dog that is not neutered can also be a nusiance and could be knocked down by a car when in search of a bitch in heat.

Yes, I agree about that. Back at the shelter I help out at thee are sooo many crossbreeds but, not many people like them. That's why the shelter makes you neuter or spay the dog you adopt, no operation no adoption. I think that was a brilliant idea.

Yes but it will pass on diseas sort of like aids its passed on that way and also helps prevent pitbull fighting all pitbulls that do fighting aren't spayed or neutered and I think unless you have a liscence you shouldn't be allowed to own a pitbull also if they go to a shelter they can sometimes excape into other cages it happened once where my mom used to volunteer and the shelteroverflowed with animals and thats how dogs start to get uthinised

if a dog wonders of and makes puppys then its the owners fault not the dogs

I would not spayed or neutered my dog..maybe if it was to save his/her life I would not do that to my self why would I do that to them?

Silver->Then save his/her life if he/her breeds and gets sick its your fault if there pups are euthinised because the population is over growing they'll get euthinised(Even though I don't agree with euthinasia unless it is suffering because I'd want to die then)