Property Rights, CAN LAW DICTATE SPAY OR NEUTER PETS

[Sweater Cows!]

From a different thread someone says "

"PS:  I do not expect people to do anything they want on their property.  But there is still dispute whether these things fit the appropriate zoning criteria or not.  The courts may ultimately have to decide."

A very liberal to the point of being socialist point of view. Americans enjoy the right of true land ownership and doing as we want on that land this is one of the greatest freedoms and part of what makes the U.S.A. great"

 

This is similar to a dog forum that I go to where the debate in one thread was a long and exhausting argument about whether or not pets are 'property'. The thread stemmed from a earlier discussion about whether a (county, city, etc..) can dictate if a person is required to spay or neuter their pet. One side was of the belief that it should(could) be written into laws that people were required to do so or pay hefty fees to keep an unaltered  pet, the other side of the opinion was that pets are personal property and that other cannot dictate what a person does with them.

 

 

SO, TO START A NEW DISCUSSION, DO YOU BELIEVE THE "LAW FOR A SPECIFIC AREA(CITY/COUNTY/ETC..) CAN BE WRITTEN TO DICTATE WHETHER UNALTERED PETS ARE ALLOWED AND REQUIRE ALTERING OF PETS IN THAT JURISDICTION. pLEASE COMPARE AND CONTRAST THIS TO YOUR BELIEF ABOUT THE WIND TURBINES AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHT OF WHAT THEY DO ON THEIR PROPERTY.

 

In my Opinion the estimate that we in the USA euthanize roughly 4 MILLION pets each year in the US is enough to say that we demand "responsible" pet "ownership" and that part of the responsibility is that all non-sporting or non-show animals are required to be altered(spay or neuter).

 

 

For this example i am going to use the  "pit bull"  

Since the "pit bull" (which is NOT; I repeat NOT even a breed of dog) is the breed of popularity among Back Yard Breeders(BYB's) these days it is also the most commonly put to sleep in kill "shelters"

 

Why do I say non sporting or non show?

For example, you see a flyer in the store that says "pure blood pit bull pups for sale, RARE Blue and red-nose pups"

 

Well first off their is no such thing as a "pit bull" (or pitbull or  pitt bull). There is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bulldog(AmBully), Old English Bulldog, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, and a few others including some smaller Mastiffs and their cousins that look to the untrained eye Similar. There are about 20 or so breeds that people call "pit bulls' when we see a negative news report about the dogs.

 

So these BYB's are so stupid that they advertise the "pure blood pitbull" or "rare blue" or "red nose" and charge a premiums (for the latter two listings)and some joe shmoe thinks they have the a rare dog. So they pay the big money for the dog thinking that if they go breed it they will be able to make the big bucks too.

 

Then we now have two genrations of dogs that are bred for a color (that really is not rare) intead of breeding for health and temperment and meeting breed standards.

 

But these BYB's trick the general poplulace into *thinking* their dog is special because of its color.

 

IF we only allow truly PROVEN(this is the show or sporting dogs) ones who are Titled and have proven their value and been health tested(CERF, PENN HIP, OFA, CGC) and earned approval to meet the standard for their breed dogs to be bred we will eliminate the euthanasias in the shelters and by creating a high price to keep an unaltered pet(higher than the cost of spay or neuter) and be a low life BYB; we will eliminate many of those accidental litters as well.

 

So, to condense and conclude, I believe that altering should be required unless a dog is a show or sporting(working--herding, retrieving, hunting as well) dog who has been tested and proven in its breeds standards and health standards whether arena or field.

 

So, is that violating ones 'right' to there property to be used as they wish. Who knows!! But I wish it was the law because I am sick of idiots who think the dogs color is any more important than my or your hair color. OBTW real APBT's are not even allowed to be registered in the AKC, only as Amstaffs.

 

But, I suppose any fool can order some papers of ebay and 'hang' them on there dog to get the top dollar.

 

Go here to this link to learn more about what is and is not a 'pit bull'(lol)

[Sweater Cows!]

Do you know what a 'pit bull' looks like??

 

Here is a fun game, let me know how many tries before you get it right!!  Find a APBT!

[Sweater Cows!]

BTW, I AM NOT A 'PIT BULL' fanatic.

 

I just HATE Back Yard Breeders, in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, we had the same problem of the dog being demonized by the media, Dobermans, German Shepard's, and Rottweilers  were the choices of those era's. It is time we stop demonizing a breed,just because of irresponsible owners.

 

Most media reports and reporters and even the owners wouldn't know a real APBT from a Presa Canario or Old English Bulldogge.

[Willy]

The dog issue is not comparable to the wind turbine issue.  Real estate is not the same as personal property. There are a lot of unique considerations when dealing with real estate that do not apply to personal property.

[Wanda Marrison]

Thank you for this post. As an owner, breeder, exhibitor in breed and field of 3 sporting breeds since 1976 I agree with this post. If BRB's would put the time and money  (health clearance's, and proving that the animal is of breedable quality by having them evaluated in a show/breed ring,  AKC or UKC best registries in this country) most would never breed. If you breed a litter and make money on it, you have not done your homework and you do not do justice to the canine community.DO IT RIGHT AND YOU NEVER MAKE MONEY.

 Correct education on dogs. Responsible dog ownership. Two of my fondest wishes.

NO BAD DOGS, JUST UNEDUCATED OWNERS.

Now off my soap box.

[XLFD]

I agree with Willie that the wind turbine issue is different.  A domesticated animal generally won't affect your neighbors if he's intact or not.  Your neighbors/community will be affected when you have giant wind turbines.

I am totally against mandatory spay and neuter laws.  They don't work, and they violate the liberties of responsible pet owners.  A governmental entity should not be the decision maker here, that decision should be left to the pet owners.  This is about as screwed up of a concept than a City placing a ban on the feeding of animals.  But this isn't just a dig on our current crop of legislators-- here are the problems:  

1)  They have never worked.  These laws have been passed to try and get a desirable result, but they have not worked.  Here's a site that supports that position:  MSN Laws Don't Work!

2)  Even responsible veterinarians, who you would think would appreciate such laws, do not.  There are many reasons why.  The benefits of spaying/neutering are fairly well known, but less well known are its disadvantages:  they include increased risk of obesity and diabetes, increased risk of certain cancers and endocrine disorders, and even increased incidence of hip dysplasia and cognitive dysfunction.  Owners of intact animals are less likely to seek veterinary assistance because of a fear of being reported to local authorities or a fear of fines associated with their intact animal. If owners avoid veterinary care, public health could be at risk due to decreased rabies vaccinations and routine prophylactic de-worming of our pets.  Here's more:  USA Today Vet View  

3)  It further restricts property rights.  If it's my pet, I decide what I wish to do with it, as long as I am not abusing it or impinging on the rights of others.  For those who don't see this, please read the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

[Sweater Cows!]

Ahh..you came up with the counter point of the spay neuter debate. I wondered if anyone would pick up on that.

 

Althouhg I have a hard time believeing most of it (except the part about vet visits. It could be misinformation as much as some of the wind turbine stuff is mis info...

But its time for bed and my debate cap is off. I still hate BYB's though.

[XLFD]

We can't all agree on everything, that would be too bland.  On a point we agree, I think most BYBs are annoying, but passing restrictive laws like this will always fail in a free society, and be discriminatory to the poor unless the law-makers who pass these mandatory spaying provisions provide public dollars for it.  Think it through, and check out what has happened in the enlightened communities that pass these laws for the 'public good'. 

[easymoney]

most people do not realize that a stafordshire terrier, aka pit bull, is actually a very gentle and devoted dog. The fact that they cannot release  their bite until they relax is a fact most people don't understand. ,  and the fact that so many were bred to fight has given the breed a bad rap. Given time, I suppose the rotwiellers will be next.

Being a dog owner all my life, I've owned , at one time or another, every breed suposedly vicious and not one problem. My doberman slept next to my daughters crib and watched over her all its life.

They are like people, if you treat them with love and affection, you get loyalty in return.

MY BEST AND MOST TRUSTED FRIEND HAPPENS TO BE A DOG.. They give you unconditioal love.

[AQUAMAN]

I missed this thread earlier, but, I'm surely glad to have read all the comments now. And have to tell you, I totally agree with both sides of the debate, (if that's not a cop-out), each has it's own legitimacy's and logic for a better animal/dog world here at home. Thanks and tip of the hat to all whom gave this important mind-provoking thread their participation, well said indeed. Thanks to Lando for the discussion to begin with.

[XLFD]

You ol' Fence Sitter!  LOL.

I can see the point of view of those who advocate the other side, and I have no problem with legitimate zoning law limiting the BYBs that Lando dislikes so, but at the heart of my objection is the same as for the pseudo-law the City of Ludington is considering, personal liberty is encroached with no real health-and-safety-concern solution being introduced. 

[AQUAMAN]

As a fellow logical/emotional species, I see and agree totally with the merits of both sides. However, the "legal Eagle" in me says that personal rights must prevail in the eyes of the law, so, the debate continues, until such time this issue comes before legal scrutiny and review. I wonder what Dave would say? Fence sitter too? LOL.