Welcome to Gaia! ::

What's your opinion on how animals should be kept?

Do you side more with PETA, HSUS, etc who believe in Animal Rights, i.e. that animals have a special status other than property and that human ownership of animals needs to be highly regulated and maybe even restricted? Do you believe in stuff like mandatory spaying and neutering (the key word being mandatory), pet guardianship laws, owner licensure laws, breed specific legislation, and more?

Or do you side more with NAIA, AKC, CFoDC, etc. who believe in Animal Welfare, i.e. that animals are legally property, but that they should be cared for in the most humane way? People who believe in animal welfare tend to distrust laws and mandates about animal ownership in favor of incentives for proper behavior, or requirements made by the breeder on the owners enforced via contract law.

Some of what you write I agree with. Some of it I would have agreed with until I learned more.

I agree that animal cruelty should be prosecuted more than it often is. I do think that prohibition from further ownership is a potential way of working that. That's actually a pretty good idea. People who are active in animal Welfare would agree completely that responsibility is essential. (And yes, I own dogs-- I have 2 Greyhounds, retired racers both, and a registered Whippet who was bred by a good friend of mine)

So on the issue of cruelty, we agree.

Shelters are another issue. I'm most familiar with the situation here in California. It is different in every municipality. A LOT of AR people tout MSN (mandatory spay/neuter) as a solution to the problem.

The problem is this. Shelters receive most of their animals from three sources-- strays, owner forfeiture, and import adoption. Strays are strays, and that's pretty standard. Many of these are unadoptable due to condition or disposition. Sad but true. As for forfeiture. I think this is where the most inroads could be made, but laws on people won't necessarily help. Laws on shelters might. Let me explain. Someone took the time to survey why animals were being given up. Some of the leading reasons involved transitions, such as baby being born, moving, old age, owner dying, etc. I think that if shelters were given some sort of incentive to teach owners on how to keep their dogs through these transitions it would reduce admissions. These are generally fairly adoptable dogs. Some of it did involve too many puppies. This is true. A lot of it involved aggression or health issues, which is an issue too complex to address in a sentence or two but which I do think is curable to some extent. The third issue is shelter greed, flat out. If we have an overcrowded situation, anywhere in the US, we should not be importing puppies from Mexico, Taiwan, etc. That's not just a population issue, it's a health issue because of Type 2 Parvo, etc. If shelter overpopulation is such an issue, we should first seek to stop the flow of overseas animals. The problem is that they are VERY profitable for the shelters-- they get them cheap and they sell quickly because they are generally highly adoptable puppies.

MSN will not help as much as touted. Let me explain. MSN first relies on mandatory registration, which is a fallacy from the outset. In Riverside County, California only 14 percent of dogs are registered in a "mandatory registration" county. MSN would hurt responsible breeders (and yes, there are a lot of them) who register their dogs. It would not touch unregistered breeders and these are the ones least likely to register with a breed club, to accumulate points in competition, to test for genetics, to analyze breed lines for the improvement of the breed, etc. My friend was looking at potential sires for her Zoreia as soon as the genetic tests came back. She ended up with one in Arizona (she lives in Texas). It also does not touch feral cat colonies, which aren't owned by anyone and are a major source of cat admissions.

Funny thing. MSN is supposed to cut down on cats and dogs.... why is it then that new grand and VERY LARGe shelters tend to be built right when MSN laws are being passed? the reason is actually simple. A lot of places have huge intakes for years afterwards from owners who can not come into compliance.

There's actually a very simple and totally voluntary solution to MSN. Simply offer a tax credit for anyone who spays or neuters and has the vet bill for proof. Make the right thing easy, in a way people like!!

Thanks!!!!

We tried to get that added as one of the We the People Pets initiatives but I don't think it made the final cut. However it's now circularing at least as an idea so we may yet see it in official form someday. It's so ridiculously simple as to be crazy... like a fox.... neutered or not....