Big Paws Only Dog Forums
BPO Medical Forum => Treatment & Preventative Meds => : cricket36580 December 27, 2005, 12:08:29 AM
-
Ok...hear me out. With all of the drama over Baloo, dh and I have been discussing solutions to the "problem". Why isn't there a compulsory spay/neuter program? With compulsory microchipping. ..and then if you want to breed, then you are heavily screened and then you have to apply for a license. It would, if not eliminate, severly reduce the number of animals going through shelters. And the crap about freedom and choice is just crap. Of course, I already believe that you should apply for a license to have a baby too...and you have to go through mandatory parenting classes. But that's another story. It wouldn't be any more difficult to enforce than rabies which is already compulsory...
Ok, let me hear the arguments against this idea....
-
You are not going to get a single argument from me....sorry!
And I agree! Humans should be have the same limitations as well!
-
Hey, I'm all for it. I think there should be strict breeding licenses and statutes set up to protect the animals from the less savory people with poor intentions. For that matter, animal law has a long way to go in many aspects.
-
People are so very ignorant about "BREEDING". I just got a 1year old english mastiff. She is not spayed. I will be getting her spayed within the next month. The people I got her from were going to breed her but decided they did not have the time. OK this dog has no papers and they really don't know her linage. Next situation, my brother in law. He has a 4 year old bullmastiff. He found out I was getting this dog and immediatly wanted to breed her with his dog. I told him I would never do that and does he realize they would be mutts? He said but the dogs are so good and would have great pups. His brother got a female bully and they have been putting them together and so far so good (nothing). It makes me so angry to hear him talk like that. I have a spay/neuter magnet on the back of my car and a spay/neuter license plate. Does he not get it. I believe as sad as it is you could talk till you are blue in the face and these people will never get it. Just my 2 cents. I don't want to hurt any feelings.
-
The violation of our freedom argument is a good one, IMO. Look at it this way: does the animal belong to you or to the government? If the animal belongs to you, then the government has no right to control it except as is necessary for the common good.  Otherwise, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Examples of things necessary for the common good: control of diseases that are transmissable to people, such as rabies; removal/killing of animals destructive to others' property, such as livestock, after repeated offenses;Â killing of animals that have seriously injured or killed a person, unless the animal was defending another person, its owner's property, or itself against aggression; and removal of animals being abused, together with punishment of the abuser (only because this is said to have a connection to abuse of people).
Microchipping is also a violation of freedom - religious freedom in this case. The Amish, Mennonites, and people with similar religious beliefs would be unable to have dogs, and they need them to continue in their way of life. Additionally, many other people think that microchipping is wrong - I, for one, think it is wrong and will never knowingly own a microchipped animal.
As far as people... I won't go there.
Sofia
-
I agree with my daughter, except..... there must be laws governing abuse and neglect of animals. Too often it has been shown that people who abuse animals, esp, as children, go on to abuse other humans. These laws must be tough as nails for abuse. In the same vein, people who fall on tough times need to be able to seek emergency assistance to provide basic care for their pets. But this MUST come from the private sector. NO GOVERNMENT FOOD STAMPS FOR PETS!
Deena
-
By 2009 you will be required to chip every living thing on your property that isn't human so that dog won't hunt. That's already on the books. It was supposed to be rolled out in 06 but the funding got cut. Can you imagine chipping day-old chicks that you plan to eat in 6 wks? Well, that's what we have here now. Not only will everything be chipped, but they will also be fitted with GPS locators so Big Brother can see where they ar via satellite. Welcome to wonderful world of NAIS....
So, if we are going to go through all of this pain and agony, why not take it a step further and actually use it for some good?
If you don't want govt interference, you had better get pro-active. All of us. Cause it's coming and they're sneaking it in through the back door.
-
Cricket,
We are. We tried to bring it to the attention of thgis board before, but most do not see it as a problem. We do and will everything we can to stop it. I thought chicks, ducks, and were supposed to get GPS radio bands for their legs? I know goats will get chipped in the tail, etc. Just stupid, and to think this is one thing our taxes will pay for.
Deena
-
BTW, my father-in-law is a Neonatologist. They are also planning on chipping new born babies as well, eventually everyone.
-
Just kind of makes you sick to your stomach, huh? NAIS scares me almost senseless. I too am doing what I can to get the word out and do what I can to stop it.
-
Supposedly for disease control...for instances like the avian flu...
-
OK, I'm just going to give my thoughts and opinions on the matter. First off, my daddy is a gun toting, government loathing, loony (Love him as I do). He has grenades in the house for the day that Big Brother comes a knocking. I am well versed in conspiracy theory.
That being said I'm not too concerned about mandatory microchipping coming to fruition, animals or humans, especially being implemented in 3 years. There are several reasons for this. One, the massive scale! Two, the cost. Three, the follow up/enforcement. And, when dealing with tracing ect on humans, the compromise of anything man made, especially when organics work just as well.
Massive Scale:
Can you even CONTEMPLATE, how many people live in America? Yeah, we all can spit out numbers but we can't comprehend how big that number really is. I live in New Hampshire, which is in a group of small states called New England. I'm staggered by the amount of people who live here, and in reality, all of New England could fit in Kansas! They say that for all the dogs in the US to have homes each and every person (Babies included) would have to have 14 dogs! So take the incomprehensib le number of people who live here, multiply that by 14 and you have JUST the amount of dogs that have to be chipped. That's not including the livestock you guys are talking about, which we consume constantly. It's just too big!
Cost:
I know to get Araby and Hobo chipped and registered (Nee is chipped and registered to his breeder) it was about $120 for both. I'm sure the government would get a bulk discount and all, but the cost just to PERFORM the inital chipping, not to mention the resources needed for follow up is astronomical. Yeah I know this is the government who spent $2,000 on a friggin toilet seat. But a crapper cushion is much more forgivable than a privacy invasion act.
Follow Up/Enforcement:
Impossible. They can't even enforce dog licensing laws they already have! I know this first hand as Matt is immensely tarded, and didn't license Araby and Hobo for SIX MONTHS after they were due. We got letters informing us of late fees (Which he hid so I wouldn't get mad), but never had anyone call us, show up to the door, threaten to take the dogs away, anything. Sanity isn't even licensed yet (Because I'm waiting for him to get fixed, not only because of the initial $3.50 savings, but because they charge an aggression fee for every month the dog isn't fixed and it goes down in the books that they're an aggressive dog because they're in tact) and you know what? No one has done anything! When he gets his rabies done, they ship a copy of the certificate to the town hall, so the town knows he's there! But they haven't done anything! If they don't have the time/manpower to follow up on simplistic procedures like this, how the **** are they going to do something as intensive as a shipping/tracking program?
With regards to tracking in humans:
I was talking to a friend who was telling me about how in Carolina they've been trying to do a mandatory fingerprinting, DNA sample on all newborns because of the amounts of kidnappings that go on in the states. They haven't been able to implement it in ONE state, because of the uproar. If they can't do something as simple and inobtrusive in one state I can't imagine them trying to to do something more complicated and intrusive over the whole country, especially when you consider the more liberal states!
I'm not one who likes to predict the future. 50 years ago they thought by now we'd be tooling around in flying cars and taking vacations to the moon. All we've done is create a scooter that saves you the effort of walking a few blocks. However, I do think eventually, I don't know how far down the road, but eventually, we will be more integrated into a "Network" for lack of a better term. We already partially are, with everything being electronic and such, ie: Debit cards ect. However I do NOT think that Microchipping will play a factor in this. Reason being, we all are born with ready made unique identifiers;fnger prints, retinas, and the like. These are things that can't be altered (Without severe pain and complications).
A friend of mine went to a college with brilliant people. One of his friends is a hacker. Hecan take digital sereal numbers and alter them. For one of his classes he took a microchipped cat, and altered the numbers it read so when looked up in the registration it was different breeds of dogs in different locations. Every step we take in technology there is someone figuring out how to use it to their advantage. The less man made implements in an equation, the fewer ways it can go wrong. We all know of dogs with microchips that migrated, or just didn't read. I mean God, if they did choose to microchip people against their will, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find someone who'll remove it!
This all being said, I understand your concerns. I really do. I just don't think that this is something to be concerned about.
-
By 2009 you will be required to chip every living thing on your property that isn't human>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought it was only livestock that this law applies to? If not, can you please supply a link to the bill for us all to read?
-
By 2009 you will be required to chip every living thing on your property that isn't human so that dog won't hunt. That's already on the books. It was supposed to be rolled out in 06 but the funding got cut. Can you imagine chipping day-old chicks that you plan to eat in 6 wks? Well, that's what we have here now. Not only will everything be chipped, but they will also be fitted with GPS locators so Big Brother can see where they ar via satellite. Welcome to wonderful world of NAIS....
 So, if we are going to go through all of this pain and agony, why not take it a step further and actually use it for some good?
If you don't want govt interference, you had better get pro-active. All of us. Cause it's coming and they're sneaking it in through the back door.
Maybe I am very tired or something and missing the point ... but cricket aren't you the one who started this topic to push for the government to say who can and who cannot breed?
What people need to realize is either you support big brother or you don't. Please do not think you can support it only for your agenda and not have a trickle down effect.
-
Actually, yes, this system only applies to certain livestock species (but it does includes horses). Rabbits, dogs, and cats are not included. I think I posted something different earlier, but that was wrong. I do not think that pet birds (parrots and such - if you keep a pet chicken like some people it still counts as livestock), ferrets, or the more exotic pets are included either. Also, it does not necessarily involve microchipping, but it is being pushed as the method of choice for some animals, including horses and goats. Other species have different recommendation s; the working group for cattle, for example, is recommending the use of radio frequency identification in ear tags. However, it still includes electronic technology, which would go against the religious beliefs of the Amish. These are the things of which I am reasonably certain from reading the available material on government websites about NAIS.
I have joined the forum at http://www.stopanimalid.org/ Some information is available there, and there are links to official government websites. It is a good place to go if you do not like to idea of a National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The forum has discussions of several different aspects, with links to pertinent information backing up the posts, and there is also some information on the website. (The "What is NAIS" page has footnotes that haven't been added yet.)
The scariest thing is that, to my knowledge, there is no bill!!! :o Some have been introduced into Congress, but nothing has actually been passed. Still, people are going ahead with the program. Cricket, if you know the number of the bill that was passed, I would like to know it; I haven't heard of it yet. There are too many rumors that circulate on the internet to accept information lightly - although I made that mistake just the other day by looking at an article and drawing conclusions from it without reading the actual document. (It concerns the Bioterrorism Act mentioned on the above forum...there are exemptions that the article does not mention.)
Ang, it is my understanding that the technology is there to implement this program, BUT that it will be difficult and expensive. It is my opinion that it will be implemented but poorly enforced initially. In some places it will probably be enforced better than others. Many people will not comply, and this will be used as an excuse to fine or arrest people that the government decides it doesn't want around - perhaps because they are too independent. However, with time, people will just accept the program as a matter of course and comply. (Note that this is my opinion, except about the technology. That comes from the posts of several other people on a different forum, so it is not certain and is only "my understanding." :))
VdogLover, I agree about big government; we cannot have our cake and eat it too. However, I think Cricket was simply saying that might as well use a bad thing (NAIS) for something good (prevention of pet overpopulation). While I disagree with that, it appears from her posts that she would rather not have animal ID and tracking at all.
Sofia
-
Rabbits, dogs, and cats are not included. >>>>
Thats what I thought I had been told also....though t maybe they slipped it in somewhere when no one was looking.
Big brother controlling who gets to breed may be a very wrong road to take. Look at the current record of mills the USDA has given their ok for~ I feel dogs on a whole would suffer greatly!
-
Ang, it is my understanding that the technology is there to implement this program, BUT that it will be difficult and expensive. It is my opinion that it will be implemented but poorly enforced initially. In some places it will probably be enforced better than others. Many people will not comply, and this will be used as an excuse to fine or arrest people that the government decides it doesn't want around - perhaps because they are too independent. However, with time, people will just accept the program as a matter of course and comply. (Note that this is my opinion, except about the technology. That comes from the posts of several other people on a different forum, so it is not certain and is only "my understanding." :))
Sofia
I think they have the technology on a small scale. ie: a farm at a time, but no where neat the national range you're talking about :) Also, just from someone who's studied speech and how to get people to your side and stuff. you're going to want to steer away from comments like this one.
"In some places it will probably be enforced better than others. Many people will not comply, and this will be used as an excuse to fine or arrest people that the government decides it doesn't want around - perhaps because they are too independent. "
I'm NOT saying you are, it just makes you sound like a conspiracy theory whacko. It turns the average citizen off to your cause. Just a suggestion.
-
Truth be told, I am against the NAIS and anything resembling it. Yes, if it's going to be instituted, then lets do something positive with it. I think that we have way too much govt interference (sp?) as it is. I just threw the question out there because I wanted other people's opinion and their arguments. This is such a wonderful board with educated, thoughtful people and I really value everyone's contribution.. .even if I disagree sometimes. This is a very real concern and a very real threat to our continued privacy. Once the door is open, it can't be closed again no matter what. If this gets instituted, it's going to be "easier" for them to enforce in rural areas than in cities because of the population density. In fact, the cities will most likely have to "self-enforce". That and the agency people are usually well known in the areas they work in. I know that I know our USDA vet...even though her region is the entire state. Already there are regions that you have to register to buy feed...and the feed store has to send that info into the govt. Unfortunately people that are unaffected by this regulation (NAIS) such as people w/o livestock, aren't going to be the ones to get involved. Well, if it's not stopped here then at what point do we draw the line? When it affects every critter...? City or rural?
Ok, that being said...I'd still like to see a spay/neuter program instituted. Perhaps not mandatory but certainly encouraged in some fashion. It's an age old problem that I wonder can be solved.
-
Ok, that being said...I'd still like to see a spay/neuter program instituted. Perhaps not mandatory but certainly encouraged in some fashion. It's an age old problem that I wonder can be solved.
How about it being encouraged first by getting vets to lower the cost of the surgery? This would at least give people of lower incomes and seniors the real option of S/N their pets.
Lets face it whats the real cost of a neuter?? A 5 minute surgery should not cost over 200.00, as it does at many vets around me. If big brother wants to spend our money on a program for pets let them pick up say 50% of the cost if the vets want to scream they will be losing to much otherwise.
-
A long time ago there was a clinic in Montgomery that only did spay/neuters...and they did them at a discount. The dr there made a load of money while doing the surgeries for about 2/3 of the cost. I don't know why they closed but they did and I've never seen another one. I've never figured out why they cost so much either. And the story about monitoring equipment is crap...I've been there and know what they cost and the cost of operating them. They can more than make up the cost in other surgery and services.
-
I took Merlin to a spay/nueter clinic. They superglued the incision shut. That might work for a 2 LB mojo, but not on a 140 LB Great Dane! His incision dehised and 400.00 later at the emergency vet he got stitches. It would have been easier on him, and my pocketbook to go to a regular vet to begin with. Conpulsory spay/nueter will have no better effect than BSL. The law abiding, caring owners will comply, and the people who don't give a darn will not, and we will still have thousands of unwanted animals PTS on a daily basis.
I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but I do know that further government interference isn't. Just my opinion.
Stella
-
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64194,00.html
They already microchip people. On another board I belong to, I see an awful lot of people who would be willing to give up an awful lot of rights to things like privacy and probable cause because our government has them so afraid of terrorists that they think it's necessary for their own personal safety. I happen to live my life in such a way that I am as equally aware that I could be hit by a bus as killed by a terrorist, and take about the same level of precaution against it.
Don't you think the government could convince an awful lot of people to do it on their own- in the name of "Homeland Security"?
-
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64194,00.html
They already microchip people. On another board I belong to, I see an awful lot of people who would be willing to give up an awful lot of rights to things like privacy and probable cause because our government has them so afraid of terrorists that they think it's necessary for their own personal safety. I happen to live my life in such a way that I am as equally aware that I could be hit by a bus as killed by a terrorist, and take about the same level of precaution against it.Â
Don't you think the government could convince an awful lot of people to do it on their own- in the name of "Homeland Security"?
Fear has always been used as a motivator to gain control with having few questions asked.
-
Also, just from someone who's studied speech and how to get people to your side and stuff. you're going to want to steer away from comments like this one.Â
"In some places it will probably be enforced better than others. Many people will not comply, and this will be used as an excuse to fine or arrest people that the government decides it doesn't want around - perhaps because they are too independent. "
I'm NOT saying you are, it just makes you sound like a conspiracy theory whacko. It turns the average citizen off to your cause. Just a suggestion.
Thank you for the advice; I will keep that in mind. Reading at it again, you are right...I expressed my thoughts poorly and they come across as wacko alright, yet another stupid thing that I have said. May I rephrase that to say that I think it could be used in that way, not that it necessarily will?
GR8Dame, I think you made an excellent point. It would make little difference unless there were massive funding (and higher taxes of course - I don't see that happening to pay for a spay/neuter program), because the people who do not care enough to prevent their dog from having pups would not comply.
I think cost does contribute to pet overpopulation in many cases and that more people would neuter their animals if they could afford it more easily. However, lowering the cost of spaying and neutering is not necessarily in the long-term interests of vets. (Fewer sterilized dogs = growth of the dog population = more demand for their services = more money) While many vets do care more about the animals than about the money, I do not think that all vets are that way. If they did, I think Science Diet would be promoted less, for example.
As far as giving up freedoms, VdogLover is absolutely right. That is nothing new, although I do not like to see it on a large scale anymore than you do, mixedupdog. People will often do foolish things when they are experiencing any powerful emotion, I think.
-
Boy did you hit on the head, mixedupdog. Fear is a wonderful motivator!
-
When it comes to mandatory spay/neutering I am not for it. Yes I do believe it would cut down on the dogs who go through the shelter and have to be put to sleep. BUT in the long run I think a lot of s.k hobby breeders who breed for the love of that breed, to better it and to strengthen the positives in that breed. I do thing all breeders should be licensed though, I am all for PAWS, I hear so much how that would harm the hobby breeder or rescues, no it wont, first if you breed 7 or more litters a year, it is doubtful you are a hobby breeder, second even if you are, whats wrong with having a min. standard for how the dogs should be kept and cared for? Me for one, if I bred only 1 litter a year, I would not mind having to follow these rather limited standards, because I know I would have my own standards way higher than that. Rescues dont breed and dont sell so they are not included.
Soooo with that law and even lisence for breeders I think a lot of the mills and breeders with no other in mind than making money would be weeded out. The one thing I think would do wonders for the amount of dogs and cats going through shelters is to stop retail selling of dogs.
Second micro shipping, I see both good and bad there, the bad is what everyone is worried about, big brother can see us wherever we are and it is a threat agains the freedom. BUT when it comes to animals, I microship all my dogs, and had it been done on horses when I had them I would have loved to do that too, why.. because if they get out, get stolen you name it, it is a security.
And for people hmmmm not saying it should or shouldnt, but a thought..... say your child, your 3 year old child get lost, simply lost or grabbed by someone who have in mind to do god knows what. If that was my child would I want to have a micro chip so I could see where he/she was? ohhhh yes in that situation I would I am sure think it was worth every little bit of given up freedom, just to get her/him back.
Marit
-
I think a lot of the mills and breeders with no other in mind than making money would be weeded out.
FIRST THING:
Keep in mind that one of the main factors that makes milling, pet shops, and all the rest of that crap PROFITABLE for these disgusting people is the AKC. And laws that would require licensing and inspections, etc., based on stringent enough guidelines to put mills and unscrupulous breeders out of business are going to substantially affect the AKC's bottom line, because those mills aren't going to be sending in their inflated-to-the-customer-forward-the-actual-AKC fees anymore.
And AKC is a big enough corporation with a strong enough brand identity to keep this kind of law from ever passing. (Note that I said brand identity, not brand policy!)
See, most people--even a large percentage of pet owners--don't realize that AKC is just a business, and that as a business, AKC is NOT concerned with the health or welfare of the breeds/dogs it purports to represent, but ONLY with it's company bottom line. It's not a charity, and the fact that it's a non-profit only means that it can't SHOW a profit--which mean that they can spend a lot of money on advertising and offices. (I know. I worked for a non-profit. You'd be utterly astounded at the end of year 'sprees' that were encouraged by senior management in some departments, just to make sure that they 'used up our budget' every year. And look at some of the scandals the Red Cross, another notorious 'non-profit' keeps having!)
You and I know that AKC leaves it to the breed clubs (who only responsible owners or breeders belong to!) to be concerned with genetics and health issues. But there are thousands of "AKC" dogs that are bred that the clubs know NOTHING about, because the millers and the profiteers deliberately stay away from the breed clubs!
Most people see "AKC" only as the people who put on the Animal Planet shows with those beautiful dogs. Those 'best of group' dogs competing for best of show! Of course they're beautiful and healthy--or at least the LOOK like they are.
I think it would be a FASCINATING study if someone who's really good at forensic accounting did a serious study of the AKC's finances over the last 20 years. I'll would bet actual money that if a really, seriously honest audit were done, it would show that most of AKC's registration fees/money comes from 'mill pup' registrations, NOT from serious, responsible breeder pups.
BACK TO THE POINT:
If there's ever going to be a workable 'compulsory' solution it's going to 1) have to come out of the veterinary association/establishment, 2) have to be cheaper for owners and more bottom line profitable for vets, and 3) have to be more convenient than the current standard solutions of spay/neuter surgery.
The veterinary establishment should be working on a serious, NON SURGICAL spay/neuter program.
There's a shot out there now for males--you can get it done at some Petsmarts--but there's nothing that I've read indicating that they're even working on anything on a large scale for our girls, which is very strange. You'd think that before they started doing 'clip ligations' on human that the FDA would have required SOME kind of animal testing results that vets could have used to develop a similar procedure. In fact, I'm surprised that there aren't studies of clip ligation IN dogs out there to read online!
I would think that it would be FAR preferable to do a quick laprascopic placement of clips on a puppy's tubes at 6-10 weeks old than to slit one wide open and remove a chunk of her anatomy at six months!
Clip ligations for humans can be done under LOCAL aneshetic--isn't that preferable to putting a dog under a general for a spay??
If clips could be placed inexpensively for female pups it might well become the standard for a good breeder to have it done before a pup goes home--yet another way to tell the responsible breeder from the profiteer! And if it turns out that a 'pet' pup is an exceptional breed example whose genetics should be propogated, this way her genetics have been preserved--I KNOW that there were studies in invitro done in dogs, and that it works. And I can think of a half dozen healthy, well-tempered, hip, eye and heart-sound dogs that would have added a LOT to their gene pools if they hadn't been judged "not show quality" and spayed/neutered as pups!
So why aren't vets working on clip ligations, as an alternative to the surgical spay/neuter? I have to wonder. ???
What I know is that one reason my research is tending me toward having a male when the time comes is that I'm just not at all thrilled by the prospect of having my baby drugged into unconsciousnes s, slit open and eviscerated! It's probably because I'm a woman; but it seems like there's got to be a less...invasiv e...solution.
-
I fully agree with you about AKC, AND it saddens me. When I first moved here I thought AKC would be very similar to SKK (Swedish Kennel Klub) where they have done a wonderful work of educating and where needed been for legislation in order to protect the animlas. There is still lots of work to be done in the scandinavian countries but one thing say, in sweden we do not have animla shelters. not because we dont care, but we just dont need them. About 90% of all dogs are pure bred and planned breedings. Then there is a small number of oops breedings and mixes, they are usually sold by the "breeder" who is eager to find a good home, not just "get rid of" Also it is not any retail selling of dogs or cats, which I think is one reason to why some countries have almost 0 in euth. of unwanted dogs.
It is very upsetting that AKC is not there for the dogs and their welfare and health, thats why it is utterly important for all of us who do care and want a change to speak up and get organized and get our voice heard, a voice that will actually speak for the good of the dogs, rather than having our eyes set on profit.
Marit
-
Thanks. :)
But really...wasn't the biggest fantasy movie EVER that Legally Blonde movie about the Pet Bill in Congress?
No government is EVER going to do ANYTHING about animal welfare--heck, they aren't even paying attention to MAD COW DISEASE, which is 100% transmissable and 100% fatal!
I feel confident that if we all sold our souls to Satan on the condition that he help us get the US government to pass laws regarding animal health and welfare, we would all get safely to heaven because not even LUCIFER could move Congress to do anything on that issue.
Now, I'm off for the WHOLE WEEKEND!! I don't even have to come in on MONDAY!
I love this job.
-
So why aren't vets working on clip ligations, as an alternative to the surgical spay/neuter? I have to wonder>>>>>>>>>>.
Simply put...tubal ligation does not hold ANY health benefits for the dog what so ever. The female would still have heat cycles, still run a increased risk of cancers, still be able to develop pyo. Female dogs are normally spayed to not only stop unwanted pregnancy but to have them benefit from the decreased health risks.
-
Same problem with the Nuetrosol injection for the males. Although non-invasive and easier on the dog, it just renders them sterile, the testicles remain and so they are still vulnerable to testicular cancer and related issues. I researched it heavily before having Strider nuetered in July.
Stella
-
Lets face it whats the real cost of a neuter?? A 5 minute surgery should not cost over 200.00, as it does at many vets around me. If big brother wants to spend our money on a program for pets let them pick up say 50% of the cost if the vets want to scream they will be losing to much otherwise.
The reason why they're over 200 is the mandatory pre-anesthesia bloodwork most clinics do. It takes more than five minutes because of the time it takes to knock the dog out and hook them to the monitors. So you pay for the vet's time and the time of whoever assists. Also your paying for the vet tech that watches your dog as they come out of it and for the care your dog requires while there.
Also pet insurance will pay 80% generally at least they did for Kali.
-
If big brother wants to spend our money on a program for pets let them pick up say 50% of the cost if the vets want to scream they will be losing to much otherwise.
If that were done, then pet owners would still pay for their pet's spay or neuter, and those who didn't own pets would also be paying, because the government pays for NOTHING. The taxpayers are the ones paying, not the government. I do not think it fair to make people who do not own pets pay for other people to own them. JMO.
-
Lets face it whats the real cost of a neuter?? A 5 minute surgery should not cost over 200.00, as it does at many vets around me. If big brother wants to spend our money on a program for pets let them pick up say 50% of the cost if the vets want to scream they will be losing to much otherwise.
The reason why they're over 200 is the mandatory pre-anesthesia bloodwork most clinics do.Â
Also pet insurance will pay 80% generally at least they did for Kali.
NONE of the hospitals around here require bloodwork. And it costs extra if you ask for it (Not that I care, I'm just saying it isn't included in teh price) Also, the pet insurance places I've looked at don't cover spay/neuter.
-
If big brother wants to spend our money on a program for pets let them pick up say 50% of the cost if the vets want to scream they will be losing to much otherwise.
If that were done, then pet owners would still pay for their pet's spay or neuter, and those who didn't own pets would also be paying, because the government pays for NOTHING. The taxpayers are the ones paying, not the government. I do not think it fair to make people who do not own pets pay for other people to own them. JMO.
But that doesn't change anything. Even though you're homeschooled, your mom has to pay taxes to pay for public schools. So those people who're going to public school but don't have dogs can pay for your dog's neuter. Not that I agree with it but it works out in the end.
-
With most of our rescue dogs we do not have the pre-anesthesia bloodwork ran and the vet does not have monitors. Cost of a neuter on a 27lb dog (just last week) $219.00 after discount.....
For comparison... vet 30 miles from me would have charge $86.00. He's been in business for years so to me that means $86.00 more then covers the costs. Both areas run about the same in income levels and overhead.
Yes, you are right I did not include the prep time the techs do I was stating the 5 minutes of the vets time. But with the above numbers shown it can be done for far cheaper then $200.00+.
I'm not saying ALL vets across the board should lower their fees. Heaven knows vets in the richer neighborhoods do not need to. But when talking of a way to control the pet population one does need to look at the finer points such as.....
Where are these dogs coming from?Â
Why are they not being s/n?
Truth is alot of the shelter dogs are coming from lower income areas and it would benefit society as a whole to cut costs where needed. If every one of the 100+ vets around me was to donate 8 hours a month of their time and only charge the true cost of the surgery I think you would see a major decrease.
Also pet insurance will pay 80% generally at least they did for Kali.>>>
For people not on a fixed income this is a great option but for those who are $20+ a month for their dog to have insurance is not happening when they do not even have health coverage for themselves.
-
Something that struck me when I moved to this country was that vet care is very expensive. I dont have a lot of countries to compare to but I know in Sweden and Norway they are rather similar. Both countries way higher taxes than here, about the same income level if you see to similar jobs. Yes the majority of people have insurance for their dogs, but even without a spay or neuter will run you about $100 in a very good clinic with monitors and bloodwork. So in general I think vets here could charge way less than they do.
I am fortunate though, I found a wonderful vet here,they charge about $ 130 for spay of a dog who is approx. 100 lbs. And that is including monitors and blood work.They charge $11 for the rabies vaccinations and are overall very modest in their billing.
So if the vets were more into actively working on getting the overpopulation down I am sure that could be done.
Marit