Challenge for Animal Lovers...
@whimsystoryteller (1743)
United States
June 1, 2007 11:31pm CST
Please read what I'm about to say carefully before responding so that you do not misunderstand what I am trying to say and miss the point I am trying to make.
In California right now, a group is trying to pass a bill that would force animal owners throughout the state to spay or neuter their animals by the age of four months or risk being fined. Let me tell you that while I oppose this bill, I do not oppose spaying and neutering.
What I oppose is stripping the American people of their freedoms and rights to control their own lives and this bill effectively does just that. I believe that there is a better way to solve the problem of unwanted pets that doesn't require dictating how American citizens should live and control their lives.
First of all, I think that we should make it easier for people to have their animals spayed and neutered, especially for those on low incomes who do not have easy access or the funds to do so. Part of the challenge is that people in low income neighborhoods often don't have the money to take the animal to the vet and don't have the transportation to take the animal to a free service.
So, can you be creative and help me to think of other ways to solve the problem than stripping American citizens of their rights?
6 people like this
8 responses
@margieanneart (26423)
• United States
2 Jun 07
Please do not get mad or upset, but I do not agree with you.
I love animals to a fault. Millions are born in the streets and starved and hurt.
I think that it should be enforced if a person wants to have a pet. Second off, if a person is poor, then they shouldn't have a pet to put an extra strain on their budget. Animals have rights too. If we own them, we need to make sure that we can feed and care for them, as we would ourselves.
I don't think that this law is stripping Americans of their rights. I think Americans have too many rights, like in the courts. That's the biggest joke of all.
2 people like this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
2 Jun 07
Hate to say it margieanneart...but I disagree with you...I'm not exactly rich myself, and am on a very very tight budget, but I couldn't dream of being without my two cats--I've had pets ever since I was five years old and couldn't dream a life without pets...I'm alone now, no other family, etc...my two cats ARE my family--just because a person is of a poorer lifestyle that doesn't mean they should be without a furry loved one to care for and they might be in the same situation I am where they are alone too..I've had to sacrifice a lot in consideration to make sure my two cats are well taken care of...and they are rather fussy..preferring Fancy Feast!! I will go out of my way to walk an extra long walk (don't have a car) to one supermarket because they are the only ones with a certain kind of dry food that no one else sells, and I often have coupons for a free bag of the stuff--goodness I could use a pair of new shoes...but instead will put it off just to make sure I have the money instead to take care of them...uh, uh..totally disagree with you--sorry
@whimsystoryteller (1743)
• United States
3 Jun 07
Margieanneart, that means if it were up to you, I wouldn't have any animals and my cats are sometimes what keep me going. It's the love of those animals that keeps me from giving up sometimes. I would rather go without than to have them go without. I think your perspective is very selfish. I agree that animals should not be left on the street to starve, etc. but my cats are safely in my home and I love each and every one of them.
With your theory, a lot of people shouldn't have the right to have children either because they don't have money. Speaking as someone who has been very wealthy and has had to struggle the last few years financially, money comes and goes but having someone to love can be a lifesaver.
I've gone through tremendous loss in the past few years and my cats have kept me going a lot of the time. I think people who make across the board decisions for everyone's lives without considering what that might do to a person is wrong.
What we need is a law that takes individuals into consideration. I think if a person can prove that they have more than the normal amount of animals but that the animals are being cared for, they shouldn't be forced to give them up. That would be a fair law.
@MJLami (1173)
• United States
3 Jun 07
I see where you're going with this. I also agree with you, not everyone who has a pet can afford the neutering/spaying and what about breeders or people who just like having litters? This bill I hope is not passed. I suggest maybe getting in touch with the Humane Society and other animal activist groups. A joint effort to help fund lower medical costs for pet owners, especially those most needy, would do far more than a bill that strips people's rights. What if there was (I know an ugly thought but just a suggestion) a small tax added to dog grooming, boarding (you know the luxury stuff we do for our kids) that helps pay for this?
@whimsystoryteller (1743)
• United States
3 Jun 07
Finally, someone who gets what I'm after! I think we probably do need a law but I think that it needs to be more encompassing than simply taking away our rights again.
It's funny that you should mention the Humane Society because it was their email asking me to support this bill that made me angry and come up with this whole discussion. And, I just emailed them again suggesting that there is a better way if they will simply look at things from another person's perspective.
The problem is that most animal activists are so tunnel visioned that they have lost overall perspective and they don't understand that the type of law they are encouraging is most likely going to add to the problem, not fix it.
Thank you for really reading my post. I appreciate it. As far as the tax thing goes, I'm not sure about that but I'm in the process of getting an organization off the ground to help people on low incomes get medical attention and other help for their animals. People will be able to buy items from my store to support what I'm doing. At first, it will only be part of the profits that go to the effort but eventually, my plan is to use all of the profits from my Patches' Pet Pals group to help people who can't afford operations or medicine or even get food or litter at times. I know I've been there and it's much harder for me to allow my babies to go without than for me to go without.
I don't want someone else to have to go through that so I want to help them without making them afraid of reprisal.
Speaking of cat food, I have to go to the store to get some. Thanks for the support. I appreciate it.
@MJLami (1173)
• United States
3 Jun 07
I know tax is an ugly word - it was just a suggestion - a quick jab at brainstorming. Take it and run with it. You'll find a better way. I agree there should be measures in place but I do disagree it should be a law. I'd be against that. There's better ways to do this with more feeling and much more compassion and humanity than passing on fines to people for not doing it. I like the idea of your business. That's really awesome. Keep us informed.
@gardengrrl (1445)
• United States
2 Jun 07
Hi, whimsy -
I don't see any discussion of the RESPONSIBILITIES that go along with these "rights" that Americans whine about constantly. There is no such thing as a right that does not carry at least one responsibility with it. Preventing reproduction and disease is the responsibility that goes with the PRIVILEGE of keeping four-footed companions.
Pet ownership is not a right, and most poor people that I know (I'm poor, so I know plenty) don't fail to neuter/spay their companion animals because of money. Rather, they have that stupida-ss old wives tale stuck in their little minds about animals being "ruined" by eliminating their reproductive urges. Tens of millions of cats and dogs are INTENTIONALLY KILLED every year for lack of a home. Where ignorance holds sway, government MUST STEP IN stop the slaughter! Fine them? Hell, make them live on the streets for a month, abused by all, beaten by ignorant kids, at risk from cars, constantly cold and hungry and alone and afraid. Then sentence them to work in the abbatoirs where the unwanted are killed, every single day. THAT'S what those ignorant scum-f*cks deserve!
There are plenty of ways for poor people to get help with the cost of neutering, and lots of ways to bring animal and clinic together. It is a lack of desire or will to do what's right. Let's face it, American shrug off their responsibilities to their fellow PEOPLE without thought or care! Of course somebody has to do something to bring this mindless breeding and killing to a stop.
@whimsystoryteller (1743)
• United States
3 Jun 07
gardengrrl, I agree that we need to have responsibility with the rights. I know that we can't continue the way things are. I'm just asking for people to think of a better solution that includes our rights instead of simply stripping them because it's the easy way out. Obviously, you didn't really read my post for what I was suggesting.
And, in the future, if you are going to comment on one of my posts, please keep the foul language to yourself. And, instead of getting so angry, maybe you could see that I'm not for not doing anything. I just think there is a better way that we haven't come up with yet.
@gizmo528 (731)
• United States
2 Jun 07
I agree with you. I wouldn't like anyone telling me I had to spay or neuter my pet within a certain amount or time or risk paying a fine. I don't oppose the altering of pets either but I want to be the one to decided when to do it. I also agree with your point that not many people can afford to go to the vet and have their pet spayed or neutered so if they are going to make someone do this then the government should have a free clinic for a certain length of time each month.
@whimsystoryteller (1743)
• United States
3 Jun 07
Finally, someone with some compassion. If you are like me, your animals are like your kids and the idea of them being threatened in any way is like someone threatening your child.
As I said in my original post, I think that most people should have their animals spayed and neutered before they conceive because most people are not equipped to handle more than one animal.
I also think that with all of the animals out there that need homes, people need to focus on giving them homes and that should be what we encourage.
I'm in the process of creating adopt a pet or adopt a cat or adopt a dog items for my store to sell so people can buy t-shirts, etc. to wear but also a portion of the profits will be going to help rescue and shelter organizations to save lives.
When they are ready, I'll let everyone know so they can check them out.
@suzieb (188)
• United States
3 Jun 07
O.K. I'm pretty sure I woke up in America today!
I don't think people should be forced to spay/neuter their pets if they don't want to, just control your pet. If you let your pet rome around the neighborhood, then yes, you should spaie/neuter your pet.
I do think that if they want more people to spay/neuter their pets, it should be more affordable.
I think there's alot of more important issues then what people do with their pets. I just want more people to clean up after them.
@julieandpico (73)
• United States
4 Jun 07
Well, the surgery isn't cheap or free. All the equipment and supplies for the surgery cost money, the vets and vet techs need to be paid, the operating room and kennels need to be cleaned, etc. Sure, some of the labor and supplies are donated sometimes (often!), but there is still a cost! I don't think there is anyone making money off spays and neuters! As is, a small percentage of female dogs are being harmed because in an effort to cut the costs of spays, a lot of clinics do a less complicated procedure that is equally effective for birth control but leaves more of the uterus in (they call it a stump), where it sometimes gets infected even years later. My sister's dog (which had been spayed before she got it by this method) ended up on antibiotics for months to try to resolve that infection and eventually had to have a second surgery to make up the difference between the two procedures.
@julieandpico (73)
• United States
3 Jun 07
I'm a huge spay and neuter fan (and Pico is an even bigger one, she was breed by her previous owners and still cringes when puppies come around.) But 4 months is way too young for some slow maturing breeds. Apparently one of the service dog organizations has done some research and finds that they get more successful service dogs when they spay or neuter later as well. Finally, while all of my dogs and all but one cat have been shelter dogs or rescues, we need responsible breeders and "hobby" breeders are really in one of the best positions to breed and raise good dogs in the future and I think this hits them the hardest.
Mobile facilities and free or reduced cost spay and neuters are a good step. I think we also need to speak out when we hear people talking about casual breeding ("oh, I'm going to let her have one litter so my kids can see the miracle of birth" kind of thing.) We should all add asking if a pet is spayed or neutered to our basic questions we ask people about their pets and discussing it when the answer is no (there are some good reasons and the people with them will be happy to have a sympathetic ear to listen to the extra troubles they have to go through to be a responsible owner of an intact animal.) People with AKC registered dogs should try to influence the AKC to allow spayed or neutered dogs to still participate in ALL events.
I don't want puppy mills and people who don't care about the law to be deciding which animals get to reproduce, because we already know they make choices that are bad for people and dogs. But this law and others like it make it impossible for almost anyone else to afford to breed.
@whimsystoryteller (1743)
• United States
3 Jun 07
Dear julieandpico, as I said in my original post, I do think people should spay/neuter their animals. I just think that we can come up with a better law that includes people's rights instead of taking the easy way out and stripping people of their rights.
In fact, I think that this type of law could increase the problem we already have rather than fix it. I don't think anyone's considered that.
@julieandpico (73)
• United States
4 Jun 07
and we agree with you. But what did you think about our suggestions?
@Katlady2 (9904)
• United States
5 Jun 07
I just received the email on this this morning and have signed the petition to keep the bill from passing. I think it's wrong to force people to follow that rule. Especially for the pet owners that have been taking responsibility for their pets all along. Personally, I feel that there should bee a free mobile spaying and neutering clinic that goes to the homes of the people that simply cannot afford the services of a veterinarian. I know those do exist, as they have shown them on the Animal Cops and other shows of the same kind. In the long run, I feel it would cost much less than having to utilize the extra manpower to try and catch all the stray animals that were born because the owners couldn't afford to spay or neuter them.
@madhuri567 (302)
• India
4 Jun 07
I'm lacking ideas''' i have to think..i will post yu after thinking
