Comments on: Highly-charged analysis of spay-neuter bill is attacked

By: Patti

Patti — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:34:49 +0000

This is for TrueAgendas stating unaltered dogs have no health problems

Dr. Jeff Grognet a vet in Canada who also teaches online vet assistant classes and has been a practing vet for over 20 years writes in his online vet classes this info. regarding unaltered dogs
“Diseases Suffered by Non-spayed and non-neutered pets.
Female dogs left intact have about a 50% chance of developing mammary tumors. The hormanal fluctions during estrus prompts the development of the mammary glands and this makes them susceptible to the development of growths. About 40% of thse breast growths are malignant, meaning they an spread to other areas of the body. By spaying dogs before their first heat, the chance of tumors drops to a negligible level.
Intact males have their own health problems. Many develop prostate infections that can be very difficult to treat. About 50% of intact males form tumors in their testicles. Though few of thee are malignant the treatment is still castration. Some owners feel their senior dogs are too old for neutering. I assure them that there is no age limit for this procedure as long as the dog is otherwise healty.
Sterlization is the answer to stopping unwanted pregnancies and curtailing these medical ailments.
Males can be neutered or castrated and the latter term applies to the male only. Castrated males cannot get females pregnant, they do not wander in search of females in heat, and they do not fight with other males. I recommend preforming these surgeries when my pattients are six months of age when the adult teeth have erupted. This is before the females come into heat and before the males develop annoying behaviors.” Pg 4 Chapter 4 Online Vet Assistant Lesson Course Content 1997-21009 by Jeff Grognet

By: Patti

Patti — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:14:28 +0000

This is for TrueAgendas
Dr. Jeff Grognet a vet in Canada who also teaches online vet assistant classes and has been a practing vet for over 20 years writes in his online vet classes this info. regarding unaltered dogs
“Diseases Suffered by Non-spayed and non-neutered pets.
Female dogs left intact have about a 50% chance of developing mammary tumors. The hormanal fluctions during estrus prompts the development of the mammary glands and this makes them susceptible to the development of growths. About 40% of thse breast growths are malignant, meaning they an spread to other areas of the body. By spaying dogs before their first heat, the chance of tumors drops to a negligible level.
Intact males have their own health problems. Many develop prostate infections that can be ver difficult to treat. About 50% of intact males form tumors in their testicles. Though few of thee are malignant the treatment is still castration. Some owners feel their senior dogs are too old for neutering. I assure them that there is no age limit for this procedure as long as the dog is otherwise healthy.
Sterlization is the answer to stopping unwanted pregnancies and curtailing these medical ailments.
Males can be neutered or castrated and the latter term applies to the male only. Castrated males cannot get females pregnant, they do not wander in search of females in heat, and they do not fight with other males. I recomment preforming these surgeries when my pattients are six months of age when the adult teeth have erupted. This is before the females come into heat and before the males develop annoying behaviors.” Pg 4 Chapter 4 Online Vet Assistant Lesson Course Content 1997-21009 by Jeff Grognet

By: Patti

Patti — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:33:18 +0000

SB 250 is now on step 9 of a 12-step process to become law.
This is posted on Yes For SB 250 Pet Responsiblity Act
one of 3 bills for animal rights
1 Spay/Neuter
2 Puppy Mills
3. Dogfighting
These are all supported by Best Friends Animal Society in Kanup Utah
the people who put on Dogtown show on National Geographic Channel

By: WTF

WTF — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:35:37 +0000

I see the Whinonettes are in full force here. NAIA supports breeding, breeding, and more breeding when shelters are reporting 30-40% of their population are purebreds. And Winograd is the apple of their eyes. Winograd lends credibility to the breeding industry with his insistance that there is no pet overpopulation. Yet his own program and hand picked director destroyed the shelter in Philly and locally, Rancho Cucamonga. According to a report, the Rancho shelter is letting cats and dogs die in their cages so as to protect their numbers. Even Reno voted against becoming “no kill”, and Winograd still insists they are the “cat’s meow”, staying true to his deception. Don’t look at the “live release rates”, look at the died in kennels. Look too at the return rate on the two fer one sales. Look at places such as Lied, NV where animals were being allowed to die slowly of disease. To continue to listen to this false prophet only means a return to the dark ages, unnecessary suffering and sacrificing animals for the “numbers”.

By: MikeL

MikeL — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:23:57 +0000

Laura, your argument is disingenuous at best. A quick Google search makes it quite clear that you favor breeder’s rights over the welfare of California’s animals. I invite you to volunteer at any one of SoCal’s high-kill shelters for a few months. I’m sure you’ll find it to be an eye-opening experience.

By: Patti

Patti — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:09:28 +0000

I went to a shelter in 2005 got a 3 month old mixed breed. They told me he was a stray running the streets. Why did this happen? Because his mother/father had unwanted puppies after running loose. Fact he was a unwanted puppy either dumped/or put out when he was about 3 months old to wander the streets in a bad area. The shelter had so many of these puppies they were not given names only numbers and although mine found a good home I walked the cages and I saw the problem this high kill shelter faced. No it was not a small city shelter in San Clemente with a steady influx of high income familes with big yards living in Talaga, it had streets you woulldn’t want to park on with houses that had bars on the windows and people walking around looking like they couldn’t feed their families much less a new puppy. What is the answer? Maybe give this people a good reason not to let their dogs run loose and produce puppies. One pet breeder blog I told my story to told me the answer is to tell the shelter’s directors to send the puppies to other areas. Well that is a good idea but I really don’t think it is going to happen at a high kill shelter in a bad area of LA that has no money and few options. Sorry but I am going to take my hard earned cash and go to Sacramento in Aug. when this bill is voted on for funding (why do you think the bill is 2 steps away from passing). I want to be sure responsible people know that this bill is geared for the average mixed breed puppy who ends up in the shelter with little to no chance of a good life because of irresponsible owners who let their dogs run and breed puppies. Yes the breeders are not for the bill. Yes the feral cat feeders are against the bill. Too bad for them.I am 110% for the bill because when go to Yes on SB250 and the lady starts talking about the puppies coming in and being euthanized because no one wants them I can really relate, I saw the problem in 2005 and all the people I have talked to at the dog adoption events in LA tell me
“if you thought it was bad then you should see it now” sad.

By: Laura Sanborn

Laura Sanborn — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:47:28 +0000

Like every county in California, Santa Cruz County is required under state law to report their public animal shelter statistics to the California Department of Health Services every year. These statistics are on the CDPH website in the form of “local rabies” reports for each year for the past 10 years. These are public records, available for anyone to see.

The CDPH records prove that Santa Cruz County is still killing 37% of the dogs and cats that enter their public shelters. That is WAY in excess of the less than 10% of dogs and cats that need to be humanely euthanized in open-admission public animal shelters that save all treatable and non-vicious dogs and cats.

Like Santa Cruz County , there are many jurisdictions that claim they are saving all adoptable dogs and cats, but play a game by declaring any dog or cat with a treatable health problem as non-adoptable, or non-vicious dogs with behavioral issues that simply require training as non-adoptable, or a host of other inexcusable reasons to mask the fact that they are killing adoptable dogs and cats.

The numbers don’t lie. The numbers that Santa Cruz County provided to CDPH prove that they are killing many adoptable dogs and cats.

BTW, the Santa Cruz SPCA that Jean spoke with does not run the public shelters in Santa Cruz County. They did at one time, but the Santa Cruz SPCA had their contract revoked by the county due to malfeasance. Search the archives of Santa Cruz Sentinel, the facts are all there.

By: Jean Bland

Jean Bland — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:19:06 +0000

Another great job of detective work by Teri Sforza! If the only problem that surfaces with the current spay and neuter bill is the price of spay and neuter there are plenty of ways for cities and citizens to work with Veterinarians to either temporarily or permanently get low cost spay and neuter going in their city. This is completely doable. As this Quote from a prior story by Teri Sforza says at Santa Cruz, which has essentially seen its kill rate plummet under the mandatory spay-neuter law,
We asked Lisa Carter, executive director of the Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to provide statistics on that county’s experience with mandatory-spay neuter. The answer to “Does it work?” seems to be an unqualified “yes.”

“In Santa Cruz County,” she writes, “we no longer euthanize for space.”

Be still my beating heart. That’s astounding, at a time when our cash-starved state plans to halve the number of days stray pets are held at shelters before being euthanized (from six days to three, to save $25 million

By: ocgirl

ocgirl — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:23:47 +0000

I doubt that any of these anti SB250 comments have been made by people who operate rescues, which deal with homeless animals everyday. The majority of the proponents of SB250 are animal welfare organizations and NOT animal rights extremists.
.

By: Laura Sanborn

Laura Sanborn — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:07:30 +0000

Teri, I appreciate being quoted in the print edition of this article, but you falsely identified me as a breeder. Had you contacted me as I offered I would have been happy to tell you I am a volunteer search-and-rescue dog handler. My dog and I respond to missing person searches across the state of California.

Contrary to the spin coming from Judie Mancuso, there are a lot more people who oppose SB 250 than just breeders.

SB 250 threatens to severely damage California’s ability to produce police dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, border patrol dogs, guide dogs for the blind, service dogs for the disabled, ranch and farm dogs, agricultural pest detection dogs, and all other working dogs.

In truth it is not possible to put exemptions in a mandatory spay/neuter law that will adequately protect working dogs. Legislators who have made such attempts have only demonstrated their profound ignorance of the issue they are trying to regulate.

Protecting today’s working police dogs or search-and-rescue dogs from forced sterilization does not protect the breeding populations that we must maintain in order to produce tomorrow’s working dogs. The breeding populations are for the most part not working dogs themselves, and are not legally distinguishable from pet dogs. Exemptions don’t work.

The North American Police Work Dog Association, one of the nation’s leading organizations of law enforcement officers who train and work police dogs, wrote in their opposition letter to mandatory spay/neuter:

“There’s really no way to create a mandatory spay/neuter law that would not do serious harm to law enforcement in the state of California.”

To protect California’s public safety and emergency response, to protect California’s blind and disabled citizens, and to protect California agriculture, I urge Californians to contact their Assemblymember and ask them to oppose SB 250.