Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The Great Spay-Neuter Fallacy

A fallacy is typically defined as, "A mistake in reasoning; a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves upon examination not to be so."
Take for instance the very common popular premise that "Spaying and Neutering Saves Lives."

This slogan illustrates the fallacy of "Wishful Thinking". Wishful thinking is a  belief that something is true because it or its consequence is desired to be true. In reality, there is not a shred of evidence that spaying or neutering has saved even one life (with the exceptions of pyometra or testicular cancer). This is a fact, no matter how much we might like to close our eyes and wish it to be so.

On the contrary, there are instances of dogs that have died during sterilization surgery. There are also studies coming to light that demonstrate that sterilization adversely affects health, and actually shortens the lifespan of dogs (and humans too).

Perhaps the people promoting this idea would like us to believe that sterilization saves lives by preventing "overpopulation"? Another fallacy closely related to Wishful Thinking is "Appeal to Consequences":
"If we don't spay and neuter all pets, then we will suffer from 'Pet Overpopulation'"

Again, there is no evidence to prove that any reduction of the unwanted pet population is linked to spay and neuter. Many nations do NOT have any crisis of pet overpopulation, even though few practice spay-neuter. And, shelters across the US are discovering that through implementation of No Kill techniques, they can save lives! This is done without extreme reliance on pet sterilization surgery. 

To quote a former president of the CVMA, Dr. John Hamil, "Being intact does not equate to being bred."

Presenting spay-neuter as a lifesaving procedure also demonstrates the "Cause and Effect" fallacy. If event "B" occurs after event "A", then it is wrongly assumed that "A" caused "B". However:

  • A and B may just happen to occur together (coincidence). Neither is the cause of the other.
  • A and B may be caused by another event, so that A did not cause B or vice versa.
  • Maybe A did cause B, but such a conclusion must be verified by scientists or historians.

Event "A" - an aggressive spay neuter campaign has been underway in the US for the past 40 years.

Event "B" - shelter intakes have declined dramatically over the last 40 years.

It is assumed that an aggressive spay-neuter campaign has resulted in declining shelter populations. However, during the same time frame, there has also been a very successful educational campaign about responsible pet ownership. Confinement and leash laws have been stressed, along with the knowledge that indiscriminate breeding is not desirable.

In other words, it is not at all proven that high rates of spay-neuter are the reason for the decline in shelter intakes. It is entirely possible; no, it is LIKELY, that the reduction in pet population is due in large part to public education about the issue. 

The proposal that spay-neuter saves lives is also an "appeal to popularity" i.e. the "Bandwagon Fallacy". A popular fallacy is not true simply because it is widely presented as fact. Peer pressure and the acceptance of "common knowledge" does not foster logical reasoning.

If spay and neuter saves lives, then abortion, hysterectomy and vasectomy must also save lives.

Are all these premises (and the last statement itself) fallacies? You betcha!

The US Government promoting Spay-Neuter as lifesaving is an "Appeal to Authority"; another fallacy of argument. HSUS and PETA skillfully present such false positions to influence public opinion. The US Government obviously knows NOTHING about this subject, but these stamps reinforce the popular misconception that "Spay Neuter saves lives!" 


  1. I've already received a comment from a friend that a hysterectomy was necessary to save her life. Of course, when Humaniacs shout that spay-neuter saves lives, they are not referring to judicious use of the procedures as lifesaving measures. They are pushing for spay-neuter across the board, and at a young age to boot.
    I can't think of ONE man who has ever needed a vasectomy to save his life!

  2. And here I thought that I was the only one who constantly is bothered by logical fallacies in the AR propoganda. Bravo on this post.

  3. Interesting article! However, it is not logical to say that if spay and neuter saves lives, then human abortion, vasectomy and hysterectomy also save lives. The difference of course is that there is a pet overpopulation problem leading to the euthanasia of millions of unwanted pets each year. If more humans are born, even "excess" or unwanted humans, it does not lead to more humans being euthanized in shelters. So, reducing the number of humans born does not "save lives."

    Other than that last point, I enjoyed your post very much--it is nice to see someone who is not drinking the spay/neuter Kool-Aid. It infuriates me that caring, responsible pet owners who would never let their dogs roam or reproduce anyway are feeling compelled to spay or neuter because of societal pressure. From what I have learned in recent years about neutering in particular, it is better for your dog's development and long-term health to hold off neutering until he is fully mature or to not neuter him at all. Too bad people are such sheep on this issue! (and many other issues, lol)

    1. Malthuss would say that overpopulation leads to more death by other causes--disease, war, scarcity... "disthanasias" to coin a term. The difference between humans and animals is that we intervene in animal lives out of a misplaced sense of responsibility--and provide the "good death" (euthanasia) so that we dont have to suffer to see the multitude of ways in which nature balances a population against its carrying capacity. Frankly I think the fallacy is that we are responsible for determining any other creature's time and mode of death--we would frown upon the involuntary sterilisation or euthanasia of humans, and yet we feel compelled to murder animals we "cannot take care of." Every animal born must surely die, so the only way we will be relieved of this burden is to exterminate all animals or stop caring so much. I care for the animals that I have chosen to care for. The feral population is not my responsibility, and i would no sooner exterminate them than i would any uncared for creature, human or otherwise.

  4. Hi there Romany Dog!
    Yes, that last sentence in this post demonstrates the crux of the article; that not all points of argument are necessarily valid. That's why I included it!
    You are 100% correct on the risks to dog health from our nation's speutermania philosophy. However, it is not true that we have any valid "overpopulation" problem and that reducing the pet population by spay-neuter will necessarily have an affect on shelter intakes. We have posted several articles on this topic. See "Rethinking Spay and Neuter" on this blog, and also check in the links section for others on the subject. Nathan Winograd's post "Debunking Pet Overpopulation" is excellent. Then there is "The Earth is Flat, Pet Overpopulation Exists, and Other Myths We've Been Told" by Bett Sundermeyer from No-Kill Houston, and "Pet UNDERpopulation" by Loretta at The Spaniel Journal. All excellent regarding the myth of pet overpopulation.
    Thanks for your comments! See you next time....

  5. I've just found your blog, and you're a breath of fresh air!
    I've had and trained dogs for years and never bought into the BS that spaying or neutering creates a "happy and healthy" dog. Training and including your dog in your family, vetted and fed well makes for a happy and healthy dog. I know that my dogs have been healthier because I never neutered. And never did they breed, unless I wanted them to, because they were breed worthy. titled and health screened. My dogs have never roamed, they're trained and well behaved. I would say that my dogs are better behaved that most of the altered dogs out there!
    Anyway, good job on your blog! I think I'll be a regular reader!

  6. It is very interesting that you say:

    "there is no evidence to prove that any reduction of the unwanted pet population is linked to spay and neuter."

    and yet in your article on Lake County, CA, you are advocating TNR to control feral cat populations. Is there some crucial difference in the mechanisms of controlling the population of pet cats and dogs versus that of feral animals? You also say:

    "Many nations do NOT have any crisis of pet overpopulation, even though few practice spay-neuter."

    Got some examples or statistics to prove this?

  7. Yes, "interesting" is an understatement! "Fascinating" is more how I would describe the interest I have in these animal politics issues.

    Europeans rarely sterilize their pets and they are not in the grip of any sort of surplus pet situation. But then, neither are we here in the US. There are (last survey) about 78 million owned dogs in the US and 94 million owned cats. Combined, that is 172 million owned pets in the US. Yearly, approximately 7 million adoptable animals end up in shelters. 4 million are placed, leaving approximately 3 million cats and dogs needing re-homing. With a market demanding over 20 million pets each and every year, it's easy to see that the problem is not "overpopulation" necessitating wholescale sterilization, but proactive placement of the adoptable animals who end up in shelters.

    Naturally there are different factors involved in feral animal populations as opposed to owned animals. Roaming animals are not confined and therefore their population is regulated only by the forces of nature. When population control is deemed necessary by a community, TNR is a compassionate alternative to rounding up and killing the animals.

  8. Sorry to be pedantic but do you have any evidence for your statement that "Europeans rarely sterilize their pets and they are not in the grip of any sort of surplus pet situation"?

    Supposing it is true, and following the logic presented in this article, I can only assume that it is because Europeans are far more responsible as pet owners than Americans...

  9. Sure, "Anonymous"! Here is a statement from the American College of Theriogenology.

    "In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public."


    Not that I agree with the presumption that we have a significant "overpopulation" problem in the US, but the assessment of the situation in Europe seems to be very accurate.

    According to a friend of mine who is a breed warden in Austria, the percent of sterilized pets there is very small, and sterilization is not done for the purpose of population control. There is no "overpopulation" problem; the shelters are all "No-Kill" in Austria.
    Others that I know in Germany and Denmark have confirmed that this is the case in those coutries as well.

    I'm betting that we could find responsible as well as irresponsible pet owners in all countries. But consider for a moment our unique situation.....America is forged from a meld of innumerable ethnic groups; the value of pets will likely vary somewhat by cultural and economic factors.

  10. Here is information set to me be a friend i Sweden:

    "Regarding the number of dogs spayed/neutered in the total swedish dog population the number seems to be 5-10% including dogs that are spayed/neutered for medical reasons."

    "This is the only good online reference I could find, but it is only in swedish:"


    "I did find statistics for for what is probably the biggest vet clinic/animal hospital in stockholm:

    In 2009 it had 30 000 visits of which 18 000 were dogs, The total number of dogs spayed/neutered for non medical reasons were 90."

  11. One cannot ignore the influence of the consumerist capitalist culture prevalent in the US; people take what they want, and when it becomes outmoded or inconvenient, they get rid of it. Similarly, the warping of the American dream into life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth... breeders who want to make a quick buck by selling puppies, with little care about what happens to them afterwards, and certainly no care about the deplorable number of adoptable animals being killed by shelters every day.

  12. There you are again, "anonymous"! It took a few days, but when the facts could not be refuted, you resorted to personal attacks.
    And such a callous and jaded attitude! The vast majority of Americans love animals. Did you know that over 4 million animals are adopted from shelter or rescue each and every year? And certainly, the vast majority of dog breeders have selected that avocation because they really LIKE dogs. It's not an easy way to make money; most breeders LOSE money, what with the high cost of veterinary care, and legislation limiting the numbers you can own and sell. And especially these days there is no profit to be had when unregulated shelters and "rescues" undercut the prices and ship in thousands of free dogs from overseas to make THEIR bottom line profitable.
    You obviously are ignorant about the many breed rescues that are operated almost exclusively by BREEDERS. These rescues remove most adoptable dogs from shelters. They take in dogs whether they are purebred or not.
    There is no "warping" of the American dream, except for the theft of our property and our earnings by liberal legislators.
    The Declaration of Independence was based on George Mason’s (1725-1792) Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776. It claimed:
    That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
    Although the original desired wording for the Declaration was "life, liberty and possession of property", Jefferson was persuaded for "politically correct" reasons to remove the mention of possession of property. However, Jefferson was well aware of the vital concept of property rights.
    Writing on April 24, 1816 to French economist and businessman Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours (1739-1817), Jefferson opined that “there exists a right independent of force; that a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.” He argued against the democratic expropriation of property in the same letter, stating that “the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime.”

    Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. A republic is when the lamb has a gun. Thankfully in the US, we have a supreme court to correct offenses perpetrated as a result of the tyranny of the majority. And for those who grumble that they can't impinge on the rights and freedoms of others....go find yourself a fascist country to live in. There are plenty to choose from.
    I'll take capitalism and freedom any day over oppression of liberty.

  13. This was an extremely different article. The fact is dogs bodies are made so they should mate every 6 months, if they do not hormones elevate in their bodies causing discomfort and irritability. If you are not a professional breeder you should alter your pet! It is unfair to your pet if you lock them up when their hormones are screaming at them causing psychological and physical discomfort. As, far as it saving lives I agree that it does, maybe not that particular animal, but further down the road when your dog jumps the fence or digs under it because it's that "mating time" and oops your dog is having puppies that you don't want. There you go adding to the problem, send them to an animal shelter "of course they'll find a home". Unfortunately 30% of animals at the animal shelter are euthanized.

  14. Hello, another anonymous poster. Dogs are in fact considered a subspecies of the grey wolf. Their reproductive cycle is similar but not identical to the wolf. A wolf only is capable of reproducing once every year. Dogs have been thrown off of the natural springtime schedule, probably due to favorable conditions year-round for raising their young, but it would still be rare to find a bitch that has a reproductive cycle every six months. More commonly they will cycle about every 8-10 months. Some of the more primitive breeds remain closer to a yearly cycle.
    A dog's hormones don't "scream" any more than any other animal. Few dogs these days have "oops" litters as owners are more watchful. And you will find very few young puppies in a shelter.
    As to shelter killings, please do educate yourself. There is no "problem" to add to. There is no pet overpopulation in this country, and shelters who kill do so by choice. Where did you get your 30% figure? Out of thin air? And even if a shelter kills 100% of their animals, it is not out of necessity, it is only out of covenience. Plus the fact that they are PAID BY THE STATE by the numbers of kills.
    When shelters pull out the old, tired, lame excuses of killing for space or time; that's not "euthanasia", it's just plain KILLING. A young puppy is never killed by shelters unless it is ill or the shelter is run by inept and uncaring bozos.
    You don't need to be a professional breeder to prioritize your pet's good health and welless. There are many valid reasons to keep your pet intact. Good health is at the top of the list. We've had lots of posts on that subject too. There are very few reasons to alter for health, and those are mostly related to genetic predisposition.
    So please do keep reading, there is plenty of information just here on this blog, and in the links section as well, to bust the misinformation bubble. Sadly, it's very common for people to comment without having a knowledge of the issues. Please read more of what we have presented here so we can have an intelligent conversation. Thanks for stopping by.

  15. Thank you SO much for this, I also have an anti-spay/neuter site {StopSpaying.webs.com} and it's great to see someone else actually looking at the facts as opposed to being brainwashed into believing spaying is the 'right' thing to do like the rest of our society.
    Again, thanks, this made my day ^-^

  16. Thanks, anon. I enjoyed your spay neuter website. I hope you are a young person as one commentor suggested, because we sure need your kind of positive thinking and accurate presentation of facts to carry us into the future! Us old folks won't be around forever! LOL.

  17. Thank you! I am so happy to find more anti-mutilation people. It took a few months but I even convinced my parents not to spay their new puppy who is now almost two and who I believe is a happier dog because of it. The dog we had when I was growing up was unfortunately neutered and to this day I regret it, even if I was misinformed as a youth. I also give thanks to my boyfriend and the dog he has raised for 14 years for showing me the most gentle loving dog who happens to be an intact pit/lab/boxer/chow mix. This is a wonderful website, this is the first website I found and that I sent my parents and that convinced them to not spay. www.neutering.org.
    Thank you!

  18. I refuse to be bullied by a community of people who can't think roe themselves, and jump to alter their pets for no good reason of their own. Because a stranger can't hold me responsible using unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation is his back up, he will label my dog an aggressor. Fact is when I take my one year old English Mastiff, with a playful pup's disposition, he is a target for the real aggressors- the altered, jaded they have no balls, pack.

    1. My dog has definitely experienced heightened scrutiny because of his size. As a Newfoundland puppy, he had already become much larger than most other dogs, and although he has a darling temperament, many people were offended at his puppy behaviours and the constant voice training. I realised that in order for my dog to be truly free, I had to raise him far from all the prudes in the city. I still handle my dog far more physically than I would a smaller dog, but hey, he's bigger than a miniature pony, and I do what I have to to keep him safe, around all the other livestock.

  19. To the anonymmous shelter killer from San Angelo, Texas who attempted to post lengthy comments here earlier today: be advised that this is NOT your forum to spout your uninformed personal opinion based upon your narrow world view.
    At last count there were 78 million OWNED dogs in the US. Your nutty assumption that 17 million of these are unwanted is just that; an assumption, totally unsupported by FACTS. There is nowhere near 17 million animals entering our nation's shelters each year. At most, there is less than half that number. Ask yourself how many of these are "returns" and counted multiple times. How many are brought in from other countries? We have lots of info here ont that issue!!
    Check Maddie's Fund website. They know that no-kill is not just a possibility, but "we're almost there". Shelters who kill adoptable animals do so by their own perverse choice.
    I just surveyed the available animals (dogs and cats combined) in your local shelter. There is a grand total of 119 animals. Hardly a crisis of epic proportions. If they can't be placed in your local area, then do what so many other shelters and rescues do in the south.....send them up to northern shelters where they are snapped up like candy. I guess you'd rather kill them. That'll teach those irresponsible owners, won't it?
    And do educate yourself. Prophylactic spay-neuter is NOT healthy for animals. Read the many posts here on the health risks. MOre are coming to light every day. Even the supposed benefit for reducing breast cancer risk by spaying is being questioned by the results of recent studies. I'll be adding that scientific journal article here soon.
    If prophylactic sterilization is such a healthy choice, doctors would be recommending it for humans. Obviously, that isn't happening.
    Neuter your animals if you so choose, but don't pretend you are doing them any big favors, and don't attempt to promote your hate-filled, anti-ownership, pro-killing viewpoint here. I don't allow trollish posts with invalid arguments on this blog, particularly when they are miles long.

  20. Excellent and coherent! I am so sick of being badgered by people to "fix" my dog, he isn't broken. People even shout it from moving cars. I have seen dogs that were neutered to curb aggression or other undesired behaviors, and never have I seen a magical result. It's bullshit. In Norway it is considered cruel to castrate a dog for behavioral purposes. Thank you for this!

  21. Excellent and coherent! I am so sick of being badgered by people to "fix" my dog, he isn't broken. People even shout it from moving cars. I have seen dogs that were neutered to curb aggression or other undesired behaviors, and never have I seen a magical result. It's bullshit. In Norway it is considered cruel to castrate a dog for behavioral purposes. Thank you for this!

  22. I work at a high kill shelter because I live in a very irresponsible community. Until you euthanize dozens of dogs a day for lack of space, I suggest that you remove yourself from the armchair quarterback position and face the facts. The public as a whole are stupid, therefore the need to create slogans that they can understand is imperative. Spaying and neutering saves future lost lives. Every animal bred in a back yard is one less adopted from a shelter. You look into the sad faces behind the fences and tell them that it is more important for people to have the right to keep their pet intact than to open more homes for them to have. For some unknown reason, people think that owning a pet is an inalienable right, and it's not. It's an expensive responsibility that includes spaying and neutering. Every heat cycle a female dog has, her chances of mammary cancer increases. I am of the school of thought that male dogs should be neutered after they have matured, there is direct evidence linking healthy joints to full maturity development. But they still need to be snipped. As a previous person stated, every accidental breeding is because the animal got out of the yard while in heat, or the male got into the yard. I have seen it time and again.
    I worked at an animal emergency room for 8 years. We did a statistical analysis of the animals who entered the system with traumatic injury. 82% of them were intact. At my shelter 94% of all intakes are intact. Does this not mean anything to you anti-spay/neuter advocates? I suggest that before you continue on your way of thought that you go to your local kill shelter and check out the dogs and cats who are up for euthanasia. My bet is that most of them would gladly give you kisses and would dance around acting like the sweet gods and cats that they are. Unfortunately they are products of irresponsible people and will have to be killed. Also, try putting yourself in my shoes, while I chose to do this job, I'm not forced to, it is traumatizing. I wear my game face at work, but at home I break down regularly. I have taken the lives of thousands of animals simply because people, like you, can't fathom the whole picture. The reality is cold and depressing, and the only solution is mandatory spay/neuter laws.
    Unless you have another idea to control pet overpopulation because I would love to hear it!

  23. "And even if a shelter kills 100% of their animals, it is not out of necessity, it is only out of covenience. Plus the fact that they are PAID BY THE STATE by the numbers of kills."
    I would love to see your factual evidence of this statement. At my shelter, we are chastised by the amount of kills we have every month. Our funding directly relates to how few kills we have. Tell me how convenient it is to have dog after dog die in your arms because you simply don't have space. We have an average daily intake during regular operating hours (5 days a week) of 30 animals. On our weekends, the intakes falls to an average of 18 dogs. (our officers don't pick up cats.) We have 140 dog runs. Pit bulls must be housed alone, and we can't house more than 5 small dogs in a single run for herd health reasons. There are 20 cages for puppies, again they must be housed alone or no more than two per cage for health reasons (they urinate and defecate in their cages.) We have an average adoption of 5 animals per day, the rescues take an average of 2 per day, and we return an average of 1 dog per day to its registered owner.
    You do the math and tell me that we kill out of convenience. Also you stated "And you will find very few young puppies in a shelter. " That is not at all correct. A lot of shelters rely on foster homes for those young puppies, but there are never enough fosters. We currently have 5 mom's nursing their young puppies in various stages of development. We try hard not to kill puppies, but if they are sick, why would we nurse them back to health when there are 10 dogs that we have to kill that night because they are on "the list"?
    I understand that everyone is allowed their own opinion, I just ask that you really educate yourself before you talk about shelter staff and their job. Until you have lived it, you have no ides how horrific it really is. Nothing I do at the shelter is for convenience. While I would prefer an emotionless debate, I am quite saddened by that statement. How could you possibly believe that shelter workers, those charged with taking care of the unwanted and forgotten kill animals out of convenience? We kill because society has yet to put a stop to mass breeding and pet ownership irresponsibility.

    1. For someone who prefers an "emotionless debate" you sure filled your post with drama! Killing for convenience has been well-documented by the No Kill experts such as Rich Avenzino and Nathan Winograd. Shelters kill when they have empty cages. There have been many shelters in recent months who have been busted for the worst incidents of abuse and cruelty. Check the YesBiscuit blog, you will be shocked.

  24. Hi there! I am a 4th year veterinary student and plan on specializing in shelter medicine and i found reading this blog difficult, yet interesting. you seem very educated and make a lot of great points. I know it is a common practice to sterilize everything in a shelter before it is adopted and I can see the pros and cons to each side. I've seen studies suggesting growth abnormalities, osteosarcoma, and other conditions possibly being linked to early spay and neuter, but if I were to adopt out a dog or cat to an irresponsible owner and that pet had puppies (that all ended up in shelters), i would feel like it was my fault, that I could have prevented that. And i feel that is the purpose of sterilzation, to prevent dogs and cats from having unwanted litters. Its refreshing to hear the numbers on the animals adopted and demand for them, but i feel people have been turning to pet stores and "back yard breeders" and instead of shelters. I know you have said shelters kill to make room out of convenience but what happens when an already full shelter gets several more dogs in and dont have the room or resources? is it better to send them away? Ive also volunteered in a shelter where a man wanted to relinquish his dog and was turned away because didnt have room. he went outside, shot his dog, and drove off. I'm afraid more will continue to do that if turned away from shelters.

    1. “I know you have said shelters kill to make room out of convenience but what happens when an already full shelter gets several more dogs in and dont have the room or resources? is it better to send them away?”

      So you think that an almost certain death in the shelter is better than an uncertain future outside the shelter. Yes, it is better to turn them away.

      Did you or the shelter call the police about man who shot his dog? I don't believe that story for a minute. Shelters are known to make up a lot of fables denigrating the public, but even if true, that guy would not be typical of the majority. In fact, I think there would be very few who would do such a thing unless the dog was very ill or had problems with aggression.

    2. You sounds like an idiot, spouting the same old shit. Acknowledging that there are health problems but dismissing them because an irresponsible owner might have puppies and they’d all end up at the shelter. Really, how do you get from A to B? And where do you get off saying that people should be prevented from doing something that is their legal right? Especially when we’re running out of dogs and need more of them. Plus that same old “backyard breeders” bullshit. What happens when an already full shelter has too many dogs and turns people away? I don’t know, maybe the owner should take responsibility for his pet, make them accountable, not give them a way to foist their animal off on the rest of us. As for your anecdotal story about the guy who shot his dog, I hope they arrested the guy, because last I heard, that’s against the law, and if nothing else, is major animal cruelty. But HE’S the one who should be penalized, not the rest of us. I haven’t shot any dogs lately, so leave me the hell alone.

    3. I don't know where you live, but puppies are not turning up at any shelters in our area. And we already have great tools for preventing unwanted litters. They are called "doors" and "leashes". Let's try using those instead of rationalizing that it's better to have a dog die early of cancer, or be crippled with hip dysplasia, than it is to allow it to maybe have a litter of puppies. Insane!