Insanity in Santa Paula

The Neuter Nannies are at it again. Santa Paula is the next city in California poised to mandate that owners and their veterinarians inflict unnecessary and harmful surgery on pets in the community. Up on the agenda for the next city council meeting is a delayed vote on a mandatory spay-neuter-microchip ordinance.

At the hearing two days ago, not just one but TWO local veterinarians (they are the experts, right?) testified against mandated neutering of pets. Despite the evidence presented that spay/neuter has adverse effects on health, the city plans to amend and pass their proposal. As long as they toss a few “exemptions” into the pot to remove some objections, they have no qualms about squelching the right of an owner in consultation with his veterinarian to decide what is best for his dog's health.

Kiss nice dogs like this goodbye when the neuter nannies sink their talons into your community

The local shelter, “Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center” boasts of being the nation's first open-admission no-kill shelter. According to the claim on their Facebook page, 99% of the animals who enter their shelter, LIVE. Yet representatives from this group are still not satisfied. Like most animal rights fanatics, they want to spay-neuter pets into oblivion. The SPARC is backing the new ordinance and their representatives spoke in favor of it at Monday night's City Council meeting.

The rescue brigade will continue to cry “overpopulation” until there is not one single animal entering a shelter, anyplace. I hate to break the news to everybody, but that can only happen when there are no more pets left PERIOD. 

And this group also had the temerity to contradict the testimony of the two local veterinarians, who were concerned about the adverse health effects of spay and neuter. Here's a quote from a local newspaper article:

Representatives from the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center, meanwhile, urged council to approve the ordinance. Health problems, such as musculoskeletal injuries and cancers, occur in many animals whether they are spayed and neutered or not, they said.

Brilliant! Whoever was quoted here probably has his GED. I'm sure he knows better than two local veterinarians about the health effects of spay-neuter.

This person is so ignorant that he can't discern the difference between INJURIES and DEVELOPMENTAL problems resulting from lack of hormones. He is unaware of (or just plain doesn't care about) the many, many studies in multiple breeds that prove that cancer risks are many times higher for spayed/neutered animals than those who are intact. And, he isn't going to be paying the veterinary bills for the owners whose dogs become lame, hypothyroid, or aflicted with bone cancer or hemangiosarcoma. When the dog becomes more aggressive towards humans (as studies have found to be the effect of spay/neuter) will he be able to rehome the dog or will it have to be killed?

Here's the viewpoint of Santa Paula's esteemed mayor:

Mayor Martin Hernandez said he supported the ordinance, noting that those speaking against it were not from Santa Paula. He said requiring animals to be fixed is good for the community, and regulations are necessary."If laws were for the responsible people we wouldn't have people getting DUI's daily," he said. "Do you think that people are tending to their animals more than they take responsibility for driving under the influence of alcohol? I don't think so."

Well, that settles the debate, then. Ignore your two local veterinarians and the reams of knowledgable dog people from the Ventura County-based Kennel Clubs, who will have to deal with your stupid ordinance. Or maybe, their dog breeders could simply refuse to sell puppies to anyone who lives in Santa Paula. There's a great benefit for your community. No pets.

Good for the community? In which universe, exactly? Where is the evidence? Mandatory spay-neuter has NEVER been proven beneficial to ANY community where it has been enacted. In fact, licensing and rabies vaccination compliance DECREASES. Shelter intakes INCREASE. And FEWER dogs are reclaimed from shelters! Low-income people and seniors will be disproportionately hit with the higher costs. It's expensive to have the unnecessary surgery done, and even more costly when the dog gets cancer and dies an early, expensive death.

And “tending to their animals” is equated with foisting unnecessary, life-sucking surgery on them? How stupid is that? Well, we can't expect genius from someone who draws a parallel between animal ownership and drinking alcohol.

As if all this wasn't ridiculous enough, the ordinance also requires the Animal Services Coordinator, who more than likely has ZERO expertise in dog breeding, to administer a written test on humane breeding practices. If you fail the written test, no breeding permit for you.

Microchips are fine but they can rarely travel in the body, and the insertion process is not without risk. Again, the owner should have the right to decide if he wants to use a chip or if he prefers a collar with tag or a tattoo for ID purposes.

Santa Paula, the latest in the string of Neuter Nanny cities here in our state.

The article is here:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/local/santa-paula/santa-paula-delays-vote-on-spay-and-neuter-ordinance-276d0d30-ddb4-4e55-e053-0100007f47ef-363296281.html

Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws

Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws

Testimony of Dr. John Hamil regarding AB 1634. The phrase "mandatory sterilization" is substituted for "AB 1634" in some sentences. The rest of the text is unaltered.

Twenty five years of experience in trying to find solutions to the problems of animal relinquishment and euthanasia leads me to request that you reject this ill-conceived bill which can not solve these problems and, more likely, will worsen them.

AB 1634 is based on seven

false premises:

1. That current policies and programs are not working.

The numbers of dogs entering and being euthanized in California shelters has dramatically decreased over the last 30 years in the face continued population growth. Unfortunately, the number of cats impounded and euthanized has not decreased significantly in the last 10 years. We have two entirely different dynamics which require very different approaches if we are to be successful. Mandatory sterilization does nothing to reduce the numbers of cats in shelters.

2. That the numbers of animals impounded and euthanized is

due to a “Pet Overpopulation Problem.”

The study done by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy found that the top five reasons for animal relinquishment were moving, landlord issues, cost, lack of time for pet and inadequate facilities. None of these factors are influenced by the purported “overpopulation” of pets. Mandated sterilization does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. If the animals in the shelter were due to “overpopulation;” we would find desirable puppies available in shelters, there would be no market for internet and pet store puppies, there would be no need for shelters to import puppies and puppy smugglers and brokers would be out of business due to market saturation. There is, in fact, a shortage of healthy, well bred and socialized puppies and kittens in California.

3. That being sexually intact equates to being bred.

We know that for personal reasons many owners choose not to surgically alter their pets and they are never bred. It is improper that the government impose its will on these responsible citizens in the absence of any public benefit.

4. That neutered animals are healthier physically and behaviorally.

Recently published data indicates that for a significant percentage of dogs this is not the case.

5. That mandatory spay/neuter will significantly reduce shelter impounds and euthanasia and that Santa Cruz is an example of its success.

MSN is a documented failure. Analysis of the Santa Cruz data and the rejection of this policy by its originator; the Peninsula Humane Society, the No Kill Community, Best Friends Sanctuary, and many other groups refutes this assumption.

6. That mandatory spay/neuter will greatly reduce the Animal Control costs.

Analysis of animal control data indicates that most costs are the fixed costs of facilities; administration, equipment, staff and retirement benefits. The continuous rise in California animal control costs in the face of decreasing numbers of animals impounded refutes this assumption.

7. That the law will not involve veterinarians in enforcement.

The requirement for veterinarians to write letters of exemption and to turn in rabies certificates indicating the reproductive status of the animal to animal control identifies the owners of intact animals. The public will correctly view veterinarians as enforcers.

SPECIFIC VETERINARY CONCERNS

• This law would intrude into the Doctor/Client/Patient relationship. This is an invasive procedure accomplished under general anesthesia with significant risk to the patient and there are significant physical and behavioral consequences for some animals. For these reasons this decision should not be mandated by the state but, rather, be made by the owner after discussion with their family veterinarian.

• In many jurisdictions with mandatory spay/neuter owners have tried to drop out of the system by not licensing their animals. Many owners know that veterinarians are required to turn in copies of rabies certificates and may decide to forego needed rabies boosters, thereby creating an increased public health risk.

• The contentiousness of this bill has driven apart the groups that contribute to and desire to solve this dilemma. If we are to be successful in solving this problem, we need to bring these groups together in developing innovative programs in the future.

If passed, this law will be unfair to the economically disadvantaged. They are the least likely to neuter their pets, see animal control as a threat, and have limited access to low cost clinics. We need to find ways to help this group enjoy the benefits of pet ownership.

If passed, communities in California will no longer have access to Maddie’s Funds. It is their policy to not provide funding for mandatory governmental programs. “Maddie’s Fund is committed to volunteerism” and is intended to foster innovative, collaborative programs like the CVMA Feral Cat Sterilization Program that resulted in the sterilization of almost 200,000 cats over a 3 year period. To date, Maddie’s Fund has provided over 19 million dollars to communities in California.

If passed, this bill will eliminate many local sources of healthy, well bred and socialized pets. Because it will not decrease the demand for puppies and kittens, the bill leaves the people of California vulnerable to puppymills, unregulated internet sales, sellers of smuggled animals and unscrupulous brokers of animals from out of the US. These poor quality pets will be a burden and an expense and many will end up in our shelters.

Finally, it is my belief that locally developed, voluntary, collaborative, supportive and science-based programs always out perform punitive coercive ones.

Thank you for your kind attention. As a veterinarian, past president of the CVMA and an animal advocate, I ask you to vote AGAINST this bill.

(Adapted from Dr. Hamil's testimony at CA AB 1634 hearing)

Zeus, World's Tallest Dog - Victim of Early Neutering

 

Zeus, the Guinness World Record-Holder for Tallest Dog Ever, died this past week. He was five years old. News reports claimed that Zeus died from “old age.” Really?

Now I realize that Great Danes and other large-breed dogs are lucky to make it to age 10, but to claim that death at age five from “old age” is really, er, stretching the truth a bit. Could his death be due to osteosarcoma, very common among large breed dogs? Could it be a result of crippling arthritis from his obvious abnormal structure, that hastened his demise?

I examined a few photos of Zeus that I found on the web. No testicles are evident in any of those pictures. Now if you are a regular reader of this blog, you are aware that when a dog is neutered before maturity, he will not have the proper hormonal balance for closure of the growth plates on the long bones of the body. In other words, dogs who are neutered as a puppy will often suffer from a rangy, weedy growth pattern. The long bones often become excessively long. They will more often suffer from problems like hip dysplasia and patellar luxation than their intact counterparts.

Could Zeus's tall, rangy conformation possibly be due to being neutered as a puppy?

None of the news reports of his death mention whether or not Zeus was neutered. I did a search and found a discussion in an online forum in which one of the participants was a member of the family who owned Zeus, the world's tallest dog. *

Here's an excerpt:

Q: Has Zues (sic) been (or is he going to be) a father of giant puppies?

A: He has not, nor will he ever be. We did get him neutered when he was a puppy.

Q: Do you regret neutering him?

A: Not really. We got Zeus for a family pet--we never had any intention of breeding him when we got him.

Remark: Thank goodness, or else we'd all be serving our new great Dane overlords

Someone later in the thread gently informed her:

I know somebody already mentioned it, but waiting on neutering would have "bulked" him up more. Large breed dogs do not stop growing until at least two years old. Cutting off the hormones too early, can give the "gangly" appearance and cause them a host of problems. But I know it is becoming standard to neuter and spay early, because of many reasons. Yet there are just as many pros to waiting.

Lest you think this abnormal growth can be chalked up to genetics; it is possible, but unlikely. Further in the thread, we find that Zeus was one of 15 puppies, and that none of the others were abnormally huge. Additionally, Zeus himself was normal-sized as a puppy. There is no other explanation for his "tallness" than early neutering.

 

Q: Was he an unusually large puppy?

A: Not really. Regular puppy size

And elsewhere in the thread: "We really started noticing how tall he was when he was 10 months old--we took him back to meet his parents and he was already 6 inches taller than his father! "

Q: Did you ever hear about how the rest of the litter grew up? Are they also ridiculously large?

A: As far as I know, we've only met two others from the same litter, and they're normal sized Danes. No idea how we got to be the lucky ones!

The adult owner said in an article from a couple of years ago that she was “thrilled” to own a Guinness World Record-holding dog.

 

Again, we don't know precisely what Zeus died from, except reportedly "old age", but osteosarcoma, or bone cancer, is a common cancer in large breed dogs, and the risk of osteosarcoma is doubled when the dog is neutered.

I don't suppose life was quite so “thrilling” or “lucky” for the dog who died an untimely death.

Look Ma! No balls!

All humans smiling, but Zeus can't even stand up straight, and looks miserable.

*http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/101eyd/iam_the_owner_of_zeus_the_worlds_tallest_dog_ama/

Dr Karen Becker on Spay/Neuter

Veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker formerly worked as a euthanasia technician in an animal shelter before she began her private practice. Dr. Becker was adamant about spaying and neutering all pets, preferably before their first heat cycle. Until she saw first-hand the damage that was causing to the health and welfare of her patients.

This is a video that you MUST watch. Grab a cuppa, silence your phone and settle in for a presentation filled with compelling facts and figures.

DON'T Spay or Neuter Your Pets!

We shouldn't be listening to the Bob Barkers of the world.

Two significant new studies were released in 2013 on the adverse health effects of spay-neuter. This adds to a large body of previous information.

A study on Golden Retrievers done by UC Davis revealed some SHOCKING facts about what we are doing to our canine companions when we neuter them.

"The study examined hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and mast cell tumor...... The disease rates for ALL FIVE diseases were significantly HIGHER in both males and females that were neutered either early or late, compared with that of sexually intact dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, and lymphosarcoma in males and in the occurrence of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females."

"In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with that of earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The UC-Davis study, however, is the first to specifically report an increased risk of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma with late neutering."

"Furthermore, the new study showed a 100 percent increase in the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males."

Read all about it in the AVMA Journal:

https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/130401s.aspx

The study report:
 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055937


Golden Retrievers are one of the most popular breeds in the US, and the vast majority are going to end up as sterilized pets.

Why are we as a society setting up our dogs for pain and early death? Are YOU inflicting pain and suffering on your dog by spaying or neutering, just so you can feel morally superior and politically correct?



Now here's the other major study, just released. It's a retrospective done on literally THOUSANDS of Vizslas.

The study showed that, regardless of the age at the time of neutering, altered dogs had "significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs."

Female Vizslas spayed (regardless of age) had "significantly increased odds of developing hemangiosarcoma, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs" as did males spayed AFTER the age of 1 year.

The study concluded that spay/neuter when done prior to six months old "significantly increased odds of developing a behavioral disorder."

"The younger the age at gonadectomy, the earlier the mean age at diagnosis of mast cell cancer, cancers other than mast cell, hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, all cancers combined, a behavioral disorder, or fear of storms."

Translation: The sooner the neuter is done, the sooner your dog will likely develop a health or behavioral problem.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.244.3.309

Of course, for followers of this blog, none of this is earth-shattering news. We've posted many previous studies that come to the same conclusion. For more information , do a search on the blog for the label "spay/neuter" or "rethinking spay and neuter".

Don't pretend you're spaying and neutering to keep your dog healthy....because, in most situations, you're NOT.

Vizslas Roscoe and Daisy, from Wikimedia commons.
 Poor Roscoe is only nine months old and missing a very important part of his anatomy, wouldn't you say?

Government-forced neuter kills dog

Not that this is a unique situation; I've known of other small dogs who died from procedures like dental cleaning and yes, sterilization surgery. This came from the Encino-Chatsworth Patch comments section on an article on top ten popular dogs. Of course, we have to have an ignoramus come along and immdiately rub salt in the wound, wondering aloud how she can possibly believe his story.

....

·        Ed Ferrett

05/20/2013 03:06pm

I had four healthy, loveable, playful "chihuahuas. The most cruel thing is when I complied with a law that the county of Los Angeles passed, that said I had to have my little dog friends spaded and nuttered if I wanted to have them or they would fine me and take them away from me. So I complied wth the new law. Three days after I HAD THEM MUTILATED one of them died (he was only three years old), another one became a hatefull little recluse, if you tried to pet her, she would try to bite you and run off and hide. All she wanted to do, is sleep and eat everything she could get her mouth on. Other two two dogs became sickly, they wouldn't play any more and came doun with a breathing problem. I will take care of my little friends until they die and then no more dogs for me. I am 90 years old and find it to up setting to loose a little friend like this. I have had pets all my life and allways took care of them. A lot of people say "so what" they are only a dog, just go get another one at the dog pound. To me they are family.

o    

o   Report abuse

o   87

·        Mahkidzrpupz

To Ed Ferrett

05/20/2013 03:33pm

I am terribly sorry that this happened to you. I am a strong spay/neuter advocate; all the pets I have ever owned including the two my husband and I have now have been spayed. I've never, ever had any who experienced any terrible side effects such as you are describing. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I've just never heard of such a thing! It makes me wonder about the vet/clinic who performed the surgeries, or if your dogs suffered some other trauma besides the surgeries. At any rate, as I said, it makes me very sad that you had to go through such an awful thing. I know it's true that there are some people who may say "it's just a dog" but I think I can safely say that anyone posting here wouldn't feel that way at all. It brings me to tears even to THINK of losing one of our girls! In my opinion, a person who cannot appreciate the unconditional love that a pet offers and who looks on dogs - or any animal - with callous disregard is seriously lacking something personality-wise and isn't a person I would want to have anything to do with. Again, my sincere sympathy - never mind what uncaring people might say - there are plenty of us who completely understand what it means to consider pets a part of the family.

Spay-Neuter Laws Kill Dogs

From: Jan Dykema

To:supervisor.foy@ventura.org

Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 11:38 pm

Subject: MSN

Dear Supervisor Foy:

I spent the entire evening watching the entire public hearing on Ventura passing a mandatory spay/neuter law. Much of it was painful as I listened to erudite speakers having to defend their right to breed a litter of puppies without the government looking over their shoulder (or rather "inspecting" their private homes) and extracting fees and other fines, and .. let's call it what it really is, a TAX.. on people who wish to breed their dog.

 

I watched as speaker after speaker presented concrete evidence; facts and statistics that without any doubt showed that MSN does not work, never has worked and never will work. I watched as people decried and denied these facts as somehow irrelevant to Ventura County; as if it was somehow special and that what happens in LA is not relevant. It IS relevant, and always will be.

 

Facts are facts. The housing "bubble" cannot be blamed for years of proven statistics that show MSN does not work.

 

I live in Napa County. We do not have MSN. Lake County is the next county over, and they do have MSN . Their shelter kills many more animals than we do.

As I looked at Ventura County stats I wondered, how much better can they get? Your shelter is doing a great job, numbers are dropping at a huge rate, so why the need for this (I hesitate to use the word as it was so overworked) "tool"? It appears that you will reach the 90% rate in very little time if all continues as it has been, without MSN. I was impressed with the amount of VOLUNTARY surgeries that were already done in your area and with the fact they were low cost or even free. Good for you! It is working and working well, if all of that is true.

I will be forthcoming. I am a licensed American Kennel Club judge and an occasional breeder of English Bull Terriers ( the Target dog, General Patton or Spuds Mackenzie depending on your shopping habits, age and propensity for libations). I sit on the Board of Directors of the California Federation of Dog Clubs and have spent much time in Sacramento lobbying for people rights to own and breed animals of all types and for them to be able to use the animals for the work they were bred for, so I am not entirely neutral on this issue; but I try to be open minded because I am also a trained Humane Officer.

I did see that much information was handed to you all during the hearing. I wondered why? None of you had any time to read the information before the vote was taken, although it did seem that you ( and you alone) had time to look at the charts that were presented and at least absorb the information.

Animals are a very emotional issue, but all facts must be considered including loss of income for the county, and less licensing for dogs and cats. A major problem that I did not hear addressed in a very significant way was the drop in rabies vaccinations that occurs when punitive laws are put into effect. Rabies is not a dog issue. It is a serious public health issue and when people do not comply due to fear or interference, the risk is escalated to a degree that cannot be calculated until a human being is infected and dies.

Finally, I heard the words "No Kill" over and over again. And yet, no one actually reported who is the "father" of the No Kill movement. That would be Nathan Winograd. Mr. Winograd invented the words "No Kill" and has a very specific plan on how shelters can become "No Kill". Nowhere anywhere in his statements and writings regarding No Kill does Mr Winograd EVER say MSN is a part of the No Kill program. If fact, he intentionally says MSN NEVER helps the No Kill program and that MSN should never be a part of any No Kill program.

I have taken the liberty to include a few of Mr. Winograds information by attachments here. (all safe to open) Here is an excerpt:

"Moreover, mandatory spay/neuter laws are not a new or untested idea in the U.S. They have been around for decades and historically have been the favored form of pseudo-advocacy by the voices of tradition within the animal sheltering industry. In fact, many U.S. communities already have such laws. Are those communities No Kill? No, far from it. While mandatory spay/neuter laws have long been the siren song of the animal protection movement, the evidence proves that when implemented in the U.S., such laws have been disastrous. Over and over, mandatory spay/neuter legislation is pushed as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing."

“If only we had a spay/neuter law” the argument goes, “all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn’t have to kill so many animals.” If this were true, given the proliferation of such punitive mandates nationwide, these laws would have already created many No Kill communities. That there are none as a result of mandatory spay/neuter laws proves that such legislation does not work. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Communities that have passed such laws are not only far from No Kill; they are moving in the opposite direction, killing more, not fewer animals."

I hope Ventura County will be the exception to this rule but statistics and time do not bear this out.

Thank you for your support of less government interference in the lives of American citizens and for voting "no" on this ordinance. You would have my vote if I had one!

Jan

Jan Dykema

Certified Humane Officer

American Kennel Club Judge

BOD California Federation of Dog Clubs

attachments:

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?tag=mandatory-spayneuter

http://fixaustin.blogspot.com/2008/01/mandatory-spayneuter-success-not.html

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mandatorylaws.pdf

Rock Bottom

Imagine you live in a state where it is illegal to buy or take possession of an animal in a public place. Where you cannot buy a pet in a pet store, unless it is a "rescue" or shelter animal that may be trucked in from another state or even another country. Where dogs must be spayed/neutered by law in many localities, and where the state  government actually wanted to pass a mandate that every dog in the state be sterilized. 

In this hypothetical place, you cannot easily own an intact animal. In order to qualify, you must show your dog in competition, belong to a breed club with an enforced code of ethics, and pay a hefty fee. Breeding is out of the question because government requires you to qualify for an expensive breeding permit before you can ever consider the possibility. Any pet that is "adopted" through a shelter or rescue MUST be sterilized BY LAW. There are limits on how many pets you can own. All the while, you hear grumblings on the street that there aren't enough homes to absorb the strays. Well, that last part about not enough homes for the strays is a lie,  but you have heard so many lies told so often, that you now just accept those lies at face value and believe them as truth. 

Now imagine that you don't care too much about any of that, because you don't have any plans to be a dog breeder. You are happy to own an occasional pet or two. None of those problems affect you, right?


Let's see about that. 

Believe it or not, our hypothetical state actually exists. It's called CALIFORNIA. 

So, one fine sunny California day, you decide that you would like to get a puppy of a certain breed that you have long admired.

You pick up the Los Angeles Times and pull out the classified ads. You quickly scan to the "Pets for sale" section. Notice anything strange? Where there used to be dozens of ads for puppies and kittens on a daily basis, now you are lucky to find a handful. And darn it all, there is NOT ONE AD for the breed you want.

You go to your local pet store. They do not sell pets, they inform you, only pet supplies. Maybe on the weekend you can come back when they have an "adopt-a-thon"?

So now, you are looking online, researching about the breed of puppy you would like to buy. You come across a website that urges you to contact a local breed club for breeder referrals.

You find the local club for the breed you are interested in, and contact them. But no one has any puppies available. In fact, few members are even planning to have any litters in the near future. Even fewer are interested in talking to you, a complete stranger, who could very well be a government agent looking for people breeding dogs "under the radar".

You decide to look a bit farther from home, maybe in Nevada or Arizona or Oregon. Now you are being told, it may be possible to buy a puppy but none of those breeders will ship due to new federal regulations. Can you afford to take time off from work to drive out of state? Can you afford to buy a round trip plane ticket for yourself, and then an extra fare for the puppy?

So there are no puppies available locally in either pet stores or from local breeders. Going outside the local area is too difficult and expensive. Just where will you find a puppy? Rescues and shelters may have a dog that looks similar to the breed you are interested in, but you have no way to know the health history of the dog and its relatives. That makes you feel uneasy. They don't have any puppies, only adults. You really want the joy of raising a puppy of your own. Also, when buying a shelter or rescue pet, there are no money-back guarantees, like the state requires when you buy from a breeder or a pet store.

Sure, you have adopted shelter animals in the past, and they can be wonderful, but you really want a puppy of this particular breed THIS TIME. Why can't you find one? And while researching online, you have read the latest canine health studies that have given you pause about spay/neuter, particularly at a young age. If you are lucky enough to find a puppy or dog of the breed you want through a shelter or rescue, why are you being forced to sterilize your dog, when you don't want to?

So now, you are starting to get pretty pissed off. You can actually feel your knickers twisting, and it is quite uncomfortable. What right does the government have to limit your choice of pet and what you do with it? Why all the insane rules?

Maybe you give up, throw up your hands in frustration, and settle for a pet rock. Or maybe, just maybe, you mobilize your family and friends and insist that your politicians answer to you for the anti-pet laws they are passing on a regular basis.

Once you have hit rock bottom, please don't settle for a pet rock. Speak up! Elections DO have consequences, and we are now paying the price for electing current AR-friendly politicians at the state and federal level. 

Here's a novel concept. How about we vote for those politicians who uphold the constitution and preserve the rights of the individual? And make sure to let them know WHY you are voting either for or against them. 

Two thirds of US households own pets. Once politicians realize that we are a voting force to be reckoned with, they will not be so eager to pass such oppressive laws.

May you find the puppy of your dreams, but at this point, I'm not real optimistic about that possibility.

Would you castrate your son?

In 2006 an exhibition titled “Handel and the Castrati” was held at the Handel House Museum in London.  The quotes below are from an article by Sean Coughlan, a journalist for the BBC.

“In 17th and 18th Century Italy, about 4,000 boys were castrated each year, from the age of eight upwards, with the aim of making a fortune as opera singers and soloists with choirs in churches and royal palaces. Composers were enthusiastic about the more complex musical possibilities of these voices - and music lovers turned these exotic figures into the pop idols of their day.

According to historian, David Starkey, ‘It is unnatural in every way, depending on an operation that is an abomination to every man, and yet if it worked, delivered something that, in the opinion of some of the greatest composers of all time, was the supreme human voice - founded on utter and supreme inhumanity…It's horribly like the child star of today, forced into this artificiality, forced through the shocking mill of Hollywood - to deliver that ineluctable, strange, desirable thing of star quality.’"

Isn’t it appalling what parents will do to their children in the pursuit of fame and fortune? No, this isn't 17th or 18th century Italy, and we don’t castrate our kids, although high, pre-pubescent voices are increasingly popular with music fans. Would we do it? I hope not.

And yet…we’re perfectly willing to castrate our dogs for human convenience, and for a cause that no longer exists. Why are we so eager to mutilate our pets, especially in the face of studies that the procedure is bad for their health?

If you have had dogs for many years, and never bred a litter, accidentally or otherwise, how does this butchery and yes, abuse, of your dog “save lives”?

The article concludes with the statement that, “Rather grimly, only a small number of those boys who had been castrated became star performers, with the majority failing to make a career in music - even after this toughest of career choices.”

And how many dogs have suffered from the removal of healthy organs for…nothing.