PETA's Latest Scandal (White House “Spay/Neuter” Petition)

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.

(Page 1 of 10: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  
M.RY's- Utsukushii- At Pinnacle

Proud Heritage- Shows, NIPPO- Shiba Inu
Barked: Tue Oct 11, '11 5:14pm PST 
PETA is sending a Mandatory Spay Neuter petition to the White House. These people have lost their tree hugging minds…..

Does it ever end? How can anyone see these people as “good” when they use nudity to promote their “cause”. These people are encroaching on our rights. Wouldn’t you think such a thing like MSN is un-constitutional? As in Amendment 1 they are not to make a law that would infringe on religious rights and I know some of you Dogsters don’t fix your dogs do to religious reasons (and are responsible owners). Or possibly this goes against our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as set forth by our Declaration of “Independence”(really emphasizing the word “Independence”). To me people should be responsible (if it were a perfect world they would be, but no one is) and the responsible owners should NOT be punished for what the others have done.

So do you think MSN will ever happen why or why not? And why do you think this.

sorry I forgot the link:

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/09/24/help- bob-barker-end-animal-homelessness.aspx

Edited by author Tue Oct 11, '11 5:49pm PST


Roll down the- window!
Barked: Tue Oct 11, '11 6:25pm PST 
There are actually some areas that fine people for having an unaltered dog if it's running loose.

I personally like the idea. I don't believe it would be unconstitutional as long as there are certain stipulations that make the law generally fair. There are laws about owning property that have to be followed if we want to own/use those things (i.e. can't drive a car without insurance), and animals are considered property by law. I do think that owners should be allowed to petition a court/get special, documented permission if they would rather not have their animals spayed/neutered for health or religious reasons, though. If they added a condition such as that, the law would probably be ruled constitutional (even if getting that permission/petition would cost an arm and a leg...).

It still probably doesn't seem fair to some people, but I'm currently taking a constitutional law class (going for a paralegal degree way to go ) and learning how the government can use things like that to make things legal. shrug

I believe it would actually fix the overpopulation problem, and we have a SERIOUS issue with this in my town. I'm for the MSN law, as long as it's fair.

ETA: Wanted to add that I am NOT a PETA fan either. bol.

ETA2: Also wanted to add that the government CAN sort of infringe on our rights if it will do more good than harm. If Congress uses the Necessary and Proper Clause (and maybe even the Commerce Clause) to defend such a law, the Supreme Court may find it constitutional.

Edited by author Tue Oct 11, '11 6:40pm PST


Do you even- lift?
Barked: Tue Oct 11, '11 7:03pm PST 
Hasn't MSN been shown time and time again to not work in reducing euthanasia rates in the areas it has been implemented?


Work? What's- that?
Barked: Tue Oct 11, '11 7:08pm PST 
ETA: Yes, Onyx, it absolutely has. And it is bewildering that people keep wanting to, and actually do try, the same failed model over and over again.

This proposed "law" is idiotic and thankfully won't ever go anywhere.

I believe it would actually fix the overpopulation problem, and we have a SERIOUS issue with this in my town. I'm for the MSN law, as long as it's fair.

If you believe that would actually fix the "overpopulation" problem (a myth) you've got a lot of reading and fact-checking to do. America has spent the past thirty years fetishizing the whole "spay/neuter everything for happy happy wonderful flowery powery awesome times" gizmo, and while it is impossible to deny that it has helped us out (25-30 million a year, down to 3-4 million due to multifaceted reasons, of which S/N policy is a major part), it's not the ultimate and only solution, and penalizing people into doing this does not work. Take a psychology class to learn why that is, or look at any other of the dozens of MSN laws that have miserably failed all over the nation, not only failing to reduce shelter populations, but actually increasing euthanasia rates, pet morbidity/mortality, decreasing licensing rates...they do not work.

If "spay/neuter everything" was all it took, we wouldn't have virtually every developed European country with no shelter problems to speak of. America is unique in this regard - we're attacking a symptom, not a cause. "Homeless pets" is a symptom. People are the cause. In Europe, you're penalized for being irresponsible. Here...well, they don't really do anything. They try MSN (a failure of a model right from the get-go), and that's about it.

I'm sorry Daegan, but I'm not about to sacrifice my dog's health and entire well-being* because of PETA's draconian, oppressive political beliefs in this matter, or someone's inability to keep an entire dog responsibly. And I will fight tooth and nail against any oppressive nonsense that tries to make me do otherwise. And I'm not about to jump through government hoops and red tape and ridiculous fines just to keep my dog the way he was born. And nobody should have to do that. Nobody should have to go through the courts to leave their dog alone.

*footnote: Personal, well-informed opinion based on two years of extensive veterinary research concerning the matter of spaying/neutering and how it relates to the physical, mental, and behavioral health of pets.

Since when did "responsible ownership" become perverted into "spay/neuter your pet?" That is part of what a responsible owner may choose to do. It is NOT responsible ownership in and of itself. I've seen lots of people speuter their pets for completely irresponsible or ignorant reasons.

That's why licensing rates in cities with MSN plummet.

There is already enough crap that responsible owners of intact dogs have to deal with without the added stigma of a nationwide MSN law sold on the premises of "well, responsible dog owners do it anyway."


As for what I was saying about pet overpopulation being a myth - I wasn't joking.

There *IS* no "overpopulation" problem.

Read: 12 million homes looking to add a new pet every year.

Read: 3-4 million cats and dogs euthanized every year, estimated 75-80% of which are adoptable.

That comes out to about four times as many homes as there are pets that need adopted. The problems are getting the dogs to where they are wanted, and eliminating the public perception of the "animal shelter" as a death trap.

As for car insurance, no, you are not required to insure your car, in ANY state that I am aware of. That is a gross misnomer. If you wish to drive a car, you must be insured for financial liability against any damages you may cause while driving that car.

A nationwide requirement to spay/neuter all pets, unless you pay huge fines and can prove to "big brother" that you have a reason some suit considers "legitimate" to keep an entire pet, is ridiculously burdensome and would never stand up to any kind of Supreme Court scrutiny.

It would also destroy one of the most genetically diverse species on the planet: Canis Lupus Familiaris.

We already know, from example, what the government considers responsible dog breeding - clean, concrete floor kennels, clean water, food. Look at all the USDA-approved puppy mills.

What happens when responsible breeders are driven out of business because some suit doesn't approve their "application" to keep an entire dog (because they keep their dogs in their filthy house, with access to so many different deadly things!), or they can't afford the ridiculous fee to keep their dogs entire along with all the other costs of responsible breeding? They quit doing what they are doing.

You're left with millers, and no genetic stock of any quality. The idea of a "breed" of dog would disappear, in time. Say goodbye to service dogs, police dogs, personal protection dogs, sporting dogs, schutzhund - like or not, but you cannot just find "any dog for any purpose" in a shelter. There is a reason different breeds have different traits - it is because they are specifically bred to do a specific type of work. MSN destroys the genetics necessary to make dogs who can do this kind of work, even with exemptions.

We are already running into genetic bottlenecking problems in this country, because of a roughly 85% population of speutered dogs. Many breeders have resorted to dumping even more money into importing European dogs because no genetic stock is left in this country (opening the stud books, many of which have been closed for decades, would help out many breeds as well, but that is a different and unrelated problem from the topic at hand).

Ironically enough, it's probably the millers that are going to save us from this disastrous law (if it ever even enters Congress), since they have the financial backing to fight it.


Most developed European countries not have these kinds of problems (in Norway, elective gonadectomy is actually illegal under their Animal Cruelty laws). Why are we not trying to mimick their solution (not Norway, specifically, just the European way in general) instead of trying to push insane, draconian laws through that have been proven by example to fail, time and time again? Why are we trying to implement a solution - and yes, I agree that S/N is part of the solution - that has already been stretched to its feasible limits of what it can do, and beyond?

I'm sorry, Daegan, but this does nothing to prevent the scores of purposefully backyard bred or milled dogs, the source of a vast majority of euthanized shelter pets. Those people do this because they can only see green, and they easily can obtain any required government permits to do so. And no, it is not simply as easy as "well, write the law so it doesn't allow that."

That's not how our government, or the lawmaking process works.

Also wanted to add that the government CAN sort of infringe on our rights if it will do more good than harm. If Congress uses the Necessary and Proper Clause (and maybe even the Commerce Clause) to defend such a law, the Supreme Court may find it constitutional.

While that isn't 100% inaccurate, the "Necessary and Proper" and "Commerce" clauses are not blank checks to allow congress to impose any laws they wish, as long as they can stack the argument in their favor for it being more of a "benefit." SCOTUS has never interpreted it to mean this, and I highly doubt they ever will.

Edited by author Tue Oct 11, '11 7:31pm PST


bitches love- pantaloons
Barked: Tue Oct 11, '11 7:35pm PST 
It failed to pass when it was proposed in California, so I don't think it will get far.

Work? What's- that?
Barked: Tue Oct 11, '11 7:39pm PST 
I don't think it has successfully passed anywhere on a state level, has it? Just on a city/municipal level? And in virtually every one of those cases, if not every case, it made problems worse. I am actually not sure about New Orleans, they passed one recently that was not very draconian or restrictive, something that almost wasn't enough to really be called MSN, and I could see it working on a *small scale* only. I haven't followed up to see how well it worked or not. I suspect not, but I hope it didn't cause nearly the level of damages that MSN has in other municipalities.

Anyway, even pretending the following:

1. The law is NOT a bad idea.
2. The law would NOT make things astronomically worse
3. The law would NOT destroy the domesticated dog as we know it
4. The law is NOT immoral and likely unconstitutional
5. The law does NOT provide an easier path for unethical breeders, and weed out ethical ones (etc, etc, so on and so forth, I think you get the idea...)

Where is the money going to come to set this system up? How are we going to pay people to process the paperwork? How are we going to pay for the department that will inevitably be set up to handle this, or the growth of the department made responsible for this? How are we going to pay for enforcement? Money can't be pulled out of thin air, and we can scant afford to waste it on bad ideas that will make our problems worse than they already are.

The United States is not exactly flowing in cash right now, and AC in most cities is already up to their brim in work without playing Testicle Police all day long.

Edited by author Tue Oct 11, '11 7:47pm PST


wouldn't harm a- fly...XD
Barked: Tue Oct 11, '11 9:40pm PST 
PETA is crazy.
Completely agree with Samson.

The Constitution is there for a reason; and is written precisely in a way where it outlines what the government is ALLOWED to do, as opposed to what it is NOT allowed to do. This actually restricts the government (and keeps it more accountable) then if we were to detail every thing the gov should not be allowed to do.

Meaning: the government can NOT dictate to us what to do with our property. Pets are viewed as property; so long as they are not abused, it would be unConstitutional for the government to tell us what we are to do with them. (With the car insurance: we can get in trouble if we are driving around without regard to others-in that we have insurance in case we hurt someone, but they can not MAKE us buy car insurance as the car is our personal property.) Same goes for the place where unaltered dogs are not allowed to run around LOOSE. You may choose NOT to alter your dog, but you must regard the safety of others (then again, I think that should apply whether or not the dog is altered; but moreso since an unaltered dog could cause someone else's dog to have unwanted pups). In that case, it seems that place simply did not want dogs running around loose (though a leash-law would have been sufficient, they probably had an abundance of stray dogs).

ETA: In my personal opinion, I do not think it would be wise to make speutering mandatory. Lets take a look around (this may be a tad ot, I'm not sure): it may not be mandatory for old or ill pets, but euthanasia has become so commonplace many don't give it a second thought--even to the point where our society is even pondering the thought of 'humanely' euthanizing our elderly! That is murder. No, not for pets; but after having been desensitized to it when it comes to beloved pets, apparently there are many becoming desensitized to it when it comes to humans. They are old or terminal so it suddenly becomes the 'humane' thing to do?!

There is a point to this:
We have been desensitized to removing our pets reproductive organs to 'control the population'. This is being done with humans too. It may be one thing for a man or woman to choose to not be able to reproduce anymore, but the issue is when we make it MANDATORY. So guess what? This has been done before. Remember Hitler and his regime? He made it mandatory for certain individuals/types of people to be sterilized.

You could say we are just talking about animals, but really, when we let our government control something like this: it can lead up to the point where the government can control more. You toss it a bone, it will want more. The more power you give to any government, the more control you give it over a person: the more it will want. Once it gets to the point where the government feels it can take more control & power, the individual will not be able to stop it.

Edited by author Tue Oct 11, '11 10:01pm PST


Barked: Wed Oct 12, '11 1:59am PST 
I agree with Sampson 100%

I had something else written up but I decided not to post it.
Anyways, the day the decision, which should be mine in the first place, to mutilate my dog due to someone else's idea of what "responsible" pet ownership is (this includes breeders), is the day I will no longer be an American citizen.

And I mean that.

See, I have a serious problem with other people pushing stupid ideals on me. This ranges from religion to how to train a dog and everything in between. You can give me advice but the moment you try to push something on me, I become an incredibly hostile person.
I don't think the government should regulate who is and who isn't allowed to have a dog with balls. Increased license rates for intact dogs is already stupid, and the "back yard breeders" and otherwise "irresponsible" dog owners probably don't license their dogs anyways.

I already think the government controls too much, and I have a serious issue with property taxes. I'll put up with that, but I will NOT put up with someone else telling me I have to mutilate my dog and damage it's future health because they think it's "responsible" or will help stop the "overpopulation" or some other stupid gimmik.

Sorry if I sound mean, but that's how I see it. And I really, really don't like peta, if you can't tell. Never had a good experience with them, and I will not ever support something they are trying to push, even if I happen to agree with it. Which has NEVER happened, and I highly ever doubt will. I hunt, fish, eat meat, own pets, wear fur... yeah. I'm not really the type they are trying to recruit.

dog-sitter in- charge.
Barked: Wed Oct 12, '11 9:28am PST 
A person doesn't have to like PETA but one can refrain from name-calling. I don't agree with certain political parties but I can discuss them without silly commentary. shrug

Anyway, in the County of LA, all pets must be spayed or neutered unless the person registers for a license for keeping an intact animal. The person also must furnish proof the dog is being worked, shown, etc. under certain organizations.
Sanka- I'll Miss- You

The ground is my- newspaper.
Barked: Wed Oct 12, '11 10:16am PST 
Think of it this way....they're proposing a law to make it mandatory that all pets have body parts removed.

That's what it is, through and through.

There is no danger in having intact pets. Reproduction is not hurting anybody, nor is it infringing on anyone's rights. Where the line is crossed is just a matter of responsibilities with your animals. Let your dog run loose, not take care of the pups correctly, etc. THAT is the problem.

Cutting off testicles and removing uteri isn't going to solve that.

If PETA looked at the realistic issues in the world instead of having their heads shoved so far up their own bums, they'd see that.
  (Page 1 of 10: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10