Samson
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
|  |  | |  |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
3
) and learning how the government can use things like that to make things legal. 
