|Barked: Fri May 4, '12 4:13am PST |
|Uh, no, actually it doesn't. Training an individual dog to suppress it's urges does not change an intact *species* inherent drive roam and find a mate.
I get the distinction you're making, but the law isn't treating behavior, it's treating the mere presence of testicles as an automatic risk factor. My 2.5 year old male is intact and AFAIK has never had the urge to roam. He never has, even though he's had multiple chances (not of my making...) to do so.
I will give you that whether something is moral or justifiable is subjective. Personally though I tend to believe if policy or a law stops the suffering of living beings and improves the lives of others it's pretty moral and very justifiable.
Laws like this don't though. They decrease licensing rates and veterinary care. Irresponsible owners who don't follow existing laws are not going to magically follow new ones just because they exist. Licensing essentially requires YOU to take the first step - by and large it's going to affect people who are already NOT part of the problem. People who are irresponsible avoid veterinary care to avoid needing to licensing their dogs - and that creates suffering.
I'm not sure which is really worse - a puppy's quick death via blue juice, or an elderly dog languishing away in pain and distress because the owners are avoiding taking it in to avoid licensing fees.
This isn't just speculation, either - we know what licensing rates are, and without fail, the areas with the most draconian policies and the highest fees have the worst licensing rates. California is probably by far and large the worst offender, and despite having a law requiring all dogs to be licensed - less than 25% are. MSN does the same thing. People aren't stupid, and if they can avoid paying the testicle tax, they will.
Actually, it can and does. What of the entire judicial system that governs this country? You screw up, there are consequences and you can up to lose the ability to be irresponsible altogether in the future. What of parenting? What of training a dog? If there aren't consequences to our behavior what drives us to evolve and become "better?"
Several fundamental mistakes here.
A) Discipline =/= Punishment
B) The penal system is *not* corrective. I used to work in a jail; the revolving door metaphor is very familiar to me and something I saw first-hand. In its current form our penal system is essentially creating career criminals, at most, it is a deterrent for a few while creating a hatred of LE in them.
C) The judicial system in and of itself is based on behavior, not the mere presence of something. You aren't penalized for...eating pizza in public. You will be jailed, however, if you pull out a legally carried firearm and discharge 15 rounds into it because you found an anchovy.
Requiring intact dog owners to pay two or three times (or more) the licensing fee that altered dog owners pay is not based on behavior.
If you want something like this to work, a good start is to raise licensing fees on the people who have actually done something wrong. Once you know who they are, it's easier to keep track of them and make sure they're doing what they ought to be doing.
If it merely nudges a fraction of the population on the fence into making a better decision that IS progress.
Even if we assume that actually happens, I don't care to pay for someone who is still going to abuse and neglect their now spayed/neutered dog. There are far more effective ways to put my money to use that I wouldn't mine being "fined" for.
And like it has already been mentioned, cats are a far worse problem in many areas. Why don't we have licensing fees for them?
A general question: If your dog was sterilized, but NOT spayed/neutered - would you avoid extra fine?
Edited by author Fri May 4, '12 4:15am PST
|my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|