A Parable-Dog Law in Virginia

(Flashing blue lights in your rear view mirror. You pull to the curb and stop. A cop stops behind you and approaches. He goes to the front of your car, breaks a headlight with lug wrench and comes back to the
window.)

"Lady, didn't you see the speed limit sign back there?"

(You struggle to control your anger.)

"Ah, no, officer. But I was only going about 25."

"The sign says 'DON'T DRIVE TOO FAST OR TOO SLOW.' That's how we do the speed limits in this town."

"OH ... I didn't know that. But I was only going about 25."

"You were, ahhh ... (looks around) going too slow. And you're driving an unsafe vehicle with a broken headlight."

"I'm sorry. I didn't hurt anything. I'll be more careful next time."

"Good idea, lady, now get out of your car."

"What?"

"I said, get out of your car. You can take your purse and cell phone but leave the keys in the ignition."

"WHAT?"

"You heard me. DO IT, or I'll arrest you."

(Cop gets in car. You start to lose it.)

"WHAT THE HELL?"

"Better call a cab; my partner has to get the cruiser home in time for his dinner."

"WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I'M CALLING A LAWYER."

(Cop laughs)

"Yeah, lady, you do that. Hey, nice wheels. See you!"

(Drives off in your car, followed by cruiser.)

Less than two weeks later having been trashed as an 'abusive driver'-- "Her car was in deplorable condition" -- in three newspaper articles, you go to a hearing in front of a judge. You are required to forfeit your car and pay all costs. Several days later the Prosecutor charges you with ten counts of driving a vehicle in unsafe condition and nine counts of driving too fast.

Your attorney explains that the loss of your car was a 'civil forfeiture' -- you were using the car to violate the law, so the state had the right to take it away. NOW you are being given criminal charges for your actions. Since each 0.1 mile is a separate violation and the cop followed you for a mile, you're up for 19 Class
1 misdemeanors. Bad -- if convicted you could spend up to 19 years in jail. The good news is that you're being offered a plea bargain: If you plead guilty to two counts of driving too fast they'll let you off
with just a fine -- no jail time.

"I thought the charge was driving too slow."

"I donno -- the cop says you were going way too fast. You're lucky he didn't check his speedometer until he'd been following you for a bit, or it would have been an even 20 Class 1's."

"Can't I fight the charges?"

"Sure -- but can you prove you weren't going too fast? Can you prove that your headlight wasn't broken? When juries aren't sure, they often split the verdict. They might find you guilty on 10 counts for the headlight but not for the speeding."

So you take the plea bargain. You agree to two years supervised probation, you are barred from ever driving again, and given a ten year jail sentence, suspended on good behavior. Your fine is $2000 plus $3231.37 in court costs. You lose your job because you can't get to where you work by public transportation. Your attorney -- retainer $5000 -- says "Well, that's the law." He explains that the cop had the required two weeks of training but like a few others on that town's force, he had lost a loved one to a reckless driver, so "He really doesn't like people who don't obey speed limits."

You see an ad in the paper where a garage owned by the cop is selling your car for the blue book value.

===============

Impossible and stupid, right? Couldn't happen, right? RIDICULOUS, right?

Absolutely right on all. However that IS the way Virginia's laws work for dogs and cats. And the fact that not one Virginian in 100,000 has been on the short end of those laws is why the need for HB 2482 wasn't understood.

Of course the targets are nearly all dog breeders and it's not likely that more than one Virginian in 1000 has done that. You are all perfectly safe, for now. And for now, you'll be able to get your next pet from someone -- either in state and not yet driven out of breeding or in another state whose laws aren't yet as bad as Virginia's.

However the HSUS campaign is nationwide; in ten years or so those laws will be nationwide (look for a federal law within five years) and we'll be making do with dogs that are bred or imported illegally at much higher prices.

You think HSUS will stick to dog breeders with these campaigns and not move on to farmers? Researchers who use animals?

I think we should also consider that a nation that allows laws of this kind for animal owners might one day allow them for other people.

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist."



Walt Hutchens

Timbreblue Whippets

Let Sleeping Dogs Lie....YES!

An article posted on AOL news this week admonished pet owners to NOT sleep with their pets. It seems there is reported to be a SERIOUS risk that pets can transmit diseases and parasites to their owners. The sensational title even proclaims that sleeping dogs in your bed can KILL you.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/20/letting-sleeping-dogs-lie-in-your-bed-can-kill-you/

Now I'm no expert, but I believe that most contagious diseases are species-specific. In other words, I'm much more likely to contract an illness from my spouse or my kids if THEY sleep with me. Or hug me, or kiss me.....and need we mention the risk of sexually transmitted diseases in humans?

Shucks, I'm really in serious trouble when I get into my car...I might get into an accident and get injured or even killed. Assuming I make it safely to my destination, if it is a public place like a store or a bank, I am routinely exposed to MRSA, flu and cold bugs and even more serious diseases like tuberculosis that travel undeterred throughout the human population.

Assuming someone loves his dog enough to allow him into his bed at night, that person likely also loves their dog enough to treat him for fleas and other parasites. Dogs licking us will make us sick? I dunno about that, but somebody sure gave me a nasty flu bug last Thanksgiving, and betcha dollars to donuts it was NOT a dog.

Two examples were used in this article. In the first, a child supposedly contracted bubonic plague from sleeping with a flea-infested cat. Now, unless that cat was ill with the plague that is a highly dubious scenario. And it's about as likely as, well, getting shot at a Safeway store in Arizona or maybe even at a school or post office. More likely the flea in question originated with a sick wild animal. And anyway, don't most of today's pet owners routinely treat their pets for fleas and other parasites?

The other example cited was the report of a couple who repeatedly became re-infected with MRSA. This problem was attributed to their dog. Gee, by definition MRSA is a "resistant" bacteria, difficult to eliminate even with the strongest of antibiotics. Seriously, blaming the dog for a bacteria that is resistant to treatment? Ridiculous! The couple probably passed that bacteria back and forth just fine without any help from the dog.

Given the fact that there are so many documented therapeutic mental health benefits to including pets in our lives, it smacks of a bizarre, pet-hating agenda by the likes of PETA and similar social miscreants to draw such bold, unsubstantiated conclusions.


As to wound licking, saliva has enzymes and other beneficial components that may possibly assist in wound healing. But, on the other hand, saliva can also in some rare cases transmit other pathogenic bacteria. And, there may be a certain risk to those with compromised immune systems like children and the elderly. It's probably good advice to not treat your wounds with licks from your dog's tongue. But what does that have to do with a dog sharing your bed, or couch, or for that matter, sharing the same floor space?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wound_licking

If your true concern is reducing serious disease....keep the dogs, ditch the humans!

Risky Business

Truth is, commercial pet food is mostly garbage.

That's right, you heard me correctly. It's garbage.

"OK, fine!" you might say. "Dogs love to eat garbage....and they are even expert poop 'recyclers'! There's no food on the planet that can be a worse for them than poop, right? How bad can pet food garbage really be? Companies have to label it honestly, and they can't sell it if it isn't safe. Right?"

Wrong. As many thousands of owners of pets who were sickened and killed by their dog food will tell you. Dead Wrong.

The undisputed fact is that pet food is composed of the waste products from the food industry.

To make a pet food into that familiar crunchy hard kibble, it is necessary to use mostly dry ingredients. Dry foodstuffs like "meals" are used, along with large quantities of grain products, starches such as peas and potatoes, and dried plant proteins known as "glutens". Add to the mix other non-nutritious ingredients like beet pulp (fiber), rock phosphate for minerals (carrying with it a high load of incidental fluoride) and of course the nondescript "by-products". Some sort of preservative is needed for a long shelf life. These ingredients are then extruded under extreme high heat and pressure into the final kibble-foromed product. As we know from studies on people, overprocessed food lose much of their nutritional value. When you feed kibble, you certainly are not providing your pet with anything that could be fairly considered life-sustaining, much less healthful.

Canned food has the advantage of moistness, lack of chemical preservatives, and improved palatablity. However, the meat used in pet food whether it is canned or kibbled, is amost invariably what is referred to as "4D"..... from Dead, Diseased, Dying or Disabled animals. Yes, even most premium brands use 4D meats.

Another disturbing discovery is the use of rendered companion animals in the ingredient tagged as "meat meal". In the 1990s, some vets reported that dogs seemed to be developing a tolerance to pentobarbital, the drug used to euthanize them. Were they somehow ingesting low doses of pentobarbital? Pentobarbital is never used to kill animals who are destined to be food; it is only used to kill companion animals. Was pentobarbital in pet food? There would have only been one way it could have gotten there...by including the remains of euthanized pets in the meat meals that were produced by rendering plants

In 1998, the FDA did a random sampling of commercial pet foods to check for pentobarbital. Shockingly, 31 of the 37 brands tested had measurable amounts of the toxic drug. A followup study in 2000 found that the highest levels of pentobarbital were found in Ol' Roy, Kibbles and Bits, and Pet Gold. Other popular brands like Purina Pro Plan and Nutro Premium also tested positive for pentobarbital.

The uncomfortable fact is that companion animal carcasses have long been accepted by plants who specialize in "rendering". These carcasses join the dead, diseased livestock and road kill and are ground up, boiled at high temperatures and separated into fats and "meat". This "meat" is then further dried to produce a "meat meal." Meat meal is a major ingredient in many brands of commercial pet foods...and the Pentobartital evidence trail proves that companion animals have been a part of the mix...despite denials by the pet food companies.

So how can we avoid pet food made up of "4D" animals or recycled pets? You can look for a label that touts "human grade" meat, but there is no requirement and certainly no guarantee that "human grade" is ever actually used.

AAFCO is the industry group that certifies pet foods as "complete and balanced", usually with their stamp of approval right on the label! AAFCO is made up of individuals from the pet food industry. In effect, the industry polices itself. The fox is guarding the henhouse.

AAFCO certification means simply that the food in question lists a nutrient profile on the label that meets predetermined criteria for fat and protein content. Alternatively, a certification by AAFCO might mean that a feeding trial was done. To pass an AAFCO feeding trial, 6 out of 8 animals must complete a 26 week course of a steady diet of that particular diet without showing clinical or pathological signs of nutritional deficiency or excess. And 6 of the 8 must not lose over 15% of their initial starting weight. This is supposed to prove that the food is "complete and balanced"? Lack of weight loss is not exactly a ringing endorsement. In my estimation, AAFCO certification is completely worthless.

Think about it for about ten seconds. Dogs and cats are carnivores. How can a food based primarily on grains and carbs, with a bit of "4D" meat thrown into the mix, possibly supply them the necessary vital nutrition? Instead of fresh meats and vegetables, our pets are consuming the sweepings from granary floors, fibrous wastes from beet sugar production, and grains that have been warehoused so long that they are often rancid and infested with mites and mold. Proteins are derived in large part from vegetable sources like wheat, corn and soybeans....and dogs and cats cannot effectively digest plant-derived protein. The little meat included in commercial pet food is "rendered" from dead, diseased, dying and disabled animals.

But the proof is certainly in the pudding, as events in recent years have demonstrated. Recalls occur regularly. Most frightening are deaths due to contaminants like poisonous mold, which naturally grows on stored foodstuffs and produces toxic chemicals that are known as "aflatoxins". Equally horrifying were thousands of pet deaths due to eating food that included glutens tainted with melamine and cyanuric acid. Melamine and cyanuric acid are both high-nitrogen substances. They were illegally cut into glutens to increase the bulk of the product as a way to cut costs. Thankfully, the melamine problem seems to have abated with vigilant monitoring. However, aflatoxins remain an ongoing concern, with a recent recall by Kroger in over 10 states in December 2010 due to high levels of cancer-causing aflatoxins. Aflatoxins, produced by mold on foodstuffs, cause liver damage and liver cancer with long-term low dose exposure, or can kill outright at higher doses by inducing liver failure.

Even more damning evidence of the hypocrisy of the claims of "complete and balanced" pet food lies in the many recalls for vitamin or mineral insufficiencies or, conversely, toxic overdoses. We've seen recalls for lack of vitamin A...something that carnivores have traditionally depended on their meat and organ-based diet to provide. Plant-based beta carotene is useless to dogs and cats as they cannot convert it to vitamin A. Most recently, in 2009, thiamine deficiency in pet food caused deaths. There have been recalls for toxic vitamin D excesses and zinc overdoses.

Contamination with Salmonella, a bacteria that can cause diarrhea and illnes, and often cited as a concern with raw foods, actually has been the source of multiple recalls of dry kibbled pet foods. Apparently, when food is cooked until all microorganisms, both good and bad, are dead, you have just created a petri dish ripe for growing unchecked colonies of the first bacteria or fungus that happens to come in contact with that food. Oops!

The heavy overprocessing of meats used in pet foods degrades vital amino acids including taurine. This often causes actual taurine deficiency disease, manifested by cardiomyopathy. So lets cook the hell out of the food and then make a feeble attempt to add taurine back in? Wrong solution to the problem; taurine is abundant in fresh meats.

Most supplements, including the powdered taurine supplement that is added to pet foods, are exclusively sourced from China, leaving us with no safe haven when it comes to additives in our food supply. The glutens tainted with melamine and cyanuric acid were also sourced from China. I'm doubtful that this new world global economy is beneficial to either us or our pets.

Tainted ingredients are often found in different brands during recalls because dozens of different pet food brands are often made in the same production plant. Yes, even the premium brands are produced right alongside the grocery store brands by large "co-packers". Contaminants have been shared among various brands in recent recalls, premium foods as well as grocery store brands .

Transforming garbage into cash is a magical feat that has been perfected by these pet food industry giants. Is it any wonder that pet food companies are able to sponsor dog shows, and heavily lobby the veterinary schools with grants and freebies intended to push their products on society? You'll notice that most vets foolishly advise owners against feeding their pets fresh foods prepared at home.

Carnivores like dogs and cats rely on their traditional diet of fresh foods to keep them healthy and happy. Give your dog a bone. Give your dog some fresh ground beef, or maybe a chicken wing or back. Scramble him up an egg. Share your fish dinner with him. But please, say NO to commercial pet foods.

Sadly, many out there are so indoctrinated to commercial pet foods that they will remain skeptical of this information. "My pets are just fine and I've fed XXXXX brand for years!" they proclaim. This is comparable to playing a game of Russian Roulette with our pets' lives. And, sadly, for those who die, in hindsight the risk could easily have been avoided.

I rest much easier at night since I made the switch to frozen raw or sun-dried meats, and since I made the decision to share my freshly prepared ricotta cheese and egg casserole with my dogs.

And I cringe whenever I see that bag of "Ol' Roy" dog food ready for checkout in the cart ahead of me at WalMart!

More info:

http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html

http://seespotlivelonger.com/seespotbook.html

Info on mycotoxins:

http://vetmed.iastate.edu/diagnostic-lab/diagnostic-services/diagnostic-sections/chemistry-/-toxicology/mycotoxins

And here is a recent Saturday Night Live spot that is more factual than they might realize! A fictional ad for "Mostly Garbage" dog food:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/99942/saturday-night-live-mostly-garbage-dog-food

Gosh that never gets old! I love that SNL spot!

The Truth About Neutering

Neutering significantly increases the risk of bladder and prostate cancer.

Several older studies have shown that the incidence of prostate cancer is increased in neutered males. In 2007, in an attempt to verify the results, yet another study was done on the effects of neutering on the male urogenital tract.

The results were shocking.

Neutered dogs were four times more likely to suffer from malignant bladder cancer than intact dogs.

Neutered dogs were eight times more likely to suffer from prostate transitional cell carcinoma than intact dogs.

They were twice as likely to suffer from prostate adenocarcinoma, and four times as likely to suffer from prostate carcinoma. On average, castrated dogs are three times more likely than their intact counterparts to develop some type of prostate cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17516571

However, to keep the situation in perspective, the overall incidence of these cancers is low, around 1-2% of all dogs. Risk can also vary by breed and increases with age.

Neutering obviously eliminates the risk of testicular cancer because, well, the testicles are now gone. Since testicles are a source of the hormone testosterone, the influence of that hormone on the body will be minimized. Benign prostate enlargement is exacerbated by testosterone, as is infection of the prostate, so if your dog develops either of these conditions, he can easily be treated by castration at the time of diagnosis. "Benign" means the condition is not life-threatening, and will improve with treatment. Prostate and bladder cancers, on the other hand, are not as easily treated and may well kill your dog.

Just a bit more information to follow up on the post earlier this month "Rethinking Spay and Neuter". Oddly enough, there are many veterinary websites out there claiming that neutering reduces risk of prostate cancer.

Really? It seems the truth is politically incorrect, or perhaps the truth is just too inconvenient for some people to admit.

Dogs and the Ethics of Training

Dogs and the Ethics of Training

Carlotta Cooper

This article originally appeared in the December 3, 2010 issue of Dog News.

It’s a fact that many of the breeds we have today were originally bred to do some very tough jobs. We have mastiff breeds which were dogs of war at one time. We have terriers who not only bolted but killed fox and vermin. We have sighthounds who coursed wolves, deer and hare; and we have other hounds who could corner bear, raccoons, and wild boar.

Times change, of course. Bear baiting was made illegal in England in 1835, resulting in changes to many breeds which had been used for that sport. Breeders worked hard to change the temperament of many of the bully breeds which had been used for bear baiting prior to that time, making them excellent family pets today.

However, there are many breeds today which are still used for their original purposes, at least part-time. Greyhounds still race and course. Many sporting dogs are still used as working bird dogs. And foxhounds and other treeing hounds are still used for hunting.

Recently in South Carolina the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released film footage of the practice of bear “baying.” This is a training exercise during which a bear is staked out in a pen and hunting dogs (in this case Plott hounds) are taught how to attack the bear without getting hurt. The bear is not allowed to be hurt either.

You’re probably wondering why anyone would want to do such a thing. The answer is that Plott hounds are still used for actual bear hunting. They corner or tree bears and, in an actual hunting situation, the dogs need to know how to approach a bear without being torn to shreds. It’s the dogs’ job to hold the bear in place until the hunter can arrive on the scene. Presumably, if you simply take the dogs out to hunt without any training or experience they would be at greater risk of being killed by a bear they try to tree or corner. So, bear baying serves a training purpose.

South Carolina seems to be the only state where bear baying is still legal, according to HSUS.

Now, is bear baying a pleasant experience for a bear? I’m sure it’s not. Does it prepare the dogs for meeting a bear under actual hunting circumstances in the woods? It seems likely that it does. Is bear baying something that I personally approve of? That’s not really relevant. Done properly, the bear is not supposed to be injured during bear baying as the dogs are supposed to learn how to hold the bear in place without injuring the bear or being injured themselves. That’s the whole point of the training.

You should keep in mind, too, that bear “baying” is NOT the same thing as bear baiting, which was a bloody sport which resulted in the death of the animal.

This case has become important for several reasons. The American Kennel Club asked the American Plott Association to disavow bear baying and the club refused to do so. As a result, the AKC has severed ties with the parent club over this issue.

It’s easy to sympathize with the bear in this instance, but it’s important to remember the purpose of this training: to keep dogs safer during hunting.

This is not an easy issue. Before you decide that the AKC is correct in this instance, consider that there are many breeds which have advanced training which could be construed as being “cruel” by some observers. For example, shepherds and sheepdog trainers often train herding dogs with cows and sheep which will give them a kick in order to teach them better herding and nipping skills. Some gundog trainers in the U.S. use electronic collars, which are considered “cruel” in the UK — the Kennel Club in Britain is seeking to have them banned by the government. Hunting fox, deer and hare with dogs in the UK is banned as cruel, despite the fact that we have countless breeds which were developed for these purposes. There are people in the United States who believe it’s cruel to use hounds to course hare and other animals.

Just where do you draw the line?

In this case, HSUS has produced, once again, a video that certainly looks terrible, on first viewing. It looks like a bear is being abused by dogs. However, there is often more to consider. I would hate for any dogs to die during hunting because they were not properly trained, especially when bears are not physically harmed during the training process.

Many of us have breeds with long historical traditions. We’re proud of those traditions and some people try to maintain them as much as possible today. That’s not easy to do in an increasingly urban world. I don’t think we should be so quick to label those traditions “cruel” or try to eliminate them, especially without more evidence or without making more effort to understand them. Afterall, part of our job as breed custodians is to maintain our breeds and their traditions. That includes the work that our dogs were bred to do.

Rethinking Spay and Neuter

Rethinking Spay and Neuter
By Geneva Coats, R.N.
Secretary, California Federation of Dog Clubs


Pet sterilization has become widely regarded as a routine procedure that is purely beneficial. Most breeders today sell companion puppies under contracts requiring spay or neuter as a condition of sale.(6) Ingrained in recent popular culture is the notion that pet overpopulation is a serious concern, and that to prevent the deaths of animals in shelters all pets should be sterilized. To bolster the campaign for pet sterilization, we have further been informed that a sterilized pet is happier, healthier and longer-lived than one who remains intact.

Should we believe these widely circulated ideas that “everybody knows?” What are the facts?

"OVERPOPULATION"

In the mid-twentieth century, there was an abundance of pets; many were available “free to good home” via newspaper ads. Few pets were sterilized, and many people unwisely allowed their dogs to roam the neighborhood. Consequently, there were many unplanned litters produced by family pets.

According to “Maddie’s Fund” president Richard Avanzino, in the 1970s, our country’s animal control agencies were killing, on average, about 115 dogs and cats annually for every 1000 human residents. This amounted to about 24 million shelter deaths every year.(2) Avanzino is also the former executive director of the San Francisco SPCA, and is regarded by many as the founder of the modern no-kill movement in the US.

"The Problem" of too many pets and not enough homes to go around was ingrained into the public psyche. To deal with “The Problem” of massive shelter killings, a huge public awareness campaign was initiated. The importance of spaying and neutering pets was emphasized. Vets began to routinely urge their clients to sterilize their pets as an integral part of being a “responsible owner”. Planned breeding became a politically incorrect activity. A popular slogan that persists today is “Don’t breed or buy, while shelter dogs die.”

The crusade for spaying and neutering pets has been very successful. A 2009-2010 national pet owners’ survey by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association reveals that the vast majority of owned pets...75% of dogs and 87% of cats... are spayed or neutered.

In recent years, according to Avanzino, annual shelter death numbers have dramatically declined to about 12 per thousand human residents, or about 3.6 million deaths each year. This amounts to a staggering 85% reduction in killing since the 1970s.(2) We have reached a nationwide pet shelter death rate that averages just 1.2% per population. This can effectively be considered a “no kill” rate.

In most areas, feral cats and kittens account for the majority of shelter numbers.(9) Several areas of the country have actual shortages of adoptable dogs, particularly purebreds and puppies, and must import from other regions to fill the need. Dogs are being smuggled into the US by the thousands. Some rescue groups are even importing from other countries….Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, Taiwan and Romania, to name some of the most popular points of origin. The conservative estimate is that 300,000 dogs are imported into the US each year to meet the demand for pets.(3)

According to shelter expert Nathan Winograd, every year in this country, approximately 3 million adoptable pets die in shelters.* At the same time, each year around 17 million US households are looking for a new pet. That is 17 million households above and beyond those who already will adopt a shelter or rescue pet. There are nearly six times as many homes opening up every year as the number of adoptable pets killed in shelters!(8) It seems the greatest challenge these days is to find ways to match up the adoptable pets with the homes that are waiting for them. Breed rescues fill this niche admirably, but are privately funded and desperately in need of assistance in order to effectively perform this service. Perhaps some of the public funds budgeted for shelters to kill animals could be better spent helping rescue groups who are proactive in matching adoptable pets to suitable homes.

SPAY/NEUTER AND HEALTH

Now that we have addressed the issue of pet overpopulation, let’s examine the claim that sterilization surgery promotes better health. While there are some benefits to sterilization, there are some drawbacks as well.

Sterilization will naturally serve to prevent any unwanted litters. In bitches, spaying will greatly reduce the risk of breast cancer, pyometra, perianal fistula and cancers of the reproductive organs.(5)

Spay surgery itself carries a somewhat high rate (around 20%) of complications such as infection, hemorrhage and even death.(5) Spaying significantly increases the rate of urinary incontinence in bitches….about 20-30% of all spayed bitches will eventually develop this problem. This is believed to be most likely caused by the lack of estrogen that results from being spayed.(1)

Sterilization of males may reduce some unwanted sexual behaviors, but there are few other proven benefits to neutering a male dog. Testicular cancer is prevented, but the actual risk of that cancer is extremely low (<1%) among intact dogs. Contrary to popular belief, studies show that the risk of prostate cancer is actually HIGHER in neutered dogs than in their intact counterparts.(5)

Other studies prove significant health risks associated with sterilization, particularly when done at an early age. The most problematic is a delayed closure of the bony growth plates. This results in an abnormal, “weedy” skeletal development that increases the incidence of orthopedic problems like hip dysplasia and patellar luxation. Working and performance dogs, if neutered before maturity, risk the inability to perform the jobs they were bred for.(10)

But by far the most startling news to surface this year is the result of a study that shows that keeping ovaries to the age of six years or later is associated with a greater than 30% increase of lifespan in female Rottweilers.(4) Similar studies in humans reinforce this finding.(7)(11)

A 30% longer lifespan means that you could have many additional years with your bitch simple by delaying spay surgery until middle-age or later.

Behavioral studies show that sterilization increases fearfulness, noise phobias and aggression. Other well-documented adverse health effects of de-sexing include increased risk of bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and cognitive dysfunction in older pets. Sterilization confers an increased susceptibility to infectious disease, and also a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines.(10)

So there is no need to feel obligated to sterilize for health or welfare reasons. But, what about the need to protect the puppies that we sell from unethical breeders?

SALES CONTRACTS

Many breeders are justifiably very concerned about the possibility of their dogs being subjected to neglect or abuse by falling into disreputable hands. To help prevent such situations, it has become commonplace for breeders to include spay/neuter requirements in their pet sales contract, and/or to sell the dog on a limited registration. Another common stipulation, particularly for a show/breeding dog, is requiring that the dog be returned to the seller in the event the buyer no longer wishes to keep him.(6)

Such contracts are highly effective when selling a puppy to someone who is honest and ethical. However, contracts are easily skirted by the unscrupulous, particularly if the buyer lives in a different region. Someone intent on breeding may do so regardless of contract language, and sell the puppies without any registration. And without personal knowledge of the living conditions at your puppy’s new home, it is impossible to predict what sort of care and attention he or she will receive. Even some show breeders may have very different ideas than the seller of what constitutes proper care. There is no substitute for a home check to follow up that initial puppy application!

Bottom line, the best insurance for a happy future for your puppies is making sure that you get to know the buyer personally. If something about the buyer or his attitude doesn’t seem right, then it’s probably best to cancel the sale. If you wish to sell puppies on spay-neuter agreements you might also consider advising the buyer to wait until the puppy reaches maturity before having sterilization surgery performed. Another idea is to ask your vet if vasectomy would be a viable alternative to castration for your male. This would preserve sex hormones and possibly prevent some of the adverse health effects of castration.

PUREBRED GENE POOLS

Sterilization of all dogs sold as companions may have some unintended adverse effects. The nature of purebred breeding for the show ring involves intense selection that severely narrows the gene pool in many, if not most, breeds. Some breeds started with just a small pool of founders. Through the years, overuse of only a few popular sires further reduced the genetic variety available in the breed. When troublesome health problems surface and become widespread, where can we turn for “new blood”?

The show-bred population of a breed may have become too small as a result of intense inbreeding or the genetic bottleneck created by overuse of popular sires; or the breed gene pool may have become genetically depleted because of unwise selection for specific, sometimes unhealthy physical traits favored in the show ring. As a result, dogs from the “pet” population may actually be the salvation of the breed gene pool.

Trying to guess which dogs are the "best" to keep intact for showing and breeding can be hit-or-miss. Imagine the scenario where a successful show dog eventually develops a heritable health issue, while his brother is much healthier...but brother was neutered long ago, thereby eliminating those good genes forever. What about that Champion's non-show quality sister, who just happens to have good health, great mothering instincts and/or the ability produce exceptional offspring? If sold as a spayed companion, her genes are effectively lost.

And what about the very future of the dog fancy? Many people (myself included) have bought an intact dog as a pet, and only later sparked an interest in showing and breeding. Developing new breeders is critical to the survival of our sport, but if we sell all companions on spay/neuter agreements, we will lose many fanciers before they have the chance to discover the joy of dog breeding and showing!

Sadly, mandatory sterilization laws are sweeping the nation and may further compromise the future of the dog fancy. AKC registrations continue to decline and the push to legally and/or contractually require spay and neuter of most every dog will only worsen that situation. Regardless, there is a huge demand in society for healthy pets; a demand which the responsible breeders could not come close to meeting even if they wanted to...and sometimes, they do not want to. The choice we have as a society is how that demand will be filled.

Many believe that only show hobbyists should be allowed to keep intact dogs and breed on a limited basis. However, the attempt to legally force well-regulated and inspected commercial breeders and the casual small home breeders out of the picture leaves only the unregulated, less visible "underground" producers and smugglers to fill the need for pets. Perhaps it is time to re-think our preconceived notions about who should and shouldn't possess intact dogs!

As a dog owner, one must weigh the risks of sterilization against the benefits in order to make that very personal decision. Popular culture and many veterinarians downplay or even ignore the risks involved with spay/neuter because of their own belief in the need to reduce dog breeding in general. Many people still believe that overpopulation remains a pressing concern and that sterilization always promotes better health. Some even believe that breeding a female is abusive. It seems the animal rights groups have done an excellent job of brainwashing the public on these matters!

As breeders, we may be wise to re-examine the routine request to have all our companion puppies spayed or neutered. The future availability of pets, the perpetuation of the dog fancy, the health of the individual dogs and the gene pools of the breeds that we love may all depend on keeping a few more dogs intact!

*An adoptable pet is one that does not have insurmountable health or temperament issues.
Per California’s Hayden law: The California Legislature Defines No-Kill Terms
 ■California Law, SB 1785 Statutes of 1998, also known as "The Hayden Law" has defined no-kill terms. What is Adoptable? 1834.4. (a)
"No adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future."
Adoptable dogs may be old, deaf, blind, disfigured or disabled.


REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
1Bovsun, Mara;
"Puddle Jumping; Canine Urinary Incontinence";
AKC Gazette April 2009
http://www.barkingbulletin.com/newsletter/2009/q4/Puddle-Jumping--Canine-Urinary-Incontinence/

2Fry, Mike,
"Reflections from the No Kill Conference in Washington DC":
http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/3A078C33CD079D17862575AD00471A9B

3James, Susan Donaldson (ABC News)
"300,000 Imported Puppies Prompt Rabies Concerns"
October 24, 2007
http://www.petpac.net/news/headlines/importedpuppies/

4Nolen, R. Scott
"Rottweiler Study Links Ovaries With Exceptional Longevity"
JAVMA March 2010
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar10/100301g.asp

5Sanborn, Laura J., MS
"Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay/Neuter in Dogs"; May 14,2007
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

6Thoms, Joy
"The Importance of Spay-Neuter Contracts"
The Orient Express, Nov, 2009

7Waters, David J., DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVS
"A Healthier Respect for Ovaries"
http://www.gpmcf.org/respectovaries.html

8 Winograd, Nathan J.
"Debunking Pet Overpopulation"
June 29, 2009
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390


9 Winograd, Nathan, “Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America” Almaden Books, 2nd edition, Feb 25, 2009.

10 Zink, Christine, DVM, PhD, DACVP
"Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete"; 2005
http://caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

11 “Retaining ovaries may be a key to prolonged life in women and dogs”; DVM Newsmagazine; Dec 5, 2009. http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/646838

It's called CHOICE!

Commentary from a dog list regarding stated support for the role of HSUS in the Missouri voter initiative that limits number of dogs that may be owned. Posted here with permission of the original author.

We Americans have been lied to and cheated by HSUS. I respect every person's right to have only one dog if they choose-or none at all. I respect the commercial breeders who do a good job of caring for and raising good animals. I definitely respect show breeders who give more than anyone to their individual breeds. I do not accept anyone telling me how many dogs I can own, or how many children I can have, or anything that strips me of my freedom given by the constitution. It is why I have stayed in America. Therefore I cannot agree with or respect anyone's decision to try to interfere with my choices in life. It is my business. I do not attempt to dictate to others what basic choices they make for their lives and only ask that they do the same in return. What you feel may be right for you-could be disastrous for another person. To impose your will on another is unfair to say the least. We are not all cut from the same cookie cutter. That said-I can't help but wonder where you would find your next dog if everyone followed your plan of action. Truly-there would be no dogs for most people-only the very wealthy could afford to own a dog. That would be a sad condition for a country that loves it's pets as much as Americans love theirs. That has happened in many countries in the past-after wars or animal rights organizations "reformed" their legal structure concerning breeding and owning pets.

Your comment was:

"I also doubt if this would affect any show breeders or hobby

breeders with limited amounts of dogs, simply for the fact that

there would be no reason for neglect and no doubt...in HSUS

mind....good breeders should continue to breed. "

I do so wish this were true-but it isn't. Show breeders have been heavy targets for HSUS for at least the last decade-and it is getting worse!!! They have caused breeders and rescue people to be arrested, fined, harassed, and stolen their dogs and killed most of them over and over in every state in the union. The breeder that President Obama got his Portugese Water Dog from ended up being a huge target for HSUS-largely because they were miffed that he chose a purebred-from a breeder-over a shelter dog. Make no mistake about it-HSUS ruins people's lives and murders their dogs. If you fly under the radar-stay there-as if you are noticed-they will come for you-no matter how good your are as a breeder or your care of your dogs. In the meantime-check out all you can find on pet law list or or petlegislation list. They are both good. Then go talk to every lawmaker in your county about laws that may be devastating to breeders. Above all-never trust that HSUS has the animals best interests at heart. They most definitely do NOT!