Dog adoption rant...

[aussiered]

Our theriogenologist published a paper in JAVMA last year about the benefits and risks of spaying/neutering... You can read it here: http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665



Neutered males are at increased risk for prostate cancer relative to intact dogs.

Yes I know that, I was saying that I have seen dogs with prostate and testicular cancer at relatively young ages (8yo staff X), that could have been prevented had the dog been neutered.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

On topic: I think some rescues have RIDICULOUS rules for adoption. Dogs sit in rescue for years because the rescues turn down all the "ok" owners, they only want the "best"! I dunno about you, but I'd rather see a dog in an ok home than a rescue or shelter. Their job is to adopt, not to wait for the absolute best match.

Slightly off topic. I must admit I take issue when people start saying the main reason of neutering and spaying is to prevent disease.

Heck, let's take the spleen out of EVERY Golden Retriever since they are so incredibly prone to hemangiosarcoma! (Actually come to think of it, neutered GRs are at higher risk of HS than intact GRs). You don't cut off/out perfectly healthy organs because there is a chance they maaay get infected or have a tumor.

A smart, conscientious owner who is willing to take all necessary precautions with an intact animal should absolutely be able to have an said intact animal if they choose and not face an prejudice because of it

Then again, the problem is that many people are NOT conscientious, so I understand why spaying/neutering is pushed so hard, rightly so.

But, if I were to get a second dog (or cat), I don't know if I would elect to have them "fixed". I'd have to think about it. It's an elective surgery mostly for the convenience for the owner (no oops litter worries) and some mild health benefits (and also health drawbacks, if you read the literature. Check out ortho problems in neutered giant breeds for example, or osteosarcoma, or hemangiosarcoma in certain large breeds). Of course, if I practiced, I'd encourage people to fix their animal and tell them the reason why. But if they chose to keep their animal intact and were smart about it, no problem.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I found this literature review interesting. The website may be a little biased, but all of this info (check out page 2 especially) is backed up by cited studies.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

Again, I'm generally an advocate of spay/neuter. But we need to be fully informed, as do owners, about all potential outcomes.

 

[nyanko]

^^^ Biased source, but this article posted earlier is better and neutral.

Our theriogenologist published a paper in JAVMA last year about the benefits and risks of spaying/neutering... You can read it here: http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Like I said, the hosting website is slightly biased

But the 50+ published clinical studies the article summarizes and is based off of are not....

 

[Pandacinny]

Yes, but it's really, really easy to present statistics dishonestly, but in a way that's not technically inaccurate, which is why people don't trust such openly biased sources, even when they do cite clinical studies and articles.

I haven't read the NAIA article because PDFs confuse my poor, old computer, but that's probably why Nyanko posted another source despite the fact that the NAIA one cites so many studies.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Honestly though, if we shouldn't trust biased sources, then people should not listen to the vast majority of vets who have had "sterilize, sterilize, sterilize" beaten into their heads since day one I never heard one negative thing about speuter until I did my own research...how is that for bias...sorry, I'm just annoyed because a certain vet went off on me because I had mentioned that if I get another animal I would quite possibly keep him/her intact. And NAIA isn't excessively biased from what I have read. They actually speak out against crazy AR and environmental activists. I'm pretty neutral on em, myself.

 

[nyanko]

My issue with NAIA on this particular topic is that they have a very clear agenda against mandatory spay-neuter, which in my point of view is fine. I actually tend to agree with them on many issues, but that's just the Libertarian in me speaking. However, since their stance is so clear-cut and public, I do not trust them to present an unbiased article on this particular issue any more than I trust pro-mandatory spay/neuter groups to present an unbiased article. That's why I pointed the other article out to you - I think it gives a much better viewpoint and discusses the cost-benefit analysis that should take place when considering whether a particular animal should be sterilized.

Applying population-level statistics and reasoning to individuals is always a touchy issue (see: things like BMI in humans), but I do think that the article StealthDog posted (which I was already familiar with) is a good read and presents things well.

 

[168135]

One of my friends lives in my hometown. I don't get to see her that often, but we stopped by her house to pick up a few things when I was home for Christmas. Her family has a two year old miniture schnauzer. I didn't get a good look at him because he was barking and going crazy, but my other friend made a joke about the colour of his testicles. "So, you didn't get him neutered?" "Well, he's still a puppy, so we don't want to do it yet."

The dog is TWO.

"Well, he still acts like a puppy."

Later that night, she mentioned that it might be cool to breed him once before getting fixed. I went off on my overpopulation rant and the pros of having him fixed and she was happy to have the information and it gave her something to think about. There isn't much she can do anyway because it isn't technically her dog... her family isn't well-off financially, so that's probably why the dog wasn't fixed. The dog came from someone her mom works with who breeds. If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet.

I volunteered at a shelter that would not turn people down if they wanted a cat for their barn. The shelter is in a rural area though.

 

[autumnmuse]

Mini-rant:

My aunt has five kids. They have always had tons of dogs and cats just hanging around the place. They do not take good care of these pets. They do not spend any money on them besides cheap food. No vaccines, no preventive anything. They also do not spay/neuter. They are the epitome of bad owners and contributing to the problem. I have tried and tried to bring this up with them. Every time I notice they have another litter of kittens I ask how come they haven't gotten the cats fixed. "Oh, it's such and so's cat (one of the kids) and she doesn't want to because she likes kittens." No attempt to be a responsible parent and pet owner. I have brought up the shelter and overbreeding problem. "Oh that's okay, we'll find homes for them." Which I have to admit, they usually do, but of course that means more cats won't be adopted out of shelters because there are all these free kittens at my aunt's house all the time. No amount of logic gets through. I honestly think it comes down to money and effort. They like having pets but only so far as it's not inconvenient. These same relatives never get oil changes and maintenance on their cars either. And yes, they are always breaking down. You'd think they would pick up on the cause and effect thing, but no.

Okay, rant over. Whew, I feel better now. I just hate being so helpless and unable to correct a situation in my own family!

 

[sumstorm]

One of the things that strikes me, from VP-ing at two Humane Societies supporting county (parish) shelters in 2 different states, both with incredibly high kill rates, is that there are time constraints. It is incredibly difficult to thin out the 'responsible owners who don't match our profile' in the time constraints of life. Sometimes it is hard just to check vet references, let alone the rest. In the last shelter, we averaged 60 animals a day entering a shelter designed with twelve 2' x 2' cat cages, and 24 dog runs. Try photographing and putting together profiles on that many animals each day, plus checking references, etc. It is nearly impossible and it was a full time, unpaid job for 6 of us.

So, here is the other thing. If a member of your household has an extremly strong belief in intact animals, why would I believe that once the animal is in your home, that strong belief won't kick in and apply to the new pet? That is kind of like someone that believes the best use of thier evening is watching TV assuring me that the high energy former working shepherd will get a 5 mile run each night. I would want the run habit in place before I placed the dog.

I am actually on both sides of this issue. I don't believe in mandatory s/n. I deeply regret spaying one of my dogs, because she is a great representative of her breed in terms of health, confirmation and temperment. I never expected that I would want to breed, but now that she has been such a great representative, I regret my early decision, even if there are long term health risks.

My solution? Work with county and public shelters instead of breed rescues. Or, volunteer with a shelter, which may offer you more leniency after they see how incredibly dependable you are as a volunteer. You may have to put more hours into finding the dog you want, and become great at evaluating temperment to determine if the dog will fit in your home, but you will have more flexability on whether you are required to have fences, other spayed animals, etc. It will likely cost you less on the actual adoption, but may cost you more in initial vet care. The last county shelter I volunteered at doesn't test for HW, FELV/FIV, or worms. They provide no vaccines, and seems to a be a great breeding area for parvo and distemper. The animals in there stand nearly no chance of having a life (99.9% are euthanized) so interested adopters are desperatly needed.

Look around and you can probably find a solution to the un-neutered schnauzer issue. More time, more effort, and potentially more cost in the first year, but viable.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I do think that the article StealthDog posted (which I was already familiar with) is a good read and presents things well.

Oh absolutely, I wasn't denying that at all. I was just trying to show some more info on the topic from perhaps not the best source, but a source that also had some good info from relevant papers.

 

[Groominator]

So, here is the other thing. If a member of your household has an extremly strong belief in intact animals, why would I believe that once the animal is in your home, that strong belief won't kick in and apply to the new pet?

Because if the new dog is coming from a rescue it would already be sterilized, so it doesn't matter whether the owners want to keep this one intact or not. Its already done. And while they may obtain other animals later that are not sterilized, it does not concern the animal in question at all, so long as it is loved and well taken care of.

I agree on the running habits - that if you're going to adopt a high-energy dog you should already have athletic habits. But on having already altered pets and adopting a rescue, IMO its bunk. Its a matter of principles. In reality, nothing will stop a person from deciding that from now on they'll only have intact animals, after they already adopted this particular rescue animal. Whether they have had intact animals or not.

Of course if it were up to me, I would heavily question the individual as to why they are keeping their animals intact and how well aware they are of various consequences, and what their intentions are. But to not adopt a rescue dog to an otherwise near-perfect home because they have an intact animal on premises is ridiculous.

But of course I've had issues with the pickiness of rescues myself. I remember asking a rescue rep for a particular breed questions and she refused to talk to me until i filled out an application. She was openly rude to me, so i went to a breeder instead. I adore my dogs and I'm so happy to have them and have no regrets, but it could've been a homeless animal that got a home if I wasn't so put off by that rescue rep.

 

[Pandacinny]

Because if the new dog is coming from a rescue it would already be sterilized, so it doesn't matter whether the owners want to keep this one intact or not. Its already done. And while they may obtain other animals later that are not sterilized, it does not concern the animal in question at all, so long as it is loved and well taken care of.

Actually, that's highly dependent on the particular rescue or humane society and their resources. Many shelters do spay and neuter all animals that leave their doors. However, many many are unable to. Instead, they send you home with a contract requiring you to spay or neuter the animal in X amount of time. Some may even send you home with a voucher to take to a local veterinarian for having your pet spayed or neutered.

Also, you wanted to adopt, but purchased a dog instead because one person from one rescue was rude to you? I'm calling bunk on *that.* Were you really committed to rescuing, you could have gone to another organization or voiced your complaint about the rude woman to another representative at the rescue you contacted (unless they were very small and she basically was the rescue, of course.) I'm not knocking you for buying instead of adopting - how to get a pet is a personal decision based on many different variables. I'm just saying that the claim that "One person was mean to me! It's her fault I didn't adopt." is ridiculous. If you were committed to adopting (and it's okay if you weren't), you could have still done so. There's no shortage of dogs. Don't blame this rude woman for it.

 

[No Imagination]

Also, you wanted to adopt, but purchased a dog instead because one person from one rescue was rude to you? I'm calling bunk on *that.*

While I dont know about the OP situation, I can speak for myself.

At some point, you just get tired of jumping through hopes. My sister started looking and filling out apps in early November for a dog for Christmas. Without going into details again, she couldn't get one from 2 shelters because the vet who did my cat neuter was out of country. I mean, who keeps in intact (indoor) male cat anyway?! In the end (and ~2 months later), she went to a breeder.

Plug for anyone in the NE. LOVE the North Shore Animal League. Usually a large selection of puppies, kittens, and older animals. Well screened, (both dogs and people) and friendly staff. I don't know anything more about the shelter, but from my perspective, their top notch. Gotten 4 dogs from them over my life, and will get the rest of my pets from them. No fee, only a 75$ deposit to bring your pet back to get fixed.

 

[chris03333]

While I dont know about the OP situation, I can speak for myself.

At some point, you just get tired of jumping through hopes. My sister started looking and filling out apps in early November for a dog for Christmas. .

As do TONS of other people. That is just a really bad time, and also most humane organizations are more "picky" at that time, because many returns happen when Christmas presents go wrong...

 

[EqSci]

Mini-rant:

My aunt has five kids. They have always had tons of dogs and cats just hanging around the place. They do not take good care of these pets. They do not spend any money on them besides cheap food. No vaccines, no preventive anything. They also do not spay/neuter. They are the epitome of bad owners and contributing to the problem. I have tried and tried to bring this up with them. Every time I notice they have another litter of kittens I ask how come they haven't gotten the cats fixed. "Oh, it's such and so's cat (one of the kids) and she doesn't want to because she likes kittens." No attempt to be a responsible parent and pet owner. I have brought up the shelter and overbreeding problem. "Oh that's okay, we'll find homes for them." Which I have to admit, they usually do, but of course that means more cats won't be adopted out of shelters because there are all these free kittens at my aunt's house all the time. No amount of logic gets through. I honestly think it comes down to money and effort. They like having pets but only so far as it's not inconvenient. These same relatives never get oil changes and maintenance on their cars either. And yes, they are always breaking down. You'd think they would pick up on the cause and effect thing, but no.

Okay, rant over. Whew, I feel better now. I just hate being so helpless and unable to correct a situation in my own family!

The truly tragic part is that all five of those kids are going to grow up with those 'values' and do the same with their own families. The cycle never ends.

 

[Groominator]

Also, you wanted to adopt, but purchased a dog instead because one person from one rescue was rude to you? I'm calling bunk on *that.* Were you really committed to rescuing, you could have gone to another organization or voiced your complaint about the rude woman to another representative at the rescue you contacted (unless they were very small and she basically was the rescue, of course.) I'm not knocking you for buying instead of adopting - how to get a pet is a personal decision based on many different variables. I'm just saying that the claim that "One person was mean to me! It's her fault I didn't adopt." is ridiculous. If you were committed to adopting (and it's okay if you weren't), you could have still done so. There's no shortage of dogs. Don't blame this rude woman for it.

I'm not committed to rescue. I dream of fostering some day when i have the time and resources, but right now I do not have such a commitment. I try to help and support people that are active in rescue, I have friends involved. My case was that I was looking for a particular breed that is not commonly found in shelters (and when they are they are usually quickly pulled by national or private rescue). Yes I know there are plenty of shelters and dogs but I was looking for something specific. In the long run, I had intentions of going to a breeder anyway, but before I did that I thought I'd try rescue first. The rescue I spoke to was the from the breed's national club. I feel that as a club representative her behavior was absolutely uncalled for and just put me back on the path that I was headed anyway. Yes there's more detail to the situation, I don't care to go into it.

back to topic, if a shelter does NOT sterilize, I can see their argument in not adopting to a person with an intact animal. But most respectable shelters do. So as far as the individual dog is concerned, it doesn't matter whether other animals in the household are intact or not, nor is the rescue responsible for those other animals.

It also depends on how much a shelter follows through with the animals that they adopt out, for those shelters that adopt out intact animals. I adopted a young kitten from a cat rescue a few years ago. He was absolutely teeny and of course was far too young and too small to be neutered. So the rescue gave me a "contract" that I was supposed to have him neutered. We did neuter him but it had nothing to do with the rescue anymore because they never followed through with the adoption. They gave me a call a week after i had him to see if he was doing ok and i never heard from them again. We did it on our own accord. IMO if the rescue is going to adopt out an intact animal, they need to follow through and make sure that the owners actually do their part.

 

[No Imagination]

IMO if the rescue is going to adopt out an intact animal, they need to follow through and make sure that the owners actually do their part.

Ahh... Wow. No thanks.

Once I adopt an animal, its mine (one good reason to have it licensed). For better or worse. Friendly visit (on my terms) or phone call is one thing, but short of that, they better bring the police or animal care unit if they have a problem (or take me to court for contract violation).

I couldn't imagine having to deal with some of these people after I adopted an animal.

I understand the importance of making sure an animal is not being mistreated, but the same levels of reasonable suspicion and cause had better be followed.

 

[david594]

back to topic, if a shelter does NOT sterilize, I can see their argument in not adopting to a person with an intact animal. But most respectable shelters do. So as far as the individual dog is concerned, it doesn't matter whether other animals in the household are intact or not, nor is the rescue responsible for those other animals.

Working in a large shelter in a relatively poor city I can definitely tell you that is not how it works. The "not our problem anymore" mentality would completely not fly, because when that intact dog does have puppies inevitable either they, or their future offspring, will end up back at the shelter. So while its not our problem now, we are still going to take the puppies or full grown dogs back in 1 month, year, decade whenever someone decides to surrender them.

We address overpopulation at the only place we actually have control: In the shelter, before adoption.

 

[Groominator]

Working in a large shelter in a relatively poor city I can definitely tell you that is not how it works. The "not our problem anymore" mentality would completely not fly, because when that intact dog does have puppies inevitable either they, or their future offspring, will end up back at the shelter. So while its not our problem now, we are still going to take the puppies or full grown dogs back in 1 month, year, decade whenever someone decides to surrender them.

We address overpopulation at the only place we actually have control: In the shelter, before adoption.

Reread my post. I still think shelters (particularly those that do not sterilize animals when adopting them out) need to follow up more on the animals they adopt out. At least as far as speuter contracts are involved.

HOWEVER animals that did not come from the shelter are just not the shelter's responsibility. Just because they are intact does not mean that they will be bred, nor that they will wind up there. Okay, people are stupid, it does happen too often. But that has nothing to do with the shelter dog in question (who i will assume is already altered, or will be upon adoption). And it is not a good reason to deny that homeless animal a good loving home that would otherwise be a good fit. Denying the owner this sterilized dog just because they have an intact animal does not change anything and does not prevent that person from breeding their intact animal. Nor does it teach them not to. Not beneficial to the shelter dog, not beneficial to the owner.

 

[Pandacinny]

Groominator, I'm not trying to be flip here, but I'm guessing you've never worked in a shelter before. The type of follow up you're referring to would be great...if resources were unlimited, staffing was great, and the management actually had some sort of handbook to go off of when running things. It's not as though people are leaving fortune 500 companies to manage and run animal shelters - the people in charge do the best they can, but often with limited knowledge and experience, and there aren't many places or experts to appeal to.

It's really, really easy to sit back and say "Shelters should do it this way because it's the right way!" when you've never had to try to stretch resources like that. It's much harder and more complicated in real life. This all reminds me of friends I've had who say that health care in this country "is in pretty good shape and not that expensive" - you know, because they've been on mom and dad's PPO since they were born.

 

[Selkie2283]

In as non-hostile a way as possible - who are you to tell them what their job is?

I do cat adoptions. I have refused adoptions both for people having unaltered animals in the home, and for the intent to declaw (I was willing to adopt an adult, already de-clawed animal to them, but they wanted a kitten. Kittens scratch. Can't deal? Get a fish.)

My JOB is to find GOOD, PERMANENT homes, not to send the animals out the door with the first person who can fill out an application. These animals' future rests in my hands. They have no say in who they go home with. I have to sit with someone for 10 minutes, and try to glean from a piece of paper and a few questions whether or not this person(s) is going to give this animal a happy, healthy home.

As for the OP, the fact is, most people who don't want to alter their animal are pretty sure THEY are the ones who have a GOOD reason not to, and that it's everyone else that is really the problem. Everyone's got their reason. That's great. Not my problem. My problem is that 70% of the animals that enter a shelter are euthanized because there are too many animals. There are too many animals because so many people have reasons not to alter their pet. Maybe you are the exception. Or maybe you just haven't had the misfortune to become one of the statistics. Either way, the adoption counselors rarely have the time or inclination to sort it all out. And yes, I'd be concerned about aggression issues, too. Again, everyone is sure THEIR dog will be the exception. THEIR dog is sweet, not aggressive! Well, maybe you're right. But again, from the perspective of the adoption counselor, it's a risky adoption, and your belief in not altering your current pet flies in the face of spay and neuter campaign that most shelters believe in with fierce desperation. Given that, you can't REALLY be all that surprised by their reaction, can you?

 

[Fairyblastt]

Hum... I'll preface this by saying that I support your right to keep your pet intact, but I also support a shelter's right to reject an application for adoption for any reason they feel like. Honestly, I sometimes gave *no* actual reason when I rejected an application for adoption, other than ‘it didn't feel right'. This is true both when I worked in dog and cat adoptions (very fun if dirty job, lol), and during the time that I was involved with a parrot rescue. Their reason seems very straightforward and supportable (and obvious, but maybe not to everyone), mine were sometimes along the lines of "I don't think they clicked well or showed enough know-how with [the bird, usually a cockatoo]". Harder I guess to defend, but equally important. This is just to say that I don't want limits placed on how a shelter/rescue/humane society determines who can adopt.

I think the ability to easily spay and neuter pets is one of the most important things that shelter medicine has going for it. This whole 'I want my cake and eat too' attitude can't fly very easily here because these people (while totally within their right to keep their pet intact) are going up against one of the very foundations of shelter medicine.

Hogwash. It's impossible for a shelter to make sure that everybody who's adopting a pet is as really as they present themselves. It's a numbers game. You might sign a piece of paper saying that you'll never declaw your kitty... but they can't keep tabs on everyone forever (esp. in this day and age where people often move out of the area). I'm sure that despite many shelters policies against declawing (the humane society I worked at, I know not really a 'shelter' but still, like many others would not adopt to you if you planned to declaw), there are still plenty of opportunities for someone determined to declaw their new kitten.

Assuming that the adopted dog would already be altered, this might not be a great comparison, but like plenty of others have mentioned before, not all shelters are able to alter every cat or dog before they're adopted, and it's way too easy for a new owner to just disappear.

So the shelters have to have a few ground rules in place and they have to enforce them with everybody. Considering how important spaying and neutering is on a population level, I can't imagine trying to convince them that they should make a special exception for someone whom they have reservations about, even if you're actually an outstanding pet owner (which they have no way to truely qualify).

For that matter, considering how completely dependant most humane societies (and probably shelters are as well) are on fund-raising, it could severely affect them financially if the story gets outs as bad PR.

Hum, I have to say, this is an awesome thread.

 

[philomycus]

Last two posts,

Whether you agree with policies are not, they are in place for reasons. Those reasons may not apply to you. Then go out there and change the world- or at least try to make a dent in it. Let it motivate you rather than bring you down and compain about it.