This is really sad

[Res Judicata]

I personally don't believe it is necessary to alter caged pets if it is possibly going to cause the animal more harm than good. And with good guinea pig vets hard to come by, I would not want to be forced by law to risk my pig's life to surgery done by someone who's not familiar with the inner workings of a cavy. Besides it's not like any of my unaltered female guinea pigs are going to escape from the house one time I open the front door and come home pregnant like a an unaltered female dog or cat might. But there must be some owner education going on so people are aware of the trouble an unwanted, unneeded litter can be. And of course, all the stupid people should not be allowed to have pets. But I digress.

[pink piggy lips]

Res, I agree. I've never had any of my guinea pigs altered. Now, 2 males came to me altered and bonded to females. To do it arbitrarily just to do it, nah, I don't think that is necessary. I think it depends on the context more.

I agree with Daft and Susan, spay and neuter your dogs and cats. Cats, especially, since most people seem to think they never belong inside. I knew a girl who kept finding her cat pregnant. The cat would have the litter, but she wouldn't get her spayed in time and let her go back out to living outside. She had several other cats on top of the litters that she would have. She was constantly broke and missing her car payments, but it had nothing to do with her going to the vet because she seldom did. She claimed she was too 'poor' to get her spayed, even though I told her about the programs to get it done cheap. Funny how she wasn't too poor to have several cats with litter after litter.

[pigsmakemesmile]

Wow...................that was shocking. I highly doubt the individual who wrote this made it up...I really feel the pain thru his works. My God it's so sad.

[Weatherlight]

I used to think this was inevitable in every city in this country, the AW movement had to wait for the public to quit buying, breeding, and dumping completely, until everyone became more caring and involved. I thought individual no-kill shelters and rescues were just letting the rest die in the local kill facility and not changing that number at all. I was wrong. After I saw how obvious it is that good no-kill shelters and rescues place more animals than otherwise would have been placed, Nathan Winograd's work has me convinced that things can be accomplished even beyond this.

Not in some far-distant utopia, where everyone cares lots about cats and dogs and there are no breeders and everyone is willing to go to any length to adopt instead of buy, but now and in the past, communities have been leaping towards, at least loosely, no-kill. In different parts of the country, different types of communities.

I say "loosely" because they usually put down animals for health or behavioral reasons. Sometimes, to display the "no-kill" label, cities say they put down 0% of the animals with no health or behavior problems, keeping quiet that barking, hissing, jumping on people, fleas, mites, small cuts and scrapes, etc count as health/behavior problems.

But look into the no-kill movement. You might be surprised. There were great ideas, proven by practice, rather than mandatory s/n and leafletting.


Some people (rare in this country) have unaltered dogs who never breed. They go for walks, play with other dogs, etc but the females wear, er, something over their behinds and are taken outside carefully when in heat. I think for the majority of owners, though, mandatory s/n would be far better than letting them "decide for themselves."

In practical application though, will enforcement take the law seriously and try to catch people who don't comply? If they try, will they be able to find many people? How much would it cost to hire extra law enforcement?


The cost of s/n varies a lot. Some vets might charge $300 for a spay on a large dog. It is low-cost clinics that let you get away with $5 - $60 or whatever. The difference is paid by the organization and/or vets' volunteered/reduced-cost time.


It's my personal belief that no one is fully responsible for their care, as they never got the choice of whether they want to be in charge of taking care of themselves or not. If they cannot or will not take good care of themselves, whoever caused them to be at that point should pay. If there is no such party, it is best that others volunteer as they are able; hopefully, people will care and share the burdens. However, everyone is fully responsible for the dependents they choose to have. They chose their dependent, so they are responsible for everything involved in caring for that life. If ever money was the limiting factor for preventing significant suffering and death involving my dependents, I would feel horrible, but I am aware that the risk is there and understand that I must avoid it. I will beg, borrow, and (maybe) steal, I will live off of rice and ramen if it seems I must. But if I fail? I am the one who failed my dependent for not paying for necessary care.

I'm taking that risk. I feel that my financial resources are such that it's a small risk. And I can't imagine telling a vet "Sorry, but go ahead and kill my child, because I have the money to try to help hir but don't feel like parting with it." I very much hope that things only get better, not worse (eg all humans become incomeless, credit is wiped, every animal is sick at the same time with thousands of vet bills, all friends can't or won't help, etc)...that would be hell.

One friend of mine is a lot more utilitarian about her dependents than I am. She figures that with the money she'd save by killing a sick dog of hers, she could adopt another dog from a kill shelter, and she and that dog can live together happily (for a while). True, but... She even polled some people at her dog day care and reported to me that none of them would spend over $9k on vet services for one dog. Well, wonderful! Would they go up to $9k on doctor fees for themselves if they needed it as minors, then say "Oh, darn, that's my limit. I'll just die like this, with not even palliative care, because I don't want my parents to spend more money on me, even if they can afford it"? Would they do it as were adults, if it was their money? Would they do it to their own human children? Especially her, who claims to be for animal rights and not be speciesist. Put your life where your mouth is? =\ (Now that I think about it, sadly, she might.) I don't want the "live naive utilitarian vs raise the standard" debate in this thread, but I am not going to show the world that it is fine to treat your own family members as disposable even if you can't save everyone else (just as deserving as they are); that's not something I want to lead by example.


Years ago, I was led to believe that euthanasia of cats and dogs was done by painless injection, while they were calm and peaceful and naive, by careful and caring and heartbroken shelter employees. All 3 are wrong, and can be in various combinations. Even injection can be a painful, horrible death, depending on what it is and how it is done.

[pigsmakemesmile]

Sorry....I'm thinking more about his writing. So strong, it should be in the papers because it truly makes a statement. I really wish there were laws to ban pets being sold in petstores but then I think of this as a possible implication of a ban on breeding and a ban on selling guinea pigs in pet stores and we'll go based on the notion that a majority of the public acquire guinea pigs in a petstore.....theoretically speaking, lets say that at present you couldn't purchase pets in a petstore, a guinea pig for example since this is a guinea pig form.... Theoretically, lets say that the government banned breeding of guinea pigs. So..where would one go to get a guinea pig??? One would answer...."from a rescue or shelter" ok. But! theoretically all guinea pigs- if haven't died, were adopted out from the shelters and rescues. Now there's no guinea pigs available. Lets say that the law went into effect tomorrow where breeding guinea pigs is illegal and selling guinea pigs in the pet store is illegal. A pet store sold their last guinea pig on May 12, 2008....all the petstores in the country homed all their guinea pigs. Now, all the sold pigs have lived on average let's say 8 years. After 8 years there are no more guinea pigs and all the pigs that were already in existence prior to the ban died.And for all those who favor spaying and neutering their pets, pigs too, cannot reproduce their own pigs. Now there are no pigs period. Your last piggy has crossed over the rainbow bridge, time has passed, you truly loved your pig and desire another. The ban would have also extended to cavies being imported. So because of the ban on breeding guinea pigs, and the ban on selling pigs in petstores means there are no pigs to be found in shelter and rescues and all the pigs in existence prior to the ban have grown and died. Now there are no pigs. What then...the black market??? I view it's violating to an animal whether it be a dog, cat, cavy whatever, to cut into them and change their anatomy to avoid unwanted strays and overpopulated shelters and rescues and neglection. The best solution to me is this: 1) for pet owners who desire to have pets-GET SAME SEXED PETS OR JUST HAVE ONE". 2) For people who allow their pets to roam SHOULD BE RESTRICTED FROM OWNING PETS. Were're talking plain common sense here. Negligence is the name that springs to mind for petowners who allow their pets to roam. It signals to me that a lack of concern and safety are involved. I don't condone breeding, I never will however, theoretically, after a long ban on cavies, the public outcry is "we want our cavies" the government states " but you the public demanded the ban on breeding and selling of pets all pets including guinea pigs. A solution may be: the government licenses and regulates breeding with the health and well being of the animal being the foremost and utmost of importance. that breeders are strictley monitored by qualified vetenarians whose expertise can guide laws made to favor the animals well being who would be watched and under the scrutiny of animal rights watchdogs and advocates theoretically speaking. So, my point is to critically think of implications of what we are asking for and seeking to accomplish without considering OTHER alternatives when speaking of neutering / spaying. Although done routinely these procedures are invasive and pose risks to the animal risk of injury, pain and suffering. Are we really doing more harm than good in the name of loving and doing what is best we think for our pigs and pets???. Unfortunaltely my views are more fantasy than realization, however I favor the fantasy theoretically.

[pigsmakemesmile]

This issue can go on and on. Like a human, you cannot place a dollar amount on an animal. You cannot go out and "buy a cell, DNA, Nuclei or a molecule" These are things only available / made from God / nature. Priceless! I feel for the individual who's pet became suddenly ill such as a dog developing bloat or a cat sickened with feline leukemia...These issues a majority of the time occur unexpectantly, forcing us into making decisions we don't want to be faced with. We love our animals, we don't want them to suffer or to lie in agony. I prayfor my pets and hope they go naturally and in peace. However, if they are ill and dying, I believe in comfort care and pain management allowing nature to take it's course. However like weahterlite, animals don't choose their situation. Before a person there is so much that can be said. I don't have the guts to play God. But for me, rather than worry about the inevitable, it's far better for me to spend that energy on relishing my pets with love and respect. As far as spaying / neutering, I believe in my theoretical fantasy of having samed sexed pets, single pets or no pets, would help eliminate the need for violating an animals body in an attempt to decrease or eliminate an overpopulation of animals that roam or end up in shelters or found abandoned. Yes I know it couldn't prevent it 100% but at least it could help decrease the amount of pets being, gased, euthanized and neglected or placed in shelters.

[crazywiggy]

I agree with some others that not having money for neutering is not an excuse. Before getting any pet people should do their research and work out what the basic costs are going to be - not just paying for the animal istself but all the equipment that it will need, neutering, vaccinations etc. Once they are sure they can afford everything on that list, then they should consider whether or not they would be able to find money in an emergency - if they can't, no pet.

I'm not sure about the idea of compulsory neutering, except for dogs and cats. With most small pets neutering is often just an unnecessary risk. It isn't exactly rocket science to decide to only keep same sex animals....

Personally, I would like breeders to be licenced the way that drivers are. Provide them with the means to learn about responsible breeding, then insist on them passing a theory test. For small animals I would also like to see a practical test for sexing animals of various ages. Only if the wannabe breeder passes the tests, and a home check to ensure they have suitable facilities, should they be granted a breeders licence.

I would also like the animals themselves to be licenced - certainly with things like cats and dogs. I think all should be microchipped and licenced anyway for tracability. Then, I would make it illegal to breed any dog or cat under the age of 2. Bring in a "breeding animal" test. The animal should be vet checked, undergo all the relevent health tests (eg hip scoring etc). I would also like to see some evidence of good temperament in dogs, eg temperament testing or the KC canine good citizen scheme. Only dogs and cats that pass all the health and behaviour tests should be certified as suitable for breeding and the rest should be required to be neutered. That way, in theory, only knowledgable breeders would be able to breed from healthy, nice natured animals.

Something else I would like to see is a limit on the quantity of animals that may be bred. The various authorities have at least estimated figures on how many animals are bred, as well as how many are destroyed and in rescues / shelters. All they need to do is look at these figures and calculate how many animals can be bred every year without causing overpopulation - then divide this between the licenced breeders and give them a maximum limit.

On top of this I would ban the sale of any live animals in pet stores or through any other third party, or online, so people have no choice but to find a breeder or rescue. Just making people have to research and do some legwork would cut out a lot of impulse buys (especially of the so-called "childrens pets") and would make life very difficult for BYBs and mills to sell animals.

Something else I have said before - and am still campaigning for - is better laws for minimum standards of care for pets. In labs and farms animals are at least given minimum cage sizes etc. but in the UK about half of the indoor rabbit cages on the market would be illegal to use in a laboratory! Even lab recommendations are better than those for pets in the UK - eg the code of practice states that social species should be housed socially unless there is a good veterinary or scientific reason not to, and grid floors should be avoided etc. Yet anyone can go into a pet store, buy a tiny cage with a grid floor, and keep one lonely animal in it without breaking the law. If pets were actually given decent standards of care by law, people would realise they needed more space and money than they might have thought - again, helping to reduce irresponsible ownership.

Oh well, keep on dreaming I guess.....

[GuineaAddict]

I agree with you Res, although more on a fear basis. I'm afraid to let my guinea pigs go under the knife and under anisthetic. So I just make sure I'm responsible about keeping my male and my females seperate and if there ever was an accidental litter, I'd take care of it until they could be adopted out. I think if you have animals you have already accepted the responsibility to step up and do what's right.

I read your part about the female guinea's and just got this picture in my head of guinea pigs sneaking out the door and then sneaking back in early in the morning and an owner standing waiting for them with her arms crossed .

[Justin]

I agree with the conclusion; pets should be neutered.
But I neither believe the story nor give a sympathy even if it's true. I don't see need for the job is so great to endure such a pain. Either the story is a lie or the guy is just venting temporary emotional peak.

[Noodles]

I honestly do not believe that this story is true. Anyone who loves animals or even has a heart would never do this job, regardless of the money it pays. You couldn't pay me ten million dollars a year to do this job; I'd rather starve to death because I couldn't pay my bills than support such a cruel and disgusting practice. But despite whether the story is true or not, I bet that everyone who read it left feeling the same way: horrified, sad, maybe even guilty. So whoever wrote the story still got out the message that because of such a screwed up system and people's refusal to spay and neuter and use good judgement, millions of animals are killed each year.