TheCatSite.com › Forums › Cat Breeds, Breeding and Showing › Showing and Ethical Breeding › Looking for a Good early spay/neuter arguement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for a Good early spay/neuter arguement - Page 2

post #31 of 52
We had to nuter our Toby at about 4 months....he was driving us nuts with his yowling and attempts to get out (a little female was coming around sitting outside the window seducing him )
Our vet said if he was old enough to "get the idea" then he was old enough to fix.
He`ll be a year old next week and he weighs 14 pounds....(and he`s not fat)....it does`nt seem to have stunted his growth at all.
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
But you see...rescue groups see that as a cop out and that is a HUGE area of contention because that means the rescue groups have to not only try to address those individuals who are breeding moggies...accidentally or purposefully, we also must (without breeder community support) try to find ways (via legislative activities or via webcommunities) to close puppy mills, stop BYBs and educate people about what is considered to be responsible versus irresponsible. I do know about the rescue programs....AKC has several as well. But it doesn't help to stop the source of these purebreds...until the mills and BYBs are reduced or shut down...it's an endless cycle.



Fair or not....those morons are getting a LOT more press and are making a bigger impact than all of the responsible breeders combined. Just look at Craigslist or Just Pets or any one of the online sites that allow people to sell puppies and kittens. Those are also the ones that come in to the rescue community...so those are the ones that most rescuers base their opinions of breeders on.



That is not true at all....even statistically speaking....the majority of dogs/cats are still acquired from breeders...whether it be a BYB, Petstore, puppy mill, online etc. If you are trying to say that if we were able to stop all that breeding from occuring that the overpopulation would exist...certainly it would for a while...but it would be a heck of a lot easier to bring it under control. Fewer dogs and cats that were acquired through those avenues would be brought into the shelter system..and consequently, more cats and dogs would be adopted due to that being the avenue of choice. Do I think that is realistic?? No...but to deny that breeders have SOME role in the overpopulation is as much a disservice as holding breeders completely accountable for it.

BTW....I have never said I was anti responsible breeder...but I do see far fewer "responsible breeders" than irresponsible ones. I'd like that to change someday.

Katie

First of all, Katie, there is NO SUCH THING as purebred. Without registration papers, a cat is not a breed at all - it is a moggy. Therefore, when you describe "purebreds" in shelters, unless an animal is turned in with registration papers, it is NOT a breed. Breeders don't breed animals without registration papers.

I want to see what statistics you have which show the percentage of cats which end up in shelters or being "saved" are papered animals. Can you point me to some source, WHICH ISN'T PETA, which accurately can show me where the "MAJORITY OF DOGS/CATS (in the shelter system) are still acquired from breeders...whether it be a BYB, Petstore, puppy mill, online etc." Furthermore, just how many animals which are placed by irresponsible shelters come back into the shelter system because they are not neutered/spayed when they left or because the owner doesn't care about an animal obtained from that source.

You still have answered what you define as a "breeder". Kindly answer this question.

BTW, this is still the Breeder's Forum - not the Rescue Forum. Aren't there enough places for misinformation about "purebreds" in rescues without posting it here?

Barb Amalfi
post #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by tailsoluv
First of all, Katie, there is NO SUCH THING as purebred. Without registration papers, a cat is not a breed at all - it is a moggy. Therefore, when you describe "purebreds" in shelters, unless an animal is turned in with registration papers, it is NOT a breed. Breeders don't breed animals without registration papers.

I want to see what statistics you have which show the percentage of cats which end up in shelters or being "saved" are papered animals. Can you point me to some source, WHICH ISN'T PETA, which accurately can show me where the "MAJORITY OF DOGS/CATS (in the shelter system) are still acquired from breeders...whether it be a BYB, Petstore, puppy mill, online etc." Furthermore, just how many animals which are placed by irresponsible shelters come back into the shelter system because they are not neutered/spayed when they left or because the owner doesn't care about an animal obtained from that source.

You still have answered what you define as a "breeder". Kindly answer this question.

BTW, this is still the Breeder's Forum - not the Rescue Forum. Aren't there enough places for misinformation about "purebreds" in rescues without posting it here?

Barb Amalfi
Barb....this is a breeder's forum....but I do believe this discussion opened a door that needs to be discussed.

You are reading things into my post that just aren't true. Why does it matter what my definition of a "breeder" is? Truth is...any animal that has a "paper" is considered to be from a breeder...and yes, puppy/kitten mills, BYBs and petstores all supply those with their animals. Doesn't take but a quick search on the internet to show how vast the availability is of "registered" animals.

I didn't say the majority of pets that end up in shelters are from breeders...what I said was that overwhelmingly, pets are ACQUIRED from those sources. It really doesn't take statistics to work those numbers out...if people weren't buying from BYBs, if they weren't buying from petstores, if they weren't buying from puppy mills..these locations wouldn't exist. And it doesn't take statistics to show that there are a majority of them out there offering these animals. Plus...doesn't matter what your definition or my definition of a breeder is...it's already out there for people to react to:

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/puppymil.html

Also...I never said the "majority" of dogs/cats that come into shelters are purebred. What I said (as a response to your claim that it isn't the fault of breeders we have an overpopulation..which I did agree wasn't the sole cause..but did say was a factor) was that if breeding stopped...we wouldn't have to deal with the dogs/cats that are acquired through irresponsible breeders and then given up to the shelter system. We wouldn't have to deal with the legal cases where a BYB or a puppy mill is shut down and there are hundreds of animals that then take their toll on the shelter system. Do you honestly think that as the court is pulling these dogs/cats out of these shameful situations that they go back and grab all the 'registration papers'? No. Does it matter to the rescue community that there isn't a 'paper' with the dogs/cats? No. But there is a stigma that is associated with this type of activity that breeders need to be aware. Just as a bad shelter has a negative impact on shelters/rescues (regardless of if it is justified) the same holds true when there is a irresponsible breeder that is shut down.

The area that our rescue pulls from does not get a lot of purebreds...however, there are some rescues/shelters that do have 25% or more of their animals that were obtained from a puppy mill or BYB. These shelters are usually in states where there are large puppy mill or BYB networks. Again...as far as education goes...I don't think we would ever see a responsible breeder's animal through our doors (they should have protocols in place to prevent that such as taking their animals back and spay/neuter of pet quality kittens/puppies)...but you cannot deny the impact these irresponsible breeders have on the shelter system.

Ok..so now we get to your gripe about shelters and returns of animals that are unfixed. Again...MAJOR hot topic..why? Well, for one thing...shelters are there because of owners who give up their pets...pets that are acquired....you guessed where this is heading....so we end up in a cycle of blame. But to your point, we are working on shelters that currently adopt out intact animals. Every year more and more shelters are performing pre-adoptive spay/neuter...and for that reason (intact animals) as well as the short time that is given to animals in shelters...rescues are formed in order to take these dogs/cats/puppies and kittens out of the shelter system and do all the spaying/neutering, try to find more appropriate homes and offer to take their animals back (much as a responsible breeder does). Many rescues and shelters are now even microchipping their animals so that if the DO end up back in the shelter system they can be easily identified and then sent back to the rescue that first placed them. Does this mean that all shelters and rescues are saints?? Absolutely not. We have the same issues in our community that are faced in the breeder community. Rescues are shut down also..and yes...they place a toll on the shelter system as well. Sometimes it's understandable....a person gets sick and can no longer care for the animals she has been rescuing or like in the aftermath of Katrina...a shelter is wiped out and the animals must be moved to other facilities but sometimes it's just WRONG...like a rescuer who doesn't spay/neuter and keeps their animals in poor conditions (much like a puppy mill) and yes..there are people who still think they can make money off of being a 'rescue'. These are the individuals we are trying to stop...and we do take responsibility to try to determine ways to reduce these from occuring.

So yes..there are 2 sides to this coin....but what I don't see...and what needs to occur, is that responsible breeders and responsible rescuers need to work together instead of pointing fingers at each other (I say that all the time to the extremists in my community who hear the word breeder and ultimately assign blame without understanding). Together, we would be an amazing voice for animals.

Just to go back to the reasoning for this discussion, my point earlier was to say that if responsible breeders believe they are being given a raw deal..you can thank your irresponsible counterparts for that.
post #34 of 52
Thread Starter 
Open up your paper TNR1, count the number of "free to good home" puppies and puppies listed as purebred but no with registration papers.

As far as what ends up in shelters, where does breeder responsibility end and owner responsibility begin? No breeder, good or bad, forces an owner to abandon their animal to a shelter. The good ones will always leave their door open to take the animals they produce back, but we can't force those owners to do that, and we certainly can't keep tabs on every cat we ever place for it's entire lifetime. That's the problem, even the good breeders can't force a person to be a good owner for 15+ years. It's the people buying these animals without knowing anything about them that get into these dumping situations. The amount taken from mills and dumped by breeders pale in comparison to the individual dog owners that get board and dump their dogs.


I like and repect good shelters just as I like and respect good breeders, but there are as many crooked rescues as there are bad breeders. The current HSUS stats say that 45% of animals in a shelter are "purebred" not that they are registered, not that they were bought from a breeder. Secondly, from personal experience, I know VERY well that rescue workers will lie their behinds off to place an animal - rescuers will claim a dog is purebred because it LOOKS purebred, which means absolutely nothing. Even go onto Yahoo! classifieds, there are dozens of "mau mixes" which is based on a whim when you look at the animals picture - rescuers see spot like areas and decide to call it part Mau because those are uncommon and exotic and more likely to attract a persons adoption than if it said stray.

It's such a small minded thing to come up with a solution that breeders shouldn't exist. Many of these pedigree cats have been around for thousands of years, and because of some jerks out there who don't care, you would prefer to punish all of those who DO care and who have devoted much of their life to preserving thier breed. Shelters would really exterminate thousands of years of work so that the moggie owners don't have to take as much responsibility? I don't disagree that many people behave unethically, but hating all breeders because a percentage of them are wrong is being a bigot, plain and simple! A hispanic person broke into my house last year while I was home, that doesn't mean my hispanic neighbors would do the same thing, and that is exactly what you've been suggesting. I don't put myself in the same class as the people who hand out kittens for the right price, so please quit attempting to group me there.

Again, open up your paper and see how many moggies are there compared to how many purebreds. How about the vets stop charing $200 to spay/neuter a cat when it only costs them $10 in materials to do the procedure? I just stopped being a vet tech to stay with my son, I know how much vets rip people off until it comes to the point of who you can afford to care for, your human family or your four-legged family member. Maybe if these irresponsible owners could afford their vet, then they could act responsibly. My paper has a 20:1 ratio and none of these are rescue adds, and those who aren't taken are usually dumped at my farm.

I also hate that shelters point fingers at breeders while letting unaltered animals go to new homes to continue the cycle of stray breeding. They're not even in it for the money, so they're pretending to care while knowing they are adding to the problem. But, if breeders and shelters could campaign together to promote responsible owners, then the problem would really be solved. If people know better, they can avoid BYBs and mills, and if they did adopt from them, then they would know the importance of spay/neutering the animal over becoming a BYB themselves. The only way to stop mills is to educate their clients. The only way to stop dumpings is to make sure that potential owners can obtain information on the breed they're obtaining. Why can't shelters and breeders ban together and and point the finger like Uncle Sam at the owners and say "I Want You To Be Responsible!" If the two sides keep blaming the other one for all of their problems, then the overpopulation will continue to get worse.

I've been on both sides of the fence, I understand what it looks like to shelters, but shelters refuse to take a step back and look at the responsible breeders point of view. We can promote helping owners, or we can promote hating each other, but as long as breeders are being shunned by rescues and vets, it will never come together.
post #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihoshi
As far as what ends up in shelters, where does breeder responsibility end and owner responsibility begin?
Exactly! If we put all the breeders who didn't practice responsibility and put them in one pile and all the shelters who also didn't practice responsibility in another pile and then all the irresponsible pet owners in yet a third pile - which pile would be overwhelmingly bigger? Wait, don't even think about it - I'll tell you which one would be bigger ... the irresponsible PET OWNERS.

Breeders ARE trying to work with rescue and shelters in order to bring some balance and to get the message of spay/neuter out there. But as I have already said to you (in a private conversation), it seems that rescue is beating their heads against one side of a brick wall while breeders are beating their heads against the other side of that same brick wall, while irresponsible pet owners are simply jumping over the wall without so much as a backwards glance.

When placing blame - we cannot overlook these people who will come into your home or shelter to consider either purchasing or adopting a kitten and look you right in the eye as they lie through their teeth to you about their plans for that kitten! The way I see it is that until we can stop irresponsible pet ownership, we won't make a dent in the overpopulation crisis.

~gf~
post #36 of 52
ummmm you never have to worry about spraying or your female going into heat
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Open up your paper TNR1, count the number of puppies listed as purebred but no with registration papers.
Yeh..but you cannot say whether those dogs/cats came from an irresponsible breeder or a shelter.

Quote:
The good ones will always leave their door open to take the animals they produce back, but we can't force those owners to do that, and we certainly can't keep tabs on every cat we ever place for it's entire lifetime. That's the problem, even the good breeders can't force a person to be a good owner for 15+ years.
Ok..you cannot enforce good ownership...but you CAN try to stem the tide of irresponsible breeders by spaying/neutering pet quality kittens AND you CAN microchip your kittens so that when one is dropped off at a shelter...you are contacted. That would help.

Quote:
It's such a small minded thing to come up with a solution that breeders shouldn't exist.
Again...NEVER SAID THAT..but for some reason....this keeps coming back into posts.

Quote:
Again, open up your paper and see how many moggies are there compared to how many purebreds.
What was being discussed originally was the fact that breeders were tired of being faced with discrimination. I am simply explaining why that discrimination exists. Don't even think for a moment that irresponsible owners who breed moggies get any less anger....and as I stated before, we are working on that.

Quote:
I've been on both sides of the fence, I understand what it looks like to shelters, but shelters refuse to take a step back and look at the responsible breeders point of view.
But ask yourself this...BEFORE you became a breeder, were you even aware of the responsible breeders out there?? Were you not angered and upset by the BYBs and mills that received headlines? I wouldn't say that rescues/shelters refuse to see it from the responsible breeders perspective...I would say that too much time is spent on BOTH SIDES placing blame and not trying to see each other's view...that works from both a rescue/shelter AND breeder side.

Quote:
If the two sides keep blaming the other one for all of their problems, then the overpopulation will continue to get worse.
The overpopulation has been going down not up...first, by aggressively promoting adoption and recently, due to an emphasis on spay/neuter....which is why there is a new emphasis to shut down irresponsible breeders who do not spay/neuter or really care if their animals are spayed/neutered and to promote pre-adoptive spaying/neutering for rescues/shelters.

Quote:
I also hate that shelters point fingers at breeders while letting unaltered animals go to new homes to continue the cycle of stray breeding.
Yeh....we've (responsible rescues and shelters) pointed out the 'hey pot, it's me kettle' aspect of it. More and more rescues and shelters are working towards getting those that allow animals out intact to start spaying/neutering prior to adoption. Alley Cat Allies and other organizations are working on the feral/stray population to stabilize their populations.

Quote:
But, if breeders and shelters could campaign together to promote responsible owners, then the problem would really be solved. If people know better, they can avoid BYBs and mills, and if they did adopt from them, then they would know the importance of spay/neutering the animal over becoming a BYB themselves. The only way to stop mills is to educate their clients. The only way to stop dumpings is to make sure that potential owners can obtain information on the breed they're obtaining.
That would be a start. The goal really should be that any animal NOT in a breeding program should be spayed/neutered prior to going to an adoptor/buyer. That would at least significantly reduce the number of unwanted new puppies and kittens out there. There are programs in the works to train adoptors to be better owners...and microchipping is helping to reunite owners and additionally ensure that dogs and cats dropped off at a different shelter are returned to the rescue they originated from.

Quote:
When placing blame - we cannot overlook these people who will come into your home or shelter to consider either purchasing or adopting a kitten and look you right in the eye as they lie through their teeth to you about their plans for that kitten!
True....and fact is....I don't trust people with intact animals. Regardless of their good intentions...it's too easy to "forget" to set up the spay appt. and one accidental outing can lead to an unexpected litter. There are also people who just won't ever be good owners and we must try to be more pro-active in weeding those individuals out...and that must be again something worked together on.

Katie
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
Yeh..but you cannot say whether those dogs/cats came from an irresponsible breeder or a shelter.
Actually, we CAN say whether or not those dogs/cats came from an irresponsible breeder and the answer is that is a resounding NO. They didn't come from a ~breeder~ at all. They came from an irresponsible ~pet owner~. Again, I think the difference here is in the interpretation of the word "breeder" and that is why it is SO important that people change their perception. Breeders do not allow litters to be produced without first doing a lot of observation, research and genetic fact-finding. Planning a litter can be a very meticulous process which requires a lot of forethought. The people you are referring to don't bother to think it though or even understand why they are breeding those two specific animals, all they know is that it will get them kittens to sell. Those people ARE NOT BREEDERS. I refuse to be placed in the same pile with those people. If they are breeders then I need to find something else to call myself because I simply won't be tossed in with them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
Ok..you cannot enforce good ownership...but you CAN try to stem the tide of irresponsible breeders by spaying/neutering pet quality kittens AND you CAN microchip your kittens so that when one is dropped off at a shelter...you are contacted. That would help.
Yes, it would. And if safe, competant and affordable early spay/neuter were available to all areas of the country by all vets for all people who seek it, then it would be a step in the right direction. But even so, the message here is better served to the vet community, NOT the breeder community. Make it so the vets are compliant and the breeders will follow their example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
What was being discussed originally was the fact that breeders were tired of being faced with discrimination. I am simply explaining why that discrimination exists. Don't even think for a moment that irresponsible owners who breed moggies get any less anger....and as I stated before, we are working on that.
We are tired of the discrimination but have tolerated and yes, even accepted it because we agree with you (rescue) - it seemed easier and much less confrontational for many of us to want to join forces with rescue so we could all work towards a common goal - where things get hazy is in what that goal should be and how to get there. Somewhere along the way, rescue has forgotten that we are not the bad guys. We are on your team - we want the same things you do. We simply disagree with the methods that rescue has employed. In some cases (not necessarily yours, Katie) those methods include people actually threatening us, sending Animal Control into our homes and even into our bedrooms for invasive and frightening "inspections", and causing us to doubt and mistrust everyone around us. There was a time after I was attacked by an anti-breeder rescue zealot that I was afraid to even leave my house for fear that my cats would be gone (or worse) when I returned. It is no small wonder we are tired of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
I wouldn't say that rescues/shelters refuse to see it from the responsible breeders perspective...I would say that too much time is spent on BOTH SIDES placing blame and not trying to see each other's view...that works from both a rescue/shelter AND breeder side.
And let the congregation say AMEN! So, then logically, the answer would seem to be that we both admit and acknowledge that the bulk of the blame is on irresponsible pet owners and focus our efforts on them - not on each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
The overpopulation has been going down not up...first, by aggressively promoting adoption and recently, due to an emphasis on spay/neuter....which is why there is a new emphasis to shut down irresponsible breeders who do not spay/neuter or really care if their animals are spayed/neutered and to promote pre-adoptive spaying/neutering for rescues/shelters.
Correction: You should be placing a new emphasis on shutting down irresponsible pet owners who allow their animals to breed. Again, these people are not breeders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
The goal really should be that any animal NOT in a breeding program should be spayed/neutered prior to going to an adoptor/buyer. That would at least significantly reduce the number of unwanted new puppies and kittens out there. There are programs in the works to train adoptors to be better owners...and microchipping is helping to reunite owners and additionally ensure that dogs and cats dropped off at a different shelter are returned to the rescue they originated from.
Then bring about a change in the way that both the pet owning population and vets see pediatric spay/neuter, calm their fear of it, educate them about it, make sure there are mentoring programs available to the vets to learn how to do it safely and then remind them to be reasonable when charging their patients for it. THAT may significantly increase the number of people seeking it. It goes back to Economics 101 - if there is a demand by the pet owning population for more vets to offer the service, then more vets will begin to meet that demand. So, again, the message isn't best addressed to the breeders, it is best addressed to the vet community and the pet owning population.

The idea of "parenting" classes for potential pet owners makes me smile a bit, but in reality, it is a good idea. Have members representative of rescue and the breeding community work together to develop the lesson plan that covers feeding and nutrition, general care and health issues including what vaccinations should and should not be considered, reproductive issues with a strong emphasis on covering the necessity of spay/neuter, exercise and the risks of the great outdoors, and knowing that caring for a pet is also learning how to be strong enough to let go when it is time. Don't just settle for making better owners, strive to teach them to be THE BEST owners and to set an example for their children, other family members and their neighbors - here is a quick idea on how you can start to reach those owners. Call your local YM/WCA and ask if your group can sponsor a Responsible Pet Ownership class. Make the morning part of that class a field trip to the local shelter where they see for themselves the numbers of animals already in residence and the surrender process, allow them to feed and water the animals there and to change litter and clean cages. In the afternoon, lead a short discussion on the sadness they just saw. Then teach them how to avoid causing that sadness. Make that class mandatory for every person considering adoption and if they don't show up for the class, they don't adopt. Also make this class something the general public can attend even if they are not adopting from you - and charge a small fee to them for it. Then, breeders can send these people to your classes - if they don't show up for the class, they don't get a kitten or a puppy from the breeder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
There are also people who just won't ever be good owners and we must try to be more pro-active in weeding those individuals out...and that must be again something worked together on.
Then work with us to develop an acceptable standard of care for pets and make it a policy to apply that standard across the board - no exceptions. Work with us to develop those classes we discussed above. Work with us to open the lines of communication so when a pet owner does get by us, we can both be informed of it and be better equipped to take the appropriate action against that pet owner.
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihoshi
Also, I have to mention that you can't blame the CFA, AKC, TICA or any of the like for registering purebred animals from mills, that's what they do. I mean, if you bought a car that turned out to be a lemon who would you go after? The person that sold it to you? File a complaint with the state? You wouldn't go after the DMV/BMV would you? That's all that these registries are, registries - they attempt to regulate mills and keep an eye on things to keep their name out of the mud, but it's really not their purpose, all they're meant to do is track the lineage of pedgiree animals and issue certificates.
I have no idea how CFA, AKC and TICA works. I'm a member of FIFé and they have quite strict rules about how their members should act and treat our cats (what's acceptable and what's not). FIFé doesn't only register purebred cats, they promote good ownership and serious breeding. I do believe that all larger cat organisations have a resonsibility to make sure their members are promoting "good pet ownership" and serious breeding.
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Those people ARE NOT BREEDERS
Yes they are Gaye....look up the word "breeder" in a dictionary:

Main Entry: breed·er
Function: noun
: one that breeds: as a : an animal or plant kept for propagation b : one engaged in the breeding of a specified organism

breeder

n : a person who breeds animals [syn: stock breeder]

Just because these people do not fit your criteria doesn't make them any less a breeder. A breeder is based on intent..not how well that intent is executed. Besides...if we say that all registered purebreds are from breeders...then we must include those individuals who run mills and BYBs as they can clearly show papers for their puppies/kittens. You can certainly also call them irresponsible owners...but they are also breeders.

Quote:
here is a quick idea on how you can start to reach those owners. Call your local YM/WCA and ask if your group can sponsor a Responsible Pet Ownership class. Make the morning part of that class a field trip to the local shelter where they see for themselves the numbers of animals already in residence and the surrender process, allow them to feed and water the animals there and to change litter and clean cages. In the afternoon, lead a short discussion on the sadness they just saw. Then teach them how to avoid causing that sadness. Also make this class something the general public can attend even if they are not adopting from you - and charge a small fee to them for it. Then, breeders can send these people to your classes - if they don't show up for the class, they don't get a kitten or a puppy from the breeder.
Gaye..as someone who used to work in the shelter community....where exactly do we find the time to hold such a class. After we are done answering calls/emails but before we take care of the 100+ animals at our ranch? Or maybe before we make the hour drive from Spottsylvania to the 3 adoption events we hold on a weekend. Or maybe after we go and select which animals at the shelter we will actually pull. There just isn't time Gaye for such an undertaking. We are volunteer based which means we are reliant upon the availability of those who help us....and their time is precious too.

That is why we are doing things to keep the animals we place out of shelters...1. ALL our animals are fixed prior to going into homes and 2. we make it very clear that any animal we adopt must be returned to us if the person can no longer care for it. It's at least a start and we can say that our animals do not add to the overpopulation as they cannot even potentially be bred.

The Richmond SPCA has a really good program called "project safety net" where they help people who are having issues with their pets...they also have A LOT more funding and are in a bigger locale.

I agree that there is a need to address owners out there....but I don't understand why everything must fall to the rescue community to start or address and then the breeders will help. Why can't some of it be started by breeders? I see a lot of people who are looking for purebreds and don't know the first thing about what to look for in a responsible breeder...should that information come from the rescue community? Or would it be better addressed by those individuals who are already breeders.

I think at this point...I will stop contributing to this thread...I do not like being put in the middle of what are hard feelings that are on both ends of this discussion (I got an ear full this weekend at the spay clinic from fellow rescuers who are just as adement that there is no such thing as a responsible breeder) so for my sanity...I'm pulling out. Yes...I can see both sides...but understandibly...I'm tired.

Katie
post #41 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
Yes they are Gaye....look up the word "breeder" in a dictionary:

Main Entry: breed·er
Function: noun
: one that breeds: as a : an animal or plant kept for propagation b : one engaged in the breeding of a specified organism

breeder

n : a person who breeds animals [syn: stock breeder]

Just because these people do not fit your criteria doesn't make them any less a breeder. A breeder is based on intent..not how well that intent is executed. Besides...if we say that all registered purebreds are from breeders...then we must include those individuals who run mills and BYBs as they can clearly show papers for their puppies/kittens. You can certainly also call them irresponsible owners...but they are also breeders.
Katie ... just because the dictionary defines the word "nut" as:
  1. An indehiscent, hard-shelled, one-loculated, one-seeded fruit, such as an acorn or hazelnut.
  2. A seed borne within a fruit having a hard shell, as in the peanut, almond, or walnut.
  3. The kernel of any of these.
doesn't mean that the people we consider to be "nuts" are actually filberts or pecans now does it? And further, if we mix them with a popular breakfast cereal and some spices then bake them for a short period of time, does this mean we can call them Chex Mix? I think not. *grin*

The point I am trying to get across to you here is simple: change your (rescue's) way of looking at breeders in comparison to irresponsible pet owners. There IS a huge difference. Just because people can put two animals with intact reproductive systems together and produce a litter does NOT make them breeders - as written, it does, but as interpreted, it doesn't. I would think the focus should be in the interpretation of the word "breeder" more so than the literal definition of the word because it is important to ensuring that people change their perception. Is this really such a difficult adjustment for you (rescue) to make in your way of thinking? If you can but change your (rescue's) perception here, it would go a very long way in demonstrating your dedication to the cause.

Let me ask you this ... what would you estimate the number of pedigreed animals not sold with breeding rights to be? And what would you estimate to be the number of animals with intact reproductive systems adopted from shelter care? Do you think there is any equality there? Do you think that the number of adoptions is greater or lesser than the number of animals purchased with pedigrees? Exploring the answer to this may help you to understand why you think having breeders apply a strict early spay/neuter policy would help bring down the numbers of homeless pets is far from being accurate. It is but a small drop in a huge bucket. Now having all ~pet owners~ apply a strict spay/neuter policy, early or not, certainly would bring down the numbers of homeless pets. Again, the importance is in understanding the difference between breeders (as interpreted - not literal) and irresponsible pet owners.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
Gaye..as someone who used to work in the shelter community....where exactly do we find the time to hold such a class. After we are done answering calls/emails but before we take care of the 100+ animals at our ranch? Or maybe before we make the hour drive from Spottsylvania to the 3 adoption events we hold on a weekend. Or maybe after we go and select which animals at the shelter we will actually pull. There just isn't time Gaye for such an undertaking. We are volunteer based which means we are reliant upon the availability of those who help us....and their time is precious too.
Katie, no one ever said any of this was easy/simple or not time consuming. But if an organization is dedicated to a certain cause and educating the public is determined to be a good way of getting the word about that cause to the people needing most to hear it, then the priority should be placed in getting that message where it needs to be heard. There are volunteer resources who can be assigned to these daily tasks - and complete them while others are holding class. Still others can be placed on the phones and email and yet others caring for the residents. Utilizing resources well and placing them where they are best served is the key in successfully running any venture, whether it is a not for profit org or a for profit entity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
I agree that there is a need to address owners out there....but I don't understand why everything must fall to the rescue community to start or address and then the breeders will help. Why can't some of it be started by breeders?
Sheesh! Why is it that rescue always finds a way to whine that breeders aren't doing enough?? When compared to the number of our cats purchased by irresponsible owners, the number of animals adopted from rescue by irresponsible owners is significantly higher. Doesn't that shed any light on where the responsibility for such education may lie? Why is it so hard to wrap yourself around the idea that breeders do everything they can to ensure appropriate, loving care is given to the animals they produce. Rescue should be held to the same high standard. That's all I am trying to say - if you want us to do these things, then you (rescue) should too. Just because the rescue you specifically support does the good things you mentioned (and I commend them for it!) doesn't mean this is standard operating procedure for all of the others - and until it is, harping on breeders isn't going to change anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
I see a lot of people who are looking for purebreds and don't know the first thing about what to look for in a responsible breeder...should that information come from the rescue community? Or would it be better addressed by those individuals who are already breeders.
After doing a real quick, down and dirty Google, I find 1,660,000 matches for the key phrase "responsible breeder". And from a quick scan of the first 5 pages of those results, it appears that the majority of those sites are coming from breeders. I do see a few from rescue/shelters, but not as many as I see from breeder's web sites. What does this say to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
I think at this point...I will stop contributing to this thread...I do not like being put in the middle of what are hard feelings that are on both ends of this discussion (I got an ear full this weekend at the spay clinic from fellow rescuers who are just as adement that there is no such thing as a responsible breeder) so for my sanity...I'm pulling out. Yes...I can see both sides...but understandibly...I'm tired.
Wow, I wish I had read your entire reply before I literally wasted an entire afternoon composing mine. I am sorry you feel you are in the middle but I feel compelled to remind you that you began this when you first chose to participate in the discussion. Other breeders (besides myself) did suggest to you that this was a breeder's Forum and that we do discuss issues from that standpoint. By making the choice to participate here, you opened the door. I am sorry you are tired - I am too. But as someone I know to be as dedicated to the cause as you are, I am more than a little disappointed in your last comment. Seeing both sides is a good thing, but seeing both sides and then finding the way to bridge them is better.

No harm, no foul. I have thoroughly enjoyed debating with you and am sorry you don't feel compelled to continue. I hope you find a comfortable place, Katie and that you can do good in whatever way you choose to help.

My continued best to you,

Gaye
post #42 of 52
Quote:
But as someone I know to be as dedicated to the cause as you are, I am more than a little disappointed in your last comment. Seeing both sides is a good thing, but seeing both sides and then finding the way to bridge them is better.
I have a lot of respect for you Gaye...but this is a topic I just refuse to go any further on. We are disagreeing on some very fundamental points and if we cannot agree on those...I can't see how progress could be made with others who have even more extreme views than I do.

Katie
post #43 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNR1
Qit...one would have to ask if that is a result simply of spaying/neutering or whether that can be attributed to other factors such as diet or lack of physical activity.
Would lack of activity stunt a cat's growth?

-Qit
post #44 of 52
I'm way behind in this thread, I didn't even read half of it. But I wanted to answer the main question.

Firstly, cats can be spayed/neutered as early as 6 weeks. It's not reccomended it be done that soon, but it is possible. My cat was neutered at about 16 weeks. There is a myth going around saying that if you wait longer a male cat is less likely to have a urinary block because with testosterone the tract can get bigger. That is false. There is no proof that an unneutered cat is less likely to get blocked than a neutered cat.

They do say however, that an altered cat is more likely to over eat than an unaltered cat because the extra hormones help tell the cat when it is full.

At my clinic we help a rescue, and we do all of their cat/dog spays and neuters. I think the youngest we've done was 8-10 weeks. Most of the kittens are at least 12 weeks when brought in. So 12 weeks is a resonable age in my oppinion.

I honestly think it depends on the individual cat. But I would say my minimum would be 12 weeks.
post #45 of 52
Thread Starter 
Thank you everyone for your interesting points and views, much respect should be given to everyone for their strong beliefs.

It does anger and upset me when I see puppy/kitten mills with their shotty practices, and yes I was aware that these people existed before I began to breed, but they are not me, and certainly not the people I work with.

I believe in early spay/neuter as I feel it is the most responsbile action for someone in my position and has thus far been a successful practice for me. I keep my standards high and never compromise for a possible client, and I never place a cat unaltered to non-established, high standard breeders. My problem, that started this thread, was that the vets here (where I recently moved) do not share this early altering vision.

I am happy to report that I was able to meet with several vets in person since beginning this thread and now have two seperate practices who have been swayed by my beliefs and have agreed to spay/neuter between 12-16 weeks of age.

I'm sorry to extend the topic, but there is a story that took place at my home yesterday that I feel needs to be shared. There is one other cattery in the tri-county area, a Himi/Persian/Siamese irresponsible kitten mill. One of this breeders kittens was placed in a box, tapped shut, and thrown into our pond in the country. I won't get into exact details, but I have many reasons to be certain that this cat is from the above mentioned breeder.

Thankfully, I did save the young girl (approximately 4-6 months of age) from death, as the box was apparently thrown out of a car window and did not entirely submerge under water. She is now living on our back porch, awaiting a vet visit to ensure she is disease free and to be spayed before bringing her inside to be a forever pet in my home. She has been declawed and was flea infested with deep scratches that suggests to me that her owners had a sudden reason to get rid of her recently. I called the breeder, and she had absolutely no interest in even seeing the cat to verify it was from her program, and certainly was not open to taking the kitten back (with the excuse that she already sold the cat so it's the owners problem now).

While I usually end up keeping 80% of the cats that are dumped here until a rescue can help me place them, I find this kittens fate to be extremely DISGUSTING considering that the breeder is around and local. This person is the opposit of who I am, and 100% the opposit of the owners I allow to adopt my babies. I do my absolute best to find forever homes, and always take back cats I've breed, even if I have to shell out $200 for shipping I would much rather pay to get them back then have them homeless. People like this are why we have to make a better definition of "breeder" and "irresponsible pet owner" as this other cattery just randomly puts cats together for profit. These are the kind of people that we need to fight against, those that breed without care and those that would dump their cat in this frightening, heartless fashion (and who would declaw over spay).
post #46 of 52
Mihoshi, I would be interested in knowing the points you raised to these two vets as well as your counter points. My luck with vets on this issue has not been as good as yours in trying to change their antiquated views.

As I have maintained, throughout this thread and elsewhere, if pediatric spay/neuter performed by a competant vet who charged a reasonable fee were available to me, I would seek it.

With regard to your horrendous story, first, let me say how relieved I was to read that you were able to rescue this poor little girl! She must have been beside herself with fear! But, the one point I cannot agree with was that the person who allowed this to happen to her was a "breeder". IMO, this person simply doesn't meet the rigid criteria to actually BE a breeder - just because she is producing kittens doesn't mean we can call her a breeder ... she is, at absolute BEST, an irresponsible animal owner hell-bent on turning a profit. This just cements my point about the differences between those who actually are deserving of the term "breeder" and those who should sew the label of "irresponsible animal owner" in their camp clothes. By referring to her (and others like her) as a "breeder", we are further allowing people to view us (responsible breeders) in a negative light. We want for people to respect us, our work, our cats - and the ways in which we carefully choose our lines, lovingly raise the kittens and provide only the best of care for the cats is but a very small part of what we do. There is SO much more to it than that. There always will be irresponsible people who allow their animals to breed. But the fact remains that there is a HUGE difference between those people and "BREEDERS".

Many people have extremely limited experience with a breeder, if any experience at all. But ask around and most will tell you they at least know someone or have heard of someone who had a negative experience with a "breeder" and they do not at all seem to mind telling you exactly how horrific that experience was in lurid detail. I wonder if every now and then someone were to say something like, "Oh, I had a friend who had a totally wonderful experience with a lovely breeder and highly recommends her to others all the time!" if the image of breeders might improve a little ... or perhaps when you hear of a person who had a negative experience such as the one you mentioned *shudder*, you could respond with something like ... "Oh, that person isn't a BREEDER, they are a MONSTER! BREEDERS would NEVER allow something like that to happen to one of their cats!! Only a MONSTER would ever let something like that happen!!" ... if we couldn't begin to change the perception. Just a little something to think about.

~gf~
post #47 of 52
I am going through the same thing with my vet too! None of the Vets here in Saskatoon are doing early spay/neuter before 6 months so I would love to have some tips on what to say as well. . . .

Martine Sansoucy
Butterpaws Reg'd LaPerms
www.geocities.com/lperms
lperms@yahoo.ca
post #48 of 52
Thread Starter 
I agree with you whole heartidly Gayef. My apologize for refering to the person as a "breeder," my intent was to show that people claim themselves to be breeders when they are, in fact, just louses and uncaring, irresponsible people. But I see upon fully re-reading the story that that message comes off confusing, at best. So please allow me to clarify that this person is not what I would consider a breeder, but rather one who uses the term to finess more money out of her unknowing clients.


As for my vet tactics, I have spoken with several vets in person who turned me down flat. I took care to make appointments to speak with vets that I had not been able to obtain in person before. Upon sitting down in their offices, I explained my strong beliefs that it is in the pet-overpopulation's best interest to not give every Joe Nobody a chance to breed unregistered purebred cats, or create moggies or designer cats with them. I kept going into a long speech of being personally responsible for every kitten born (and any generations that follow) and I needed the help of a responsible vet to continue my work in a positive way, to bring people loving family members without having the fear of these cats reproducing.

I gave them my previous success stories with early spay/neuter and how it has not effected any of my cats negatively. I also gave a speal about my vet tech past and how there aren't too many more concern for side effects at 3 months than there are at 6 months and began to discredit some of the common misconceptions on early spay/neuter. After that, I opened up a huge portfolio of printed articles from very respectable cat sorces (CFA, TICA, vets, etc) - a good 20 pieces backing up my wish to spay/neuter at 12 weeks. Both veterinarians looked threw some of the articles and consented, I was very surprised myself considering the first vet was very rigid about not doing the surgery beforehand. There was a third vet that still refused the surgery (he also would barely allow me to talk, constantly cutting my sentence off), but 2 out of 3 isn't bad at all!

I have a quote for $38.50 for males and $55.50 for females from one of the agreeing vets, quite a good offer in my area.
post #49 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by gayef
Oh Heavens, I would never DREAM of using shelter resources to obtain reduced cost pediatric spay/neuter!! What I thought was being tossed in as an option was to ask the low- or no-cost spay/neuter clinics who they used as their vet and then contact that vet directly - some, if they are at all open to working with breeders, are willing to offer a "breeder discount". But the sad truth, at least in my area, is that many vets who do provide their services to low- or no-cost spay/neuter clinics are also heavily anti-breeding. I have never gotten past the sentence where I tell them I am a breeder! They either (not so politely) tell me they do not work with breeders or else they just hang up on me.

I would be all over having my kittens altered before going to their forever homes if I could find a competant vet willing to perform the procedures at a reasonable cost. So far, I haven't found that vet. The closest I came to it was a guy who confessed to me that he learned how to do early spay/neuter on ferrets while he was in vet school but hasn't done any since then and he wanted a huge amount of money to do it. I whole-heartedly agree with the message of "responsible breeders spay or neuter their kittens before going to the new homes". The message is a good one, but if the standards by which breeders operate continue to be heightened, then the vet community needs to keep up and the pet owning community needs to understand that they aren't keeping up at all. Many Vets just aren't willing to even consider the possibility because it isn't politically correct to support breeders, no matter how good or responsible they are.

~gf~
I am kind of surprised to hear this. I mean, personally I do not believe in or support breeding cats for any purpose but I do believe that all pet cats should be spayed/neutered and if I were a vet, I certainly would not pass up an opportunity to put that ideal into action! If anything, I would almost consider s/n of purebreds before adoption to be *more* important than s/n of random bred cats since there is more of a risk that they will fall into the hands of an unscrupulous person (let's face it, **** happens no matter how good our screening processes are) and become stock for some awful BYB, having God knows how many litters over a lifetime. At least with a random bred cat you can be fairly sure that the cat will be s/n eventually, even if a female does have one litter beforehand, and that the cat won't be used for BYB.

For me it's mostly about the welfare of the individual cats in this situation. The vast majority of cat overpopulation really comes from pets in households in the lowest income bracket (whose animals are basically never seen at a vet practice, period) and stray/feral cats, not from accidental first litters. While it is very important to avoid accidental litters to avoid contributing to overpopulation, if every female cat in the entire country only had one litter before being spayed then we wouldn't have an overpopulation problem at all.

So I guess I can't understand why s/n purebred kittens before placement would be seen as "supporting" breeding. To me it's just about supporting spay/neuter! And if I were a vet, anyone who supports s/n of pet cats and wants to s/n kittens before placing them in homes would someone I could certainly find enough common ground with to have a productive professional relationship.

I admit that I'd probably charge nearly standard price, probably less a "volume" discount of 10% or so, but I don't think that $150/female and $120/male are too extravagant especially since it makes the kitten "value added" and you can factor it into the price you are asking.
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by semiferal
I am kind of surprised to hear this. I mean, personally I do not believe in or support breeding cats for any purpose but I do believe that all pet cats should be spayed/neutered and if I were a vet, I certainly would not pass up an opportunity to put that ideal into action! If anything, I would almost consider s/n of purebreds before adoption to be *more* important than s/n of random bred cats since there is more of a risk that they will fall into the hands of an unscrupulous person (let's face it, **** happens no matter how good our screening processes are) and become stock for some awful BYB, having God knows how many litters over a lifetime. At least with a random bred cat you can be fairly sure that the cat will be s/n eventually, even if a female does have one litter beforehand, and that the cat won't be used for BYB.

For me it's mostly about the welfare of the individual cats in this situation. The vast majority of cat overpopulation really comes from pets in households in the lowest income bracket (whose animals are basically never seen at a vet practice, period) and stray/feral cats, not from accidental first litters. While it is very important to avoid accidental litters to avoid contributing to overpopulation, if every female cat in the entire country only had one litter before being spayed then we wouldn't have an overpopulation problem at all.

So I guess I can't understand why s/n purebred kittens before placement would be seen as "supporting" breeding. To me it's just about supporting spay/neuter! And if I were a vet, anyone who supports s/n of pet cats and wants to s/n kittens before placing them in homes would someone I could certainly find enough common ground with to have a productive professional relationship.

I admit that I'd probably charge nearly standard price, probably less a "volume" discount of 10% or so, but I don't think that $150/female and $120/male are too extravagant especially since it makes the kitten "value added" and you can factor it into the price you are asking.
I was kind of surprised by it too, Semiferal. Actually, it is more accurate to say I was shocked and appalled. Imagine if you will the conversation and how it went. I go in and ask for services to be provided to me by a compentant practitioner at a rate that is reasonable and customary - nothing wrong with that, you might think ... entirely reasonable requests, right? Well, I am either promptly shown the door or quoted a rate that is artificially inflated because I am a breeder and "can afford it" since I charge X amount of dollars for my kittens. Do you know that I actually called this same vet and didn't identify myself as a breeder, but as a pet owner who adopted a 12 week-old kitten ... and I asked about pediatric spay/neuter. I was quoted a price that was over HALF LESS than what I was quoted when they knew they were talking to a breeder. This saddens me greatly, but what am I supposed to do about it? Argue? Beg? Try to convince them I am a good breeder when all they believe about breeders is that they add to the pet overpopulation crisis and should be shut down at all costs?

This is obviously a topic very near and dear to my heart and I do tend to become overly passionate about it. It's just WRONG and it makes me extremely angry.

~gf~
post #51 of 52
Thread Starter 
OMG that happens to me to! I'll call a vet and ask about a single cat and get one price, if I ask about a litter of purebred cats I get a 2/3 raise of price on EACH kitten!

It also changes by who I talk to: I called in a black Egyptian Mau kitten, $38.50, I called a few days later about a tabby dumped here (identifying him as an outdoor stray) and got a quote of $68 for neuter, $35 for shots, $50 lukemia (sp?) test and $22 office visit fee! The vaccinations they give I can do for $0.65, luek test I can do for about $10, and as I'm still a legal vet tech, I do it myself all the time. All this for a cat I've already said is a T-N-R!!!! Tough choice, $10.65 to do it myself, or $107 to let the vet do it, it's ridiculous.

I don't mind providing food for an abandoned cat, but when do you draw the line and say "hey, I have human kids to feed! I can't put all of this money into a stray cat that isn't even mine!"? I shouldn't have to pay high fees for someone elses carelessness. That's what I hate about private practice vets, they have to pad the prices to pay all of their staff and equipment off. Office visit fees are my most hated thing about vets, it's like paying vets for the privlage of you giving them your business. Many times they'll tack it on in addition to a price quote; these guys make it so hard for a low income or average pet owner to act responsibly when all the vets see is green!

I dunno how much I'd recommend it otherwise, but does VA have any mobile clinics? Here in Ohio there is a mobile clinic always in Columbus that charges $30 for a spay/neuter. I know it's not the best place to go, but if it's between that and chancing a cat breeding I would personally go to the clinic.
I don't believe they care if you're a breeder as it pays the staff either way. Vet colleges might also do it as well. Again, not the best situation, but we have to decide what is the lesser of two evils.
post #52 of 52
I asked my new vet about it the other day. They said they wont do early s/n for people's pets because too much stuff can go wrong but they will do it for strays/shelter animals since no one is basically "attached" to them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Showing and Ethical Breeding
TheCatSite.com › Forums › Cat Breeds, Breeding and Showing › Showing and Ethical Breeding › Looking for a Good early spay/neuter arguement