Friday, April 24, 2009

My Ding A Ling...

While I am not suggesting people do not alter their pets, I am suggesting that perhaps care needs to be taken with the age of altering and that those who do alter their dogs understand there are medical risks that must be considered and additional care that needs to be taken.

Please read this link an abstract from "Orthopedic Practice" a human journal, this article is about the prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in altered dogs : http://tinyurl.com/cda27n

To me this is suggestive that hormones play a role in connective tissue health with our dogs. I don't know what the answer is to - what will satisfy or perhaps balance health and social stigmas related to unaltered pet, but I do know as a society we need to look to finding answers and alternatives. I also know in my heart and mind the government has no business telling anyone what is right for their animals medically without first getting some of the bazillion questions answered that do relate to health over social stigma. Or maybe a better statement is - I know in my mind and my heart that as a society we need to look harder at education over easy fixes.

Later down the page here I will get into what I think some of the things we can do as owners of altered animals can do to better the health of our animals but first you are going to have to indulge me in some political points related to animal health first.

In some 33 states across our nation there are bills being heard by our legislators that have to do with legislation regarding companion animals, dogs and cats, but mainly dogs. In a very high percentage of these administrative laws (bills before our legislators) there is reference to how people keep their animals, sexually intact or sexually altered (spayed or neutered), restrictions imposed in these bills on how many intact animals one can own regardless of the persons ACTUAL intent for the individual dog.

Lets forget for a moment that in most states dogs are considered personal property the same as your car, your gun, your shoes because we undoubtedly do without question think differently about our dogs (right?) than we do these inadament personal items. Lets also put it in perspective -

Do we have laws that dictate how many cars one can personally own (cars can pollute our air) no we do not. At least in Oregon we do not...

Do we have laws that dictate how many guns one can personally own (guns in the wrong hands can be very dangerous) no we do not. At least in Oregon we do not...

On shoes well maybe we should have some laws about what trends can be recycled... I am 51 and there is no way I am going back to platform shoes just to be in...

So why dogs? Does our government spend more on housing unwanted dogs than we spend on storing unwanted confiscated cars guns and ugly shoes? Probably more on guns and cars than ugly shoes but you get my point, or I hope you do...

Stay tuned for my next installment nameless yet but will have to do with the medical issue I promise...

Best,Gina

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The difference is that shoes, cars, and guns don't reproduce nor do they suffer if unwanted. While I do not agree that these proposals would provide the intended solutions, I understand how they came to be and why there seems to be widespread support.

    ReplyDelete