dan1073 wrote:
I don't like spaying the dogs I take care of because I feel that it would be better when I do give the dog to happy family that if and when they choose they can decide whether they want more dogs or not.
That's not their choice to make. It would be better that the poor dog was put down rather than given to a family who has designs on breeding her.
If they want more dogs, they can go to a shelter and rescue some more dogs. There is no reason they need to breed this one.
If they won't take her because she's spayed, then they are bad people. They don't deserve her, or any dog.
dan1073 wrote:
Yes plans do change and accidents do happen, but does that mean I should take every precaution to make sure that something "might" or "could" happen and has somewhat of a rare chance happening to heart? No.
When the precaution is very
easy to take, yes. When the consequences of that negative outcome are extremely bad, YES.
dan1073 wrote:
If I go on a plane I plan to land safely but there's a chance that the plane my malfunction, should I have instead choose to go on a boat? No.
That's not remotely a valid comparison, and if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the problem.
It is neither difficult, very inconvenient, nor very expensive to have an animal spayed or neutered- and there's every good and moral reason to do it.
It is difficult, very inconvenient, and very expensive to take a boat instead of a plane- and there's no good reason to do it.
The risks of air travel are actually very small, and the risks of travel by boat are actually
HIGHER at about
120%.
The risks of a dog breeding are much higher, and if spayed or neutered they drop to
ZERO.
dan1073 wrote:
Risks have to be taken, and taking care of another animal always comes with the risk of the owner dying before the animal does, or the animal itself running away.
Some risks are unavoidable. Some risks are easily avoidable, and it is irresponsible not to do so.
Which is why a responsible owner always spays and/or neuters.
It is a serious risk which is easily avoidable.
It's the same reason responsible parents put their children in car seats. While the chances of a serious accident is not very high, without a car seat the risk of serious injury or death is much higher.
dan1073 wrote:
I don't like saying the same things twice but, I don't tend to live my life off of "ifs" and "buts".
Only responsible people do that. If you choose to be irresponsible, it's your choice, but please don't insult us by pretending it's a moral choice.
Refusal to spay/neuter dogs is as bad as, and possibly worse than, the anti-vaccination movement.
One of the most immoral and irresponsible trends masquerading as a matter of personal liberty and some kind of pseudo-moral sophistry.
dan1073 wrote:
The rest of your argument is based only if I end up dying. Also if I do end up dying and she does end up getting out and becoming a stray dog, I can entrust the responsibility with New York City's Animal Control.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb3/download ... 201.17.pdf
Your faith in government notwithstanding (and misplaced), this is YOUR responsibility. Offloading it onto your municipality is avoiding that responsibility, not living up to it.
But if you want something else:
1. You are risking your dog's health by not spaying; spaying is a substantial form of prevention for a number of diseases, and on the whole a positive for the health, behavior, and well being of the animal.
http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-p ... nge-my-dog
2. It can be very important for dogs to socialize, and the act drastically increases the chance of impregnation. If you don't keep her locked away while she's in heat (and keep careful track of it), it only takes a few second for a male dog to mount her. Have you ever tried to pull two mating dogs apart?
If you're taking even the most basic precautions, you're harming her ability to socialize.
If you're not taking those precautions, then you're being incredibly irresponsible.
dan1073 wrote:
I think that the birth of newborn puppies is something to smile about in a non-hostile environment.
Not when there are dogs in shelters awaiting rescue or euthanasia. Every dog born which you have to take care of is one you can not adopt.
dan1073 wrote:
I have taken care of more than one different species of animals before including dogs, and I feel that I have the knowledge and financial stability to take care of those newborn pups
Then you should adopt more dogs instead, giving the animals a good home rather than letting them die. And spay/neuter them with that financial stability.
dan1073 wrote:
and to prevent them from breeding with each other while also having them be socially active with their brothers/sisters.
That's a joke.
You don't have the facilities to do that. And leaving a male dog un-neutered, as horny as they get (particularly being around females), could even be cruel.
dan1073 wrote:
At one point there will be a stopping point onto how many puppies are going to be born in my household.
What do you mean, a stopping point?
Once you line all of your walls with tiny kennels and have no more space, you'll do what? Spay and neuter them all at once? Or just pass the buck by trying to offload them onto somebody else, who will then carry on the legacy of irresponsible pet ownership? Or abandon them to a shelter to be euthanised?
It's best to spay and neuter as early as possible, after three months but before they get older. Doing otherwise is introducing unnecessary risk.
dan1073 wrote:
The reason I said I didn't plan on having Diamond spayed is because if she were to have puppies I would be able to take care of them without having any problems.
That's a bullshit reason.
If you want more dogs, then rescue them, don't breed them.
Either way, take responsible measures.
The ability to deal with the negative consequences of irresponsibility doesn't excuse the irresponsibility.
dan1073 wrote:
But when the situation comes where there's a high possibility where the dogs will breed and I won't be able to take care of them all then I'll have to put a stop to it.
Like I said, how?
You do realize it's dangerous to wait too long? The older the dog is, the more dangerous it becomes.
Spaying early prevents health and behavioral problems, and drastically reduces the (relatively minor) associated risks.
dan1073 wrote:
Also how would me allowing her to make puppies sentencing them to death? This would be a questioning possibility perhaps if I was an abusive owner.
It sentences the puppies in shelters that you could have adopted but didn't, because you irresponsibly bred your dog, to death.
One dog is born, another has to die. That's the way of things. There are only so many homes, and so many resources- and there's a surplus of shelter dogs being killed because of that limit.