Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellie May  If this law is meant to force responsibility on those who won't take it, does that mean that if you have a healthy dog that you aren't using for breeding and don't spay/neuter, you aren't responsible? Then what do you do with the people who feel that the risks outweigh the benefits? They are trying to do what's best for their dog.
Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you but your post worded what the law is about the best.  |
I understand what you're saying, and agree. However, I also have been around long enough to understand the reality that there are a vast number of people who are NOT responsible pet owners, and it is those to whom this proposed law is addressed.
Also, accidents happen. They're not planned, they just happen - which is why they're "accidents". An intact dog, male or female, can be subject to those accidents. An animal that has been "fixed" (I know, they weren't "broken" in the first place
) has the prospect of an "accident" eliminated, not just "reduced".
I KNOW I don't have to make the suggestion to you to visit a kill shelter ... you know what goes on there. It tears your heart right out of your chest ... you can't sleep for nights because those eyes haunt you, and the cries tear at your soul. The law has good intentions: to prevent the millions of dogs (and cats) who will follow in those animals' paths in the years to come. The ones who die this year, and next year are the result of owners who knew better, but didn't do the right thing or take the proper precautions ...