I don't really know if it belongs here, but I'm curious what other zoos think.
I know that it should be common sense that this is wrong, but since a lot of people don't realize this, I fear that zoos themselves may think the same.
It's a bit hypocritical if you think that it's right, because we are people who stand up for animals and their rights.
First, animals cannot give consent to this.
There's of course other things they can't give consent to like being bought and getting shots.
But what does any of these have to do with removing body parts and making behavioral changes and much worse?
It's horrifying to know what happens to these animals.
How is bestiality taboo but spaying and neutering isn't?
You're mutilating genitals, how is that right when compared to things like bestiality?
If it's such a right thing to do, why don't we do the same for kids?
Because you know, fair is fair and this world just happens to be overpopulated with humans.
So, what I understand is that most people 'break' their animals because they don't want their animals to mate, change their behavior and decrease the chance of a few diseases.
I don't understand the logic of this. You can't keep an eye on your animal? Don't fucking get one.
I've known idiots who can't really take care of animals properly and didn't spay / neuter their animal.
Their animals were never pregnant and they never made any other animal pregnant either.
Because you know, even they were able to control their animals and keep an eye on them.
If you want your animal to be less aggressive, why not train your animal like a normal person?
This is part of an animal's body and mind. If you don't appreciate that, don't get an animal. Simple.
It's not even a good excuse. I don't want my animal to XXXXX so I'll just get rid of the XXXXX and it'll all be fine. Yeaaaah, no.
If you want to decrease chances of diseases, why not fiddle with the other body parts too?
Because you know, doing the same also decreases diseases and such.
And from what I've known, spaying and neutering also increases other risks and diseases.
If you don't want your animal to mate, escape, bite anyone, have diseases...
Fuck actually preventing all of this by being a good owner, just cut off their legs and they won't even have a chance to do any of that.
After surgery, or shall I say 'breaking' animals, they need to recover for about two weeks.
They will suffer the first few moments with dizziness, and the rest of these days from pain.
And not to mention that you have to be very careful with your animal during this.
Medicine is not an excuse. Well no shit, I can cut your body pieces by pieces and medicine will help too.
There's one, and only one good reason to spay or neuter animals.
And that's when they die / suffer if they're not spayed or neutered soon.
Because then, you're actually doing what needs to be done and not make unnecessary decisions and actions.
I made this thread to see what zoos would think and could answer my questions down below.
My conclusion is that this is so wrong on a high level.
To prevent any of this, you can be not lazy and not let your animal suffer.
Even bad animal owners can prevent this...
And since we're on this topic, I have a few questions.
Why isn't this banned in most countries yet?
Why are people obsessed with doing this?
Why is this a normal thing? (Especially if we compare it to their opinions of bestiality.)
[deleted]
I have a cat that was spayed about 2 years ago. I protested of course, but it didn't change anything. My parent's main argument was "She will be calmer". I still don't understand why this was so important to them that they hurted her.
Yes, I think it's ridiculous that those who are worried that animals wouldn't be able to consent to sex, are often the same who say that all animals should be 'fixed' at a young age.
First of all, campaigns for neutering doesn't solve the issue of stray pets. Let's compare. In the US, the majority of dogs and cats are spayed/neutered. Yet, there are huge problems with pet overpopulation! But in Sweden, only 22%* of the dogs are 'fixed', but we have much fewer stray dogs. So few, that we import stray dogs from Spain and Ireland for people who want to adopt...
Over 80% of Swedish cats are neutered, but we have more stray cats than stray dogs. So, I'd say the issue is whether or not people appreciate and take care of the animals, not whether the pets are neutered or not. Dogs are considered expensive and time-consuming, and people understand what a big deal it is to get a dog. Cats are considered 'easy' to take care of, and it's not unheard of for people to let a cat run wild outdoors while the family is on vacation. Cats are sold for much cheaper than dogs.
(*source = https://www.skk.se/globalassets/dokument/om-skk/scb-undersokning-hundar-katter-och-andra-sallskapsdjur-2012.pdf)
Btw, in Norway, it is illegal to neuter a dog unless there is a good reason for it. A very different take on the matter than in the US.
Anyway. I agree with you that people should be better at keeping tabs on their animals instead of thinking that neutering solves everything. Remember that hormones that are produced in the gonads actually have functions in the body! Especially important for a normal development when they are young, which is why you shouldn't neuter a dog before puberty.
But for those who really want to make sure their pet can't breed, but don't want to take away those hormones for them, vasectomy is an option. It's actually a less invasive procedure too! I don't understand why this isn't standard veterinary medicine.
So what you're saying is animals can consent to sex but not to being neutered, but it's alright to murder and eat them?
It really depends - what ethical framework are we using? If you believe others species should have the same rights as humans, then it wouldn't be okay to neuter, eat, own, buy, sell, etc animals but it would be okay to have sex with them if they want to. That would probably be the stance of a vegan animal rights activist.
I'm more of an animal welfarist (and also a big fan of conservation biology). I believe that instead of "lifting" other animals to a human, civilised level, we should remember that humans are nothing more than animals ourselves. And animals eat animals (I would be okay with some forms of cannibalism too). Animals fuck animals. And so on. But I don't think we should abuse animals, and I also think animals have the right to practice their natural behaviors. So, if for welfare purposes we have to stop animals from breeding freely, we should give them some other outlet for their sexual behavior.
This is all flawed. If you give animals human rights, you give them consent. And just as children cannot consent, nor can the unconscious or extremely intoxicated nor comatose etc. Nor could animals. Under this system you may not have sex with animals. This is my position, as a vegan. Your second system seems to be quite happy with cannibalism, so I can immediately ignore that.
Why do you compare adult animals with human children or the comatose? That seems kind of degrading towards animals.
Animals have their own free will, and adult animals are sexually mature and seek sexual relationships. Even in nature, animals sometimes mate with other species. And humans are just another species of animal, so sometimes other species find us sexually interesting.
Children also have free will. It is not a case of maturity or even one of desire - we cannot tell whether an animal wishes to do these things - we can only assume. Furthermore, if an animal has been raped it is not possible for them to communicate this or testify. Most rape is not violent rape, remember this. Therefore by making all bestiality illegal we avoid any concern of desire (which itself is impossible to determine anyway)
Edit: mentioning "in nature" is simply naturalistic fallacy - just because it's natural doesn't mean it's moral.
We can understand animals after investing time and energy into learning their behaviour. That is the idea of the scientific field of ethology and animal behaviour. And it would be impossible to socialize with pets if we couldn't communicate with animals. But we see that pet owners can understand when their pet wants to be fed, petted, walked and so on. Among dog trainers, they even call it a "consent test" when testing whether or not a dog wants to be petted. If they can consent to platonic touch, and are sexually mature, they can consent to sexual touch as well. So, claiming that no non-human animals can consent to sex is false.
Sure, there is a problem with them being unable to report rape to the authorities. But that's like saying that you should never have sex with a person in a country with corrupt police or that allows rape, because the person you have sex with can't report it if you rape them.
The obvious solution: only have sex with individuals who want to have sex with you, do not rape. Learn to communicate.
Do you think the reporter in this BBC documentary should be treated as a criminal? Do you think it's immoral that he stands still instead of trying to avoid the parrot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY
He was just doing his best to avoid harming the rare creature. The "obvious solution" to life is that nothing immoral happens, and that everyone is nice to everyone else. Reality disagrees. Perhaps to conclude I don't have any faith that those in this subreddit can actually understand when an animal wishes to engage in sexual activity (however unlikely that is). Furthermore I could not possibly trust that all the interactions are entirely consensual and it is impossible to determine. I believe that an animal could want to have sex with a human, but I do not believe it is possible for us to know this for certain. The most sure moral point of view is don't bang ya pets
This is stupid beyond words. The world is already filled with MILLIONS of homeless animals. Shelters are full, thousands are killed every day just to make room for newer ones. Sterilizing animals is by far the most humane thing you can do. You can have all the best intentions in the world as an owner (and trust me, most owners certainly do not), accidents happen.
What about vasectomy or tubal ligation instead of removing the gonads? Solves the issue of reproduction, but is a smaller operation.
Accidents happen with bad owners, yes.
I find mutilating our friends stupid beyond words.
Animal cruelty is not an option.
If anything, it's absolutely inhumane to fiddle with their genitals like it's a toy.
Must I really repeat the same shit over again?
I grew up on the countryside. People abandoned unwanted animals (even entire litters!) there. Most of them die of exposure and starvation. Some of them are lucky to have a quick death. A rare few are taken under people's care. All of my own animals have always been strays.
To think that all of that suffering could have been prevented if just two animals had their genitals "inhumanely fiddled with like a toy." Truly immoral, yes.
And to think all of that suffering could've been prevented with responsible owners...
Seriously? Who the fuck are you going to blame when they're hit by cars? The owner for not removing it's legs?
It's either this: Be a normal owner who protects it's own animals and other animals. ...Or this: Be a lazy fuck and find a cruel way out for your soon to be chimera.
They're paying for the human's mistakes ffs.
I have no idea in what world you are living, but it's clearly not the same as the rest of humanity.
Let me just tell you one thing. Go plan a little trip to rural Nicaragua like I did. Or maybe Bucharest, although I admit I've never been there myself. When you'll have seen enough sick or skeletal starving dogs wandering around, come back here and tell me sterilization isn't the best thing we can do for them. I've never volunteered myself, but I have talked to volunteers. When animals are dragged in the room where the injection takes place, they know they are going to die. They freak out, they panick. They have done nothing to deserve this, but they can't be allowed to live. Others have to take their place. They are the ones paying for humanity stupidity. And they pay the ULTIMATE price.
Goddamn zoophiles against sterilization... Unbelievable. Do you have any reason to validate that position other than wanting to stick your dick in animals? If so, you are as fucked up as everyone say you are.
We're repeating the same thing over and over again.
This can all be prevented with responsible owners. Like always.
Not all strays are there because they haven't been broken by evil people yet.
It's all because people cannot take care of animals properly.
There would be no need to break these poor innocent animals.
Why do you straight up ignore that?
Oh look, the "you are XXXXX if you defend XXXXX" attitude.
Extremely ironic coming from Mr.Fencehopper who couldn't control himself...
Nice job wild guessing, but I'm not even that much of a sexual person.
Maybe it's because...
It's horrifying to know that such a thing is considered normal?
And I stand up for animals and their rights.
Sadly they've never told this myself. Awww...
Well, the fact that there are millions of homeless animals already probably should give you a clue that most owners indeed are not responsible. So we should punish an irresponsible owner? Absolutely. But I hope you realize this does near absolutely nothing to fix the problem. If you end up with an unwanted litter, even if you are punished, you still have a fucking litter to take care of. If your animal escapes your property and begets generations of strays, even if you are jailed for the rest of your fucking life because of your irresponsibility, nothing will be done to halt the misery of all these innocent animals. What is your solution then?
Well, I'm sorry to say, but the only people I have ever talked to who are against sterilization of animals were all zoophiles. Gee, I wonder why that is uh?
The fact that I am downvoted over this disgusts me deeply.
"And if an animal is abused, it's still abused!"
Yeah that's not how it works, we can also apply that weird logic to different situations.
What's the fucking point in punishing the murderer huh? Just let 'em roam free!
Thing is, we can't punish any kind of irresponsible owners in the first place.
How does one know one is irresponsible just by looking at the person?
And hey, it just happens to be the owner's choice to break their animals.
At that point you're saying that you aren't capable of training your animal properly and can't keep an eye on the animal.
In that case, you don't deserve one.
"Arrgh!! You stupid animals rapists!!!!! only you zoophiles and beastialty people believe that beastiality is right !!! How strange only you are the gruop that suports it !!! Arregggh"
Funny, for me it's the opposite.
Oh and guess what? That's why I made this thread.
I apologize that virtual votes bother you.
As a zoophile we are learnt not to give a shit about what other people think of you, right?
What I even find more disgusting is that this animal cruelty keeps happening.
Well, at least my bitch would never have to suffer from that.
She can live life...
...like a dog should be living. Unmodified and a healthy body.
So, um, how would you go about deciding who deserves an animal or not in that case?
Not everyone has the luxury of spending every waking moment "keeping an eye" on an unfixed animal. In fact, most people don't have that luxury. I don't know what your living situation is, bit you seem very detached from reality.
By the way, you haven't answered my question. What is your solution to stop a problem of stray animals?
What other people think of me does not bother me. What bothers me is the attitude I see in display here.
The opposite of what? Only non-zoophiles are against sterilization? Yeah, that seems to be the case, as evidenced by this thread, obviously.
If you don't have the 'luxury' to have an animal then you don't deserve one.
Don't get one. Simple.
And a solution? How the fuck am I supposed to know? Be more strict on what the fuck happens to animals maybe?
Or you know, the same solution to abused and killed animals. Whatever that might be...
But removing a part of their genitals without their consent is definitely not a solution.
I have seen non-zoos that were against breaking animals.
And I didn't even know if zoos did or not (It was likely though, as we stand up for their rights and are against such things.)
Again, that's why I posted this.
Ok, so if you don't have time to spend every second looking after an animal you don't deserve one? Why simply not make pet ownership illegal in that case? Because that is the reality of a minute fraction of pet owners.
You don't work? You've got no bills to pay? Or is your mum paying for all of that? Insanely easy to critize people from that position...
So, you don't even have a solution to offer? Wow, great. Let's harshly criticize a current solution to a problem but not even propose something else. Yeah, that'll work.
Not every second.
Talk about over exaggeration...
If you can't stop animals from making other animals pregnant or getting pregnant you are an irresponsible owner who does not deserve an animal.
It's just that simple.
There also happens to be strays because people couldn't properly take care of their pets, and I'm not even talking about pregnant animals.
Just because I haven't thought of a solution doesn't mean we need a cruel 'solution' for them.
I say we use the same solution for abused animals.
Now... what would that be?
Just because an animal is intact doesn't mean they will (or even that they can) reproduce.
You're right. I guess that's why stray animals don't exist and shelters are empty.
He can still be right with those two claims being false, you know.
[deleted]
The obsession with neutering and spaying and the harassment of regular people choosing to keep their pets intact is completely destroying small-scale careful hobby breeding of rare and unique breeds. What we are left with is commercial puppy mills and people who don't give a shit what others think about back yard breeding and a mindboggling number of pitbull mixes in shelters. Focus on regulating breeding and increasing the perceived worth of each animal instead. The Scandinavian countries don't have a stray dog problem at all, with a majority of intact animals. I'd say human suffering and animal suffering go hand in hand, so maybe we should focus on reducing poverty and human misery instead of just yelling at rich people until they spay their non-problem pets.
[deleted]
I hate it. If people dont want to deal with animals being living things then they should just get a teddybear. it's the mark of an irresponsible dog owner in my eyes.
I find it pretty sad that people don't realize this, especially zoos...
I have a mixed opinion on this. For individual pet owners, spaying and neutering seems like an easy way out of a huge part of pet ownership, which in addition to its other detriments (mixed to negative health effects, especially done before puberty, and the deprivation of sexual pleasure) makes it unconscionable. Vasectomy and tubal ligation may have slightly lower effectiveness because of their reversibility, but also less hormonal changes as a result.
For larger clinics or animal shelters, though, I can see why it would be used from the perspective of preventing overpopulation and the ensuing starvation and disease. Vets in the U.S. don't appear to be trained in tying tubes because it's easier and quicker to chop things off. So maybe shelter dogs should be spayed or neutered, as a way to save money and prevent future problems. But for individuals, they should just learn more about their dogs before getting one, and then make the responsible choice of whether to have puppies.
yeah pretty much this. personal pet = dont do it. necessary in order to prevent suffering due to overpopulation due to strays = its probably best to do for the greater good.
In some places (such as India), they neuter and vaccinate stray animals and then let them back out.
It is understandable, seeing as most of those dogs are born in the streets and have never been pets, and there isn't any market for people willing to adopt them either. It's better than killing them, and better than letting them breed freely. The vaccination part might also in the long-term change people's opinions of the dogs. A lot of people fear them because they might carry rabies or other dangerous diseases. Less rabies in the population -> better public opinion of dogs -> perhaps the dogs will be better cared for?
I think Romania has started doing this as well. It makes sense to me. spending money trying to rehome a huge and ever growing stray population is akin to trying to empty a lake with a bucket. I'd much rather see the money invested in spay procedures to prevent future suffering due to overpopulation. Think how many spay ops could be done for the cost of housing and rehoming one stray dog.
Obviously I dont wish for this to be the case but it is what it is and it has to be dealt with rationally.
In my opinion, no creature should be modified from the way they are born, unless it's for medical or safety reasons. If an animal is able to make a decision about modifications, then that decision should be honored.
The former of these opinions is more so related to minor humans and animals. If there is a valid medical concern (ie- malformed urethra, torsion of testicles, or any other immediate threat to life or function), then I believe making that decision for one who cannot, is best made by a loved one who can remain as objective as possible. My canine partner is not altered, but if he was breaking out of the house to mate, fighting constantly with any male, and was not able to be taught how to live safely, then I would consider having him fixed. However, vasectomy has always been my first choice, though it takes some work to find the few vets that perform the procedure.
The later, I believe, is related to circumcision, genital transition, abortion, physician assisted suicide, or any other choice based procedure. Once one is an adult, their body is their own property.
I'd just like to touch on the "Scandinavian countries have less strays" statistic with two points.
Sweden has 22 people per square mile. The USA has over 1,000 per square mile. Sweden has 566,000 pet owners and a population of 10,000,000. The US has 80,000,000 pet owning households with 318,000,000 people. Not only is the population density jarringly different, but pet density as well. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sweden's is lower on both accounts, and runs much less risk of having unwanted reproduction accordingly.
Scandinavian countries can get incredibly cold even in milder provinces, and the popular dog breeds in said countries don't necessarily fit the climate, statistically. They're more liable to freeze to death than get funky when they're outside, especially when temperatures dip below -5* C at night in winter.
You can be an irresponsible caretaker there and the odds of something unwanted happening are dramatically decreased. The US has a problem with it because alot of the times, conditions are favorable for them to reproduce. It's why when you get to areas like urban India, there are strays everywhere.
I don't think mutilation is a good thing unless it is done because of very good reasons. Dramatic health reasons or very big management problems are the only ones that I can see.
Many animal welfare organizations seem to be pushing for neutering every animal that is not selected for breeding, using the force of law if necessary. That is very annoying. For one, people who do not care for the law are the sort of people who illegally abandon their pets... if they don't care about the law or the wellbeing of their pets it is naive to think that they are going to spend money in neutering them just because the law (which they disrespect) says so.
In addition, it destroys the legitimate ability of small owners to breed, which also destroys many rare breeds and species that are just popular within certain reduced social circles, and not supported by the sort of industrial breeding programs that can afford the paperwork and money to have legal breeding animals. There are countries in which the only way to get certain dog breeds is to get them from somebody who has chosen to break the law.
No reason to deny your animal the fun all the time. Vasectomies and tubal ligations all the way. Here is a youtube channel showing the results: https://www.youtube.com/user/webuser07/search?query=vasectomy
There was recently a quite active thread on /r/dogs that stuck with me: https://archive.is/Qn4xU
For example the top comment:
Many dogs develop incontinence after spay surgery, and then many people start giving them medication like Proin. Which can have side effects:
This thread reminds me of Ebon Lupus' anti-sterilization "activism" on neutering.org a while back. It's deeply troubling for me to be downvoted over expressing concern for the suffering of millions of animals on a forum for self-proclaimed animal lovers.
"This was Greathouse's contribution to what is sometimes affectionately referred to as the the "anti-speutering" movement. There is, or once was, a small group of pet owners that opposed the practice of spaying and neutering companion animals due to overblown fears over health issues. It's kind of similar to the brief hysteria that tried to link childhood vaccines to autism. In the end, whatever misplaced good intentions this group may have had were completely co-opted when the zoophiles highjacked it.
Zoophiles require intact animals for their activities, so it is in their interest to attempt to undermine the existing spay/neuter laws in existence, or, failing that, create the vague impression that there are legitimate reasons for the average joe to want to leave his pooch intact. Logic would dictate that any zoophile backing this initiative would try to mask any direct involvement. Except Greathouse doesn't. It's amazing how little self-control he has. He makes no attempt to hide who he is, what the site is for, and the real reason for his arguments. No attempt whatsoever.
Looking at the site, there's a somewhat graphic description of what speutering entails, and a run-down of the medical pros and cons. If he'd just stopped there, he'd probably be golden. But he can't stop, because the next thing he goes for is breaking Godwin's Law as quickly and loudly as he can. Comparing neutering a pet to the Nazi sterilization program is not only deeply disrespectful, it's insane. He then links mandatory spay/neuter programs to some of the crazier things PETA has said regarding the elimination of the practice of keeping pets period.
This is by no means the craziest thing on the site. Not by a far cry. No, the craziest thing on the site is a section where he suggests people jerk their dogs off to "relive the sexual stress biology imposes upon them". There's not much to add at this point, other than to say it's a common zoophile trait to anthropomorphize an animal's sexual behavior. In his mind, a dog is no different in that respect from a quadriplegic human.
In keeping with the anti-speutering canon, the alternative of vasectomy and tubal ligation is raised. He even announces intentions to start a listing of vets willing to perform the procedure. This is just a hunch, but if such vets are out there (and they probably are), they probably would want to keep a low profile."
I think the issue they took with it was the fact that you weren't acknowledging the healthier alternatives. Spaying and neutering affect an organisms endocrine functions, which rarely confers benefits and often causes unneeded risks. For spaying and neutering, there's a good chance of the animals metabolism taking a hit. It's somewhat like declawing cats instead of trimming their nails and training them to use a scratching post.
The thing, very few people care about keeping a sexually active (albeit sterilized) animal around. This leads to very little demand for such operations, which is reflected in the fact that very few specialists are trained to perform them as well as a hike in price for them.
There are very few ressources to deal with that problematic, especially so in third world countries. People are not going to squander these ressources to make sure Fido can still get a hard on. The problem is animal overpopularion and that is what must be addressed.
Saying stuff like "sterilization is evil/cruel/should be illegal" is insane. Yes, the surgery is invasive and not healthy, but you end up making sure that there is no potential for further harm. Yes, tying up the tubes would be a better solution, but we are not living ina perfect world and right now, millions are suffering and millions more will suffer in the future. The last thing we need is some sort of holier than thou discourse about how stemming that problem from the outset is "cruel." It is not cruelty. It is the greatest mercy we can give to all innocent animals who will never have to be born in a world that doesn't want them.
I've seen this before. Look at the quote I posted. Exact same shit. "Neutering is evil" "ligation all the way!" "Blah blah".
Coming from the mouth of zoophiles, that doesn't come across as care for the animal's integrity, it comes across as something way less savory. If anybody here cared about animal well-being at all, nobody would speak out against sterilization. Are current practices optimal? No. But saying it's evil is just insane.
That may be, but many people are interested in the continued health of their pets, and highly educated pet owners are actually quite likely to consider seeking it out. I'm not interested in having a sexually active companion either, but I'd take it over the alternatives. Intact nonhuman animals are hardly sexually active as it is, from what I've seen.
It's important that these alternatives are advocated for though, so that there is demand created for them. To bring up something that hasn't been discussed before, there is an injectable for male dogs called Zeuterin that is cheaper and easier than vasectomy and neutering while still inducing sterility. Although it still nukes their metabolism a bit and isn't 100% ideal compared to vasectomy, the effects are much less pronounced and the procedure only requires local anesthesia and less than 5 minutes, with none of the complications of surgical incisions. The more demand there is to improve sterilization services for nonhuman animals, the faster we'll get better, safer, and 'more convenient' services and products for the job... but only with demand. Without it, the field won't have any reason to advance because neutering and spaying is invasive enough that veterinarians get way more money with this procedure and follow-ups than the alternatives. The low demand for alternative methods allows veterinary clinics to charge exorbitant prices for a 30 minute procedure like a vasectomy, when neutering takes about 10 minutes less.
This is something that ethics committees around the world are starting to bring the hammer down on, but it's important that we do our part and create an actual incentive to act on recent findings and get veterinarians to get the training to perform these procedures now, rather than when they're forced to. Fortunately, the two procedures are quite simple and a veterinarian can learn it in an afternoon... and of course, drug based solutions don't require any additional training at all.
Just to be clear, I'm absolutely not against sterilization. People should just ask their vets for vasectomies and tubal ligations to create demand for it, then vets will get trained in it and the costs will go down. Just supply and demand. And that doesn't need to be the end of it. Less invasive methods for birth control should always be researched, not just for pets, but also for wild animals. According to hunters, their main incentive to kill wild animals is because there are too many of them and they will get sick and starve and everything. Current methods of birth control don't really cut it, so people go out there and kill animals. If we have a cheap birth control method that is quick and easy to apply, this can be abolished.
You're making confusing statements.
Well, clearly not the greatest mercy, if there is a better solution...
No, but to keep Fido intact. Just look at that word: "intact". I think the problem is that it's completely normalized even in radical animal rights circles that animals aren't to be kept intact.
The legitimate reason is that you don't have an unnecessary surgery performed on the pooch, which removes hormones, which alters the personality and has other effects on the body.
Look at the youtube channel I linked. There is no indication that the people are Zoos, yet they didn't want to take away some of the normal body functions and behaviors of their dogs for no good reason. And I am asking: Why is this not the default position?
The word intact reminded me of the people over at /r/Intactivists/, but it's actually a fitting comparison, because circumcision is so normal in the US that they are fighting much an uphill battle just to get the recognition to have a valid cause. It does result in some of the posts being somewhat radical and cringy, but they're still right.
edit
I always assume we are talking about people who have the means to choose. If it's either castration or millions of sick and starving dogs, then do it. It's when you have the means to do something better, then you should do the better thing.
If I go to a hospital, I expect them to solve my problem with a minimum amount of side effects, not to cut organs out of me to rule out problems that might not even exist in the first place, because that method is cheapest or easiest for them.
It has nothing to do with remaining sexually active, but rather the claimed purpose of the spay/neuter movement. If the goal is to reduce unwanted births - and for some reason one is not responsible enough to do this on their own through responsible care - then the least amount of surgery to accomplish the job should be called for.
Feeling this way is not anthropomorphizing, it's utilizing related data to make an important decision for a family member.
I can respect that vasectomy is not the easiest/cheapest option, but honestly, using that as a rationale to ignore or disparage objectively superior options is irresponsible and prolongs the problem, and I think that tends to happen all too often.
Spaying/neutering is wrong, because it is speciesist -- they do it to non-humans, but not humans, but humans allegedly have more "value" than non-humans (according to them). Spaying/neutering is harmful to the animal and deprives them of their right to have sexual feelings.
And what you brought up is a known hypocrisy in the law -- that spaying/neutering, which involves mutilation of animal genitals without the animal's "consent", is legally allowed -- but having sex with an animal, which involves leaving the genitalia intact, is illegal, because they (the anti-zoos) say it doesn't involve "consent" -- but the anti-zoos don't bring up "consent" when they spay/neuter. So that is a violation of equality before the law, which (in some countries such as the U.S.) is part of the constitution.
And not to mention the fact that the world is also overpopulated with humans.
This results in humans suffering but also animals.
Who will feed these hungry people and what will they feed them with?
I'll bite; It should be seen more as an optional evil than a necessary one. Even then it should only be an option WHEN necessary.
"The length to which tails are docked varies by breed, and is often specified in the breed standard." - There used to be a belief that cropping the ears, docking the tail and sterilization were all marks of a careful owner.
"Today, many countries ban cropping and docking because they consider the practices unnecessary, painful, cruel or mutilation." - Only later on to be decided that much of it was cruel and unnecessary. Some countries ban it for cosmetic purposes only, leaving it open for medical procedures.
PETA, as well as most vets campaigned for sterilization for so long, as well as CKC and AKC with their dock, crop and cut regulations; These are the reasons that it's popular. Most people just want to be told right from wrong, and not decide it for themselves. With that mentality the amount of people against it compared to those for it, influences the individual's decision. It's mob mentality, plain and simple.
I am all for it if your dog's consistently around females and you have literally no way to ensure nothing happens, but when the deciding factor is you yourself, it's better to fix yourself than to fix your pet.
I'm also for it as a medical procedure; Testicular cancer and breast cancer cost humans a tit and a ball all the time, but you've probably never heard of somebody having their balls removed because they felt too hyper...
In summary; For me it's kinda like abortion; It's dirty and sometimes it's fair to call it cruel, but if it absolutely has to happen, it's better than the years of suffering it'll cause somebody who doesn't even know what they're in for,.
Honestly I don't have much issue with speuter as long as it's not pediatric, meaning before the animal reaches physical maturity which can be from 1-2 to even 3 years depending on the breed. Scientific studies have been released recently showing the health risks of pediatric speuter, but once the animal reaches maturity and is done developing there's little risk. The average pet owner in America isn't responsible enough to handle an intact dog. I'd rather someone have their pet speutered than have it running around making babies. (I have no issue with responsible pet breeders, that's not who I'm talking about.) I think it's a personal decision each pet owner should make based on what works best for their animal and living situation.
I hope soon we'll see studies on animal health with speuter vs intact like we have with dogs for other animals, like cats. Dogs only come into heat a couple of times a year, but cats come into heat about once a month for most of the year. It wouldn't surprise me if major hormonal fluxes that often have a negative impact on health. Animals are designed to breed, as in produce young, and if that system designed for producing babies isn't in use in some species it causes issues. Rabbits really benefit from being spayed; it's proven that uterine and mammary cancer rates in intact female rabbits that aren't regularly bred is very high. Which makes sense, because rabbits are designed to pump out as many babies as they can as fast as they can. Dogs definitely aren't like that, maybe cats are somewhere in the middle? Most folks who do have intact female cats are breeders and the cats are producing kittens, and are spayed when they retire from breeding. Castrating horses is usually recommended because stallion behavior can be very dangerous to people, I've heard the same with sheep rams.
I'm not sure where I was going with all that. I'd like to see research on intact animals done with more species. With dogs I don't think it's medically necessary, but don't mind owners who do it. It's a decision I think every pet owner should have the right to make, but they should be well informed about both sides of the choice. I don't support pediatric speuter on still-developing animals for any species. I hope more vets offer alternatives like vasectomies and ovary-saving spays that keep hormone levels intact but sterilize the animal, and that these options become more popular with owners.