Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Woman can't adopt cat because dog isn't neutered

CyberKitten
August 5th, 2006, 05:10 PM
Any Opinions on this?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/08/04/nb-spca.html

MyBirdIsEvil
August 5th, 2006, 05:30 PM
The fact that her dog isn't neutered (though it could be a purebred stud dog, no one can say since she won't let them see the papers :rolleyes: ), does show a lack of responsibility.
Even if there IS a reason that it's not neutered, since she won't tell them the reason or give any proof of the dogs registration, that shows right there she's a little off.

Hessel is frustrated that an overcrowded SPCA would turn down a legitimate application. She said the fact that her dog is not neutered isn't a valid reason to deny a homeless cat a good place to live.

It's just as irresponsible of her to deny a cat a good place to live just because she won't get her dog neutered, or won't show proof of it's registration.

LavenderRott
August 5th, 2006, 05:41 PM
That is standard operating procedure for every group that I know of. Unless you have an animal that is being shown and is required to be intact for that purpose, you can not adopt.

It keeps backyard breeders and puppy mills (or cat mills) from using rescued animals for profit.

If the lady wants a cat - she can follow the same rules as everyone else.

fosterpat
August 5th, 2006, 06:19 PM
I am a foster for a rescue and we turn people down people all the time if they have an unspayed animal. One of our first mission as a rescue is to stop the overpolulation of animals, in our case dogs. A cat can have several litters a year, imagine the unwanted kittens in a couple of years down the road, how many of this lady's kittens will end up at the spca, once they outware their cuteness? Sorry, I only have congratulations to give to the spca for standing their ground on this one.

mastifflover
August 5th, 2006, 07:57 PM
Kudos to the SPCA. If there is a reason her dog in not neutered then what is the problem saying why? If not too bad for her. One of the mandates of the SPCA is to stop pet overpopulation.

Prin
August 6th, 2006, 11:26 AM
It makes sense to me.:thumbs up

CyberKitten
August 6th, 2006, 12:16 PM
It makes sense to me too - esp since why won't she show the papers (If anyone asked me, not that they do, lol, I'd gladly show YY and the S Girls's papers - it's sort of like geneology, you want to show where they came from, pix of their parents et al...). She admitted on a TV newscast that she planned to breed the dog - who looks just like "my" (ie brother's) chocolate lab (sigh - they are such great dogs!!) so I suspect she may have bought him from a byb? Who knows? It would seem this woman is managing to sway public opinion tho since most ppl are not as aware of the issues and think any home is a good home, sighhhhh!! Anyway - just my take on this story.

technodoll
August 6th, 2006, 01:52 PM
well since the dog obviously can't breed with the cat (specially since the SPCA spays all pets before handing them over to a new home, right?) then i really don't see the issue here... smacks of descrimination IMO. ok the lady could show the dog's papers if that is what is required, but still. Stories like this only encourage people to lie to get what they want in the end. "yes my dog is fixed" or "no i don't own a pet" and who can prove that? even a home check can be fixed to make things look a certain way. You know? :confused:

MyBirdIsEvil
August 6th, 2006, 02:31 PM
How is it descrimination if the rules state that NO one with unfixed animals (unless it is registered) can adopt any pet? Who are they descriminating against besides people that have unneutered unregistered pets? There is no reason to breed an unregistered animal.
The spca doesn't want to adopt out to people that may add to the homeless pet population.
Yes people will lie about stuff to adopt a pet, but this is going to happen no matter what the spca's rules are. The spca still has to have a set of rules in place to help adopt animals out to good homes.

dtbmnec
August 6th, 2006, 02:50 PM
I wonder something though...I was able to adopt Pawz from a shelter even though Leo wasn't fixed yet...so I'm confused...

I am of course going to get the both of them neutered because that's the only intelligent thing to do (and becuase I could do without the fighting of the kitties)

Megan

MyBirdIsEvil
August 6th, 2006, 03:13 PM
Not all shelters have the same policies.
The shelter we adopted Duddits from didn't even ask if all our animals were fixed.
The shelter from which we adopted Jack, our other kitty, asked on the questionaire if all our animals were fixed, if not, which ones were or weren't, and why.

Maxine
August 6th, 2006, 06:16 PM
I would say that the SPCA did a good thing. How pointless to rehome a kitty when maybe 8 dogs from a BYB can be sold for money?

Maxine

Prin
August 6th, 2006, 09:41 PM
well since the dog obviously can't breed with the cat (specially since the SPCA spays all pets before handing them over to a new home, right?) then i really don't see the issue here... smacks of descrimination IMO. ok the lady could show the dog's papers if that is what is required, but still. Stories like this only encourage people to lie to get what they want in the end. "yes my dog is fixed" or "no i don't own a pet" and who can prove that? even a home check can be fixed to make things look a certain way. You know? :confused:
It's not about breeding with the cat, it's about being a responsible owner. If you're not an ethical breeder with health tested champions, there's no reason for you to have unneutered dogs. You might disagree because you don't see the need or whatever, but from the rescue side of things, it's a very important factor. And if there's a home visit and you said you had two akitas, how would you hide it from them?

technodoll
August 6th, 2006, 09:54 PM
well i would not lie about stuff like that :) but other people do, i am sure... since they want a way around the system because they don't agree with it. My point was: when you advertise a situation like that, you're only warning the unethical people in advance. It's too easy to have your friends babysit your dogs while a home-check occurs. put the toys and food away, and voila. No dogs. Or cats, or whatever. You know? I'm not disagreeing with this particular SPCA's policies, it's their right to lay down the laws they wish to when it comes to adopting out animals to new homes. Apparently not all shelters and rescues have the same laws though, so I don't know what the general consensus is on that. :confused:

Prin
August 6th, 2006, 10:08 PM
Well, IMO rescues tend to be a bit like customs agents. They've heard it all a million times before and can see through the crap and inconsistencies better than most of us (if they're good at their jobs...).

It's too easy to have your friends babysit your dogs while a home-check occurs.Yeah, but if you already told them you have dogs, they'll be expecting to see them there.;) The home check is the last step, not the first one.

technodoll
August 6th, 2006, 10:14 PM
oh i know, i meant that if people know they won't get a pet if they check this or that box on the application, that's where the lies start and they end with the fudged home-check, you know? or.... they pick up the paper for "free to good home" ads :(

Prin
August 7th, 2006, 05:37 PM
Nothing stops those free to a good home ads from appearing, so there will always be that alternative to rescue.:shrug: I got Jemma from one of those.