{"id":4554,"date":"2015-06-24T18:44:05","date_gmt":"2015-06-24T08:14:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/?p=4554"},"modified":"2021-08-02T17:47:17","modified_gmt":"2021-08-02T07:17:17","slug":"my-say-mandatory-desexing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/dogs-and-politics\/my-say-mandatory-desexing\/","title":{"rendered":"My Say: Mandatory Desexing"},"content":{"rendered":"

(This is\u00a0the last post\u00a0in a four part series on dog and cat reforms in South Australia. See\u00a0post one here<\/a>, post two here<\/a>, and post three here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\"ScreenThe YourSay website invites submissions to a citizen’s jury<\/a>. While we could discuss the validity of allowing (quote) “32 ordinary South Australians” to decide on whether various animal species should undergo the medical procedure of a gonadectomy… Unfortunately, this process has already been decided on, and hence we must make a submission according to this format.<\/p>\n

When accessing the site, you will need to download a word document to make a submission. It is only on this document do we get the date that submissions are due in by: Friday 10th July 2015<\/b><\/p>\n

This form also asks the question:<\/p>\n

Last year in South Australia over 10,000 unwanted dogs and cats were put down.
\nThe State Government recently announced some reforms to dog and cat laws.
\nWhat further measures can we introduce or trial to reduce the number of unwanted pets?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While the downloaded word document doesn’t explicitly mention desexing, the site does with the comment:<\/p>\n

The government has also sought a specific verdict from the Jury on the\u00a0matter of whether de-sexing should be mandatory.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The form also specifies that the your submission should not be more than two pages, and yet asks for examples to be provided… It’s an impossibility to provide ample compelling evidence in these narrow frames.<\/p>\n

However, my response (which you are, as always, welcome to use in shaping your own) is below:<\/p>\n

I am adamantly opposed to mandatory desexing<\/span>. The reasons for this opposition are:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mandatory desexing has not been shown to reduce the incidence of euthanasia in animal shelters. In areas where it has been implemented, often there is a subsequent increase<\/em> in the number of animals entering the facility, as people are financially unable to desex their pets and, to avoid risk of prosecution, they choose to relinquish them. Internationally this affect has been seen Los Angeles and, more locally, in Western Australia. Mandatory desexing has actually been demonstrated to increase<\/em> euthanasia, and therefore should not be an option for South Australia on this basis alone.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

However, mandatory desexing is a move that is rejected by the Australasian Veterinary Association (AVA). The AVA represents veterinarians across Australia, and so it would be sensible for policy makers to develop legislation that corresponds with statements made by this peak body. Additionally, it is anticipated that veterinarians would be responsible for performing desexings (mandatory or otherwise), and so their support is crucial for successful implementation of mandatory desexing. Considering that veterinarians have significant financial gains to be made from such a policy, yet choose to reject it is, is an indicator of the lack-of-support for mandatory desexing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Finally, and crucially, there is evidence that desexing in dogs can pose some health risks<\/em> to animals. These risks include:<\/p>\n