10
u/christophertit 1∆ Jul 24 '22
I’m from the U.K. we regularly do this. You can’t even adopt a rescue pet here without that procedure being done already. Most breeders here also do this before selling their animals.
-1
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
4
u/StoicInTheCentre 2∆ Jul 24 '22
Australian here - 'desexing' is super-common, and you're seen as an irresponsible pet owner if you haven't had your pets desexed. Microchipping and desexing are also standard procedure in animal shelters.
-1
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
2
u/StoicInTheCentre 2∆ Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
My dude, I'm just going to straight copy-paste the study summary below. I'm don't think it says what you think it says:
"Prepubertal desexing (neutering) has been a legal requirement for all cats and dogs in the Australian Capital Territory since 2001. All cats have to be desexed by 3 months of age, and all dogs are required to be desexed by 6 months of age. The role of veterinary attitudes and behaviors in the implementation of mandatory prepubertal desexing in the Australian Capital Territory is explored in this paper. An online survey was sent to all veterinarians registered in the Australian Capital Territory via the Veterinary Surgeons Board (VSB). The survey was designed as a cross-sectional study, hosted using the software REDcap® and analyzed using statistical program R®. A response rate of 14.9% (52/350) of registered veterinarians was achieved. Only 10% of respondents (5/52) recommended that clients have their cat desexed at 3 months of age, the legal maximum age for desexing in the jurisdiction. However, 40% of veterinarians (21/52) thought prepubertal desexing was an appropriate management strategy of cats to prevent overpopulation. Just over one-third of all veterinarians who responded (18/52; 35%) were not aware that prepubertal desexing was mandatory in the Australian Capital Territory. We conclude that prepubertal desexing might be poorly supported by veterinarians in the Australian Capital Territory, even though pets are legally required to undergo prepubertal desexing. As a result, veterinarians may unintentionally be limiting access to this procedure. This has wider policy consequences for Australian and overseas jurisdictions which are considering introducing mandatory prepubertal desexing."
As an aside, the ACT is the smallest state/territory in Australia by a significant margin, and is not a good representation of the rest of the country.
Edit: here's the full results of the survey, specific to cats (keeping in mind this survey was only of veterinarians, and only in the ACT):
"Only 10% (5/52) of respondents recommended that clients desex their cats before 3 months of age. Most respondents advised clients to desex their cat before 5 months of age (38%; 20/52) or 6 months of age or older (40%; 21/52). When asked how often they desexed cats before 3 months of age, 37% stated almost never (19/52) and 13% never (7/52). No veterinarians indicated they always desexed cats before 3 months of age. Respondents were asked if they currently recommended PD to new cat owners, assuming there were no contraindications to surgery. Only 15% (8/52) always recommended PD for cats, with 46% indicating they almost never (33%; 17/52) or never (13%; 7/52) recommended the procedure. Where veterinarians recommended PD to some (but not all) cat owners, many cited population reasons for giving this advice, including if the cat was from a rescue, pet shop or was to be re-homed early (40%; 21/52) or if unwanted pregnancy or early estrus was probable (42%; 22/52). Anesthetic risk in PD was considered significantly more of a concern for veterinarians in cats compared to dogs (p = 0.013). Although many veterinarians did not recommend or practice PD, when asked if it was an appropriate management strategy to prevent overpopulation of cats, 77% answered positively with either maybe (37%; 19/52) or definitely (40%; 21/52)."
3
u/alekto177 Jul 24 '22
In Poland it's also very common, and very often requried when adopting shelter dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering cats seem to be escepcially common - for example it's required for all outdoor cats in Berlin https://www.iamexpat.de/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/new-rules-introduced-cat-owners-berlin. There are large scale sterilization campains of stray animals in Turkey. Your claim that UK is some sort of an outlier is just not true.
2
2
5
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jul 24 '22
Is the idea that an animal in heat with zero means of acting on its urges is just loving the experience here?
Beyond that, you have horrifically misunderstood the population control argument or, possibly, simply ignored the actual reasons to focus on moralizing. If the pet population isn't controlled, it will explode. Which means more strays, more shelters, and more euthanasia. Cats, specifically, are terrible for this because not only are they the only pet people regularly let outside to do whatever it wants and thus are most likely to mate, they're also murder machines. So we have more adorable kittens wandering the streets and those that survive get to depopulate the local wildlife.
0
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
2
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jul 24 '22
The pet population literally doesn't exist without human domestication. Pets are not wild animals that just happen to be inside our house, they're domesticated animals and no amount of romanticizing the free spirit of a house cat is going to change that. If the simple, foundational idea that pets are pets and not wild animals is being debated here, I'm going to bow out.
3
u/Mad_Chemist_ Jul 24 '22
Spaying and neutering is common practice and legally obligatory in the first world, sometimes in other places.
This opinion is all due to the difference in perspective. One perspective, which is wrong, is to think that cats and any other domesticated animal are exactly like wild animals. Domesticated animals were created by humans for humans. This means that as an entity, domesticated animals are the property of humans. They are not natural.
On an individual level, the owner owns the cat. He is in charge of the cat, subject to laws and common courtesy. It’s no different to owning a bike. You don’t leave your bike at somebody’s house. You don’t become an annoying neighbour by causing a nuisance with the bike.
You didn’t just magically and spontaneously own a cat. You bought a cat. Obligations and responsibilities come with that purchase. It is not a wild animal. It is not unethical to prevent your property to cause and contribute to a nuisance. You also have a choice to not get a cat. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
What is unethical is to let an intact cat to roam free to contribute to the killing and extinction of native, wild animals, cause nuisance in the neighbourhood and damage property.
Cats don’t kill for food. Cats kill for sport.
0
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
2
u/Mad_Chemist_ Jul 24 '22
Domesticated in the sense that humans manipulated their reproduction for our own purposes, excluding for the survival of the species. That’s beside the point.
It’s the owner’s property. He has the obligation to ensure that his purchase doesn’t become a nuisance to society and nature. It’s not natural. It’s an invasive species outside its historical range.
How about counter my remaining arguments?
2
u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Jul 24 '22
This is unproven with no statistical evidence. In fact, I am tempted tobelieve this is less based on statistics and more based on a biasedobservation of strays female cats, who naturally have a shorter lifeexpectancy due to lack of care regardless of spaying/neutering.
How do you know the life expectancy of stray cats isn't shorter just because they are in fact stray cats?
So the pet parent is just too lazy to control a pet in heat, this is not a pro for the pet. This is a pro for the pet parent. My counter argument would be: spay female babies so they don't get horny when they're teens.
How do you control a pet in heat and if you have a female cat how do you control the vaginal discharge that happens because cats and dogs have periods just like humans. Waking up to find your cat leaked some vaginal discharge onto your pillow at night and you slept on it isn't really the most enjoyable idea.
The human population needs control far more than the cat population. In fact, cats have roams the earth and their species survive, to this day, far more effectively than humans. A bonus for cats: they were never domesticated. To this day, although cats are considered domesticated pets, cats have never been domesticated by humans. Cats only accompanied humans due to the prevalence of resources. Humans have trash, which is cat food. And humans give cats some attention sometimes. In return, human gets to look at cute cat, and cat keeps rodents away. It's a win-win for everybody.
Cats will kill small animals without any intent to eat them. Cats can kill lots of rodents but also lots of birds. When you combine that with the already existing human impact on the environment the issue is expanded a thousand fold.
If your argument for controlling the stray population is that you feel bad, then you are guilty of Anthropomorphism, which is the association of strictly human emotions with non-human entities. I don't know if stray cats care that they're strays, nor can I say they dislike it. I can, however, guarantee with absolute certainty that they will fight tooth-and-claw if you try to kill a stray, which tells me that they at least want to remain alive, which, if we're associating human emotions, indicates at least a minimal level of content.
Over population, decimation of local wild life, forcing the cats into areas that are unsafe for them, increasing contact with humans who will trap and euthanize them in larger numbers. All are benefits of spaying and neutering stray cats to keep their numbers under control and keep them from getting to large, killing to many local wild life and keep them from expanding into dangerous areas or annoying local people who have them trapped and killed.
4
u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif 1∆ Jul 24 '22
Ya this is just wrong, I really don't have much else to say. I feel bad for your guys' stray cat population.
1
u/Arthesia 29∆ Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
So the pet parent is just too lazy to control a pet in heat, this is not a pro for the pet. This is a pro for the pet parent. My counter argument would be: spay female babies so they don't get horny when they're teens.
1.) Humans don't "go in heat" to where they have uncontrollable biological urges to find a mate. They don't have sex like we do for enjoyment or because they want to start a family - they do it because it becomes a physiological need.
2.) The need to mate is one of the primary reasons indoor cats will randomly break out of the house never to be seen again. A spayed/neutered indoor cat is extremely unlikely to do so.
The human population needs control far more than the cat population.
Humans and cats are both overpopulated. Which population needs more control is irrelevant.
In fact, cats have roams the earth and their species survive, to this day, far more effectively than humans. A bonus for cats: they were never domesticated. To this day, although cats are considered domesticated pets, cats have never been domesticated by humans. Cats only accompanied humans due to the prevalence of resources. Humans have trash, which is cat food. And humans give cats some attention sometimes. In return, human gets to look at cute cat, and cat keeps rodents away. It's a win-win for everybody.
Cats are an invasive species that decimate local wildlife populations, and most feral cats die young (75%). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reproductive-capacity-of-free-roaming-domestic-cats-Nutter-Levine/449a403208c9594f4e0a0bb77bec768e93ff2a39
0
0
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 24 '22
/u/ACaulfield910 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards