Once and for all, its important for you to hear the truth about spaying and neutering - first paw.  Yes, from a dog's perspective!

Unfortunately, some who are the biggest proponents of such forced sterilizations of our specie also proclaim to be the ones who are most interested in advancing our rights in this dog-eat-dog world.  They consider themselves to be animal rights watch dogs.  Still others try to self-righteously act as if they are trustworthy guides for the morally blind.  Yet, they often (perhaps for convenience sake or maybe out of mere ignorance) misrepresent our perspective.

Now I'm sure that there are some who will say, "Dominique you are barking up the wrong tree!"  Others may be growling, "Let's not bite the hand that feeds us!"

Nevertheless, veracity is at least one of a dog's best friends.  And, when spaying or neutering are advocated at the expense of truth, it should make any creature (and you don't have to be a cat) just a little bit curious as to why.  Could it be that some of these so called "advocates" who speak in favor of surgical sterilizations are missing the point of human responsibility?  Perhaps this is simply a "quick fix" - a convenient way in modern times to abdicate the need for humans to keep control of their pets. [ Notice that the word CAT can be found in both advocate and abdicate!]

One case in point is the reasoning espoused by Anna C. Briggs, founder of The National Humane Education Society [Notice that this education has CAT in it!].  In her book For the Love of Animals she encourages people to “. . . stand up and speak for animals who cannot speak for themselves” (p. 117).

Briggs relates how as a young girl her mother made her give up a dog named Tut because, “At the time, neither Mother nor I knew about spaying.  To Mother, there was no alternative, but I was crushed at the idea of having to give Tut away” (p.49).

Now, I won't take the time to go into detail, but let me just say that spaying or neutering is not the only method of pet control.  Whatever happened to good old fashioned pet owner responsibility?  Today many humans who claim to be interested in our rights push spaying and neutering as if it were the only option.  They say they are interested in preventing us from experiencing any unnecessary form of suffering.  However, as an advocate of spaying and neutering Anna C. Briggs explains, “There is no tragedy in preventing a pet from reproducing.  The sex life of a pet is governed by glandular discharges of hormones and is free of the social forces that surround human sexuality.  If they are sterilized before they mate, the pets don't know about sex and don't miss it” (p. 89).

Excuse me!!!  But even a bulldog with a bad cold could wind something wrong with this logic.  How ludicrous!  I wonder how Anna C. Briggs became a specialist in this area?  Did she take a survey among those of our kind who were sterilized before they mated, and those of us who had already experienced sex?  I've got to ask - were any of you interviewed?  Does Briggs have any data to support her bizarre statement, “If they are sterilized before they mate, the pets don't know about sex and don't miss it"?

Furthermore, one needs to ask, "Should humans refuse to neuter or spay an animal that has participated in producing a litter of pups or kittens because they already know about sex and will therefore miss it?"  How can Briggs and others in her camp speak for us animals on this topic?  Aren't such advocates actually violating the very rights  they say they are trying to protect?

It's amazing how such self-proclaimed animal rights advoCATes get away with these kinds of ridiculous statements.  And yet despite this, large groups of well meaning humans continue to financially support such individuals and their causes.  Frankly, it's enough to make the hair on the back of this writer's neck stand straight up!