|
Jess writes:
"My advice to you at this point: take the dog and get it
done. Fight with
your husband about it later, but do not allow your dog to be harmed by his stubborn and selfish behavior. Otherwise find someone to adopt the dog. You really shouldn't have a pet if you're not prepared to take care of it." Really this is too much. What gives you the right to accuse
someone of not taking good care of their dog, just because they (in this case
the husband) choose not to have the dog neutered.
I am not against neutering, I respect all the good reasons for
doing it, but there is no reason why people should not be both caring and
responsible dogowners, even if they do own an intact male. Just because Newman
is intact does not mean he will ever father a litter, time enough to point
fingers if and when he does.
It is perfectly possible to have an intact male and keep him
from mating, it is simply a matter of good fences and closed doors. It may be
more difficult than to own a neuter, but that is a personal choice.
Most males in Europe are unneutered, and most of them
never father a litter, just as most of them don't mark inside their homes. I
really don't think the American males are so very different.
To talk of harming the dog by not neutering seems rather out
of proportions to me, after all being intact is a perfectly natural
thing.
To avoid misunderstandings I will repeat, I have nothing
against neutering, but I sometimes get fed up with the intolerance show to
people who choose not to neuter. Keeping the pet from
reproducing is what makes an owner responsible, not whether the pet is neutered
or not.
Okay, ready for the attack.
Lene Nielsen
|