Tough issue # 2, the intact dog

My two girls

We've been wrestling with this issue in VGSR again lately--applicants with intact dogs.  We have usually denied them, as adoption applicants and as fosters.  We've made exceptions in a few cases for very senior dogs, show dogs, etc., but the general rule is that your dogs and cats should be spayed or neutered.  Really, it's a no-brainer, it's the most basic level of responsible pet ownership, and I really don't have any sympathy or any use for people who don't do it. 

More often that not it's an intact male dog rather than an unspayed female, and invariably it's a male human who refuses to neuter his dog.  It's the same old, tired, macho, asshole crap, "I wouldn't want that done to me so I won't do it to my dog."  It also reflects that same asshole male attitude about birth control, that it's the female's responsibility because the male can't get pregnant. 


There's also the "it's god's will" attitude, reflected in statements like "that's how he came into the world and it's not up to me to change it."  Those people are just too stupid to waste your breath on, and invariably they are too stupid to be dog owners anyway.  (You must be smarter than the dog to adopt the dog.)  That's also a typical cover story for people who are just unable or willing to spend any money on their dog. 

The most disturbing are those few who aren't stupid and aren't assholes.  They'll say that their dog is under their control at all times, has never gotten another dog pregnant, so there's no reason to neuter them.  I tell them that I think it's cruel not to neuter the dog in those circumstances.  So, you've got an intact male dog with normal sex drive that you (supposedly) have prevented him from expressing for his entire life?  That's far more cruel than a simple neuter procedure. 

There are those who say that we can't force our opinions on other people and we don't have the right to control what they do with their dogs.  That's true, but it's also irrelevant.  It's the wrong question.  It's not a question of our right to control them, it's a question of our right of association.  Of course they have the right to do what they want with their dog, but they also don't have a right to adopt from us.  We can choose to associate or disassociate with whomever we choose.  Saying "no" to someone with an intact dog is basically shunning them.  It's saying that your behavior makes you an outcast, it's behavior we don't find suitable or tolerable in a society such as ours where millions of dogs and cats are needlessly euthanized every year. 


But, we need adopters and we need fosters.  Dogs die because we don't have space for them.  Some of those applicants with intact dogs in their homes would probably make perfectly good homes.  Any dog they get from us will be spayed or neutered before adoption, so there's no chance that we would be contributing to the problem.  Moreover, if a rescue group turns them down they may just turn to a breeder who won't turn down anyone with money. 


Two of VGSR's best foster homes and volunteers in recent years have been homes that initially had intact animals and would have been turned down.  I advocated strongly against turning people away on the basis of this as a single disqualifying factor, but I will admit to being conflicted on the issue.  I think I come down in favor of looking at a foster home or adopter based on the "totality of the circumstances" approach, but I understand people who see it as a black and white issue.