Skip to main content

Testicle Wars: the Battle for Control of Your Dog's Balls

Plenty of dog owners are oblivious to the whole thing. Others, (ahem) particularly the gentlemen, prefer to squeeze their eye shut and hope it will all go away. But skirmish lines formed long ago and it looks like the City of Tacoma, Washington, may be the next battlefield in the Testicle Wars.

I'm talking about the battle for control of your dog's balls. The move to force law-abiding dog owners with well-managed pets and workmates to surgically sterilize them. The concept that the government can invade your home and decide which, if any, of your dogs get to keep their gonads, and which ones don't.

Where do progressive Democrats stand?

Can a bunch of strangers sitting on your city council determine that your blameless dog must undergo an invasive veterinary procedure which sends a part of your personal property to the garbage can?

Could this be just a minor snip-snip for ol' Rover? (And by the way, before you sign on to that particular theory, know that despite the bedtime story that mandatory spay-neuter advocates spin, the longterm effects of gonadectomies on dogs are not necessarily beneficial. Not by a long shot.)

Or is this an assault on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of an estimated 45% of the U. S. electorate?

We the People

Turns out that the U. S. Constitution is gonzo about protecting property rights.

The Fifth Amendment(which would be part of the Bill of Rights, guys) reads, in part:

No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Then there's the 14th Amendment, which reads, in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .

Like I said, completely gonzo when it comes to property. Talk about a core value. Right?

Ditching our constitutional rights

Meet Democratic Tacoma City Councilmember Julie Anderson. She's the sponsor of the proposal to require all dogs (and cats) in Tacoma to be sterilized.

How did Julie use her recent media event opportunity? She tossed around a civil liberty which is based on the U. S. Bill of Rights like a used piece of Kleenex.

[My proposal] basically states that having an unaltered animal is no longer a right or something you can just do.

That was her quote.

Blink. Owning a dog, without submitting it to surgical sterilization, is something I "just can't do" any more? Its "no longer a right"?

Hell you say.

Indicating that she's "sensitive to the property rights issues", Councilwoman Anderson nevertheless came down squarely on the side of PeTA and the Humane Society of the United States. Both are animal rights organizations that want to end domestic animal ownership. Wayne Pacelle, currently the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, phrased it:

"One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

There's something about Julie

Here's Julie's pedigree, lifted from the City of Tacoma website:

Political Strategist for Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington
Executive Director of the YWCA of Pierce County
District Manager for the Dome District Neighborhood Business District
Executive Director of Faith Homes
Campaign Manager for Tacoma United For Fairness
Board of Directors of City Club
Tacoma PTA Board
American Leadership Forum fellow

Tacoma United for Fairness? Do those fine people know how gung-ho Julie is about sending civil liberties to the trash heap and mandating $300 or so's worth of surgery for everyone's dog? Who's going to pay for all of that surgery, anyway? What's the plan, Julie? How are retirees and people with a limited income supposed to come up with the do-re-mi?

Will cash-strapped dog owners, fearful of being caught with unauthorized testicles on the premises, try a "do-it-yourself" solution?

Its been known to happen, Julie.

And what if the surgery has an, uh, unhappy outcome? Assuming that ol' Rover even survives the anesthesia, will the City of Tacoma bear the expenses?

Oh, and during your networking sessions with the other fellows of the American Leadership Forum, did you let slip that many studies indicate that mandatory spay-neuter doesn't achieve the stated goal of reducing shelter populations?


Julie Anderson is up for re-election in 2007. She can be reached at and I, for one, will be writing to point out the error of her ways.

Love me, love me, love me. . .I'm a liberal

What is so freaking Democratic, liberal and progressive about kissing off our civil rights?

I am just not getting this. I don't think Phil Ochs would have, either.

Joe Trippi, one of the Democratic Party's most visible strategic planners, benchmarked the progressive sell out of dog owners and alignment with the animal rights movement when he became Best Friends Animal Sanctuary's hired gun. So much for scruples, huh?

Coming soon to a municipality near you

Previous columnscovered mandatory spay-neuter requirements in Albuquerque, New Mexico (with Democratic Mayor Chavez announcing his intention to promote the requirement statewide) and Los Angeles County, California.

The Golden State is a particularly tough place for dogs that retain all the parts they were born with--prime animal rights extremist organization PeTA lists quite a few California locations, including Belmont, Clearlake and San Mateo. Berkeley, Sacramento and Riverside County had mandatory sterilization proposals on the table this year. San Francisco--that beautiful city by the bay and bastion of liberal thinking--links mandatory sterilization with negative profiling for some miserable dogs and dog owners.

Yup. There are plenty of places in the Golden State where the presence of doggy gonads is going to cause major problems. But don't rest easy because you don't live in California. Here's a little sampling of the shape of things to come across the country:

Bloomington, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Buncombe County, North Carolina, have forced sterilization requirements.

Austin, and San Antonio, Texas recently saw a mandatory spay-neuter proposal. Indianapolis, Indiana, too. So did the entire State of Virginia.

In New York City dogs that wind up at city shelters must be sterilized before they are returned to their owners. No matter how or why they got there.

Aurora and Denver, Colorado are so-called "no birth" cities.

The above is NOT a complete list of places that will try to force you to neuter your dog. There are more. You can run, but you can't hide. The Testicle Wars are coming to you, wherever you live.

Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

A recent survey from My Dog Votesindicates that dog owners are more than ready to switch parties in local and state elections in order to save their dogs.

Well, count me in! No way will I support a party that will force me to sterilize my dog, or that is willing to toss my property rights into the garbage. No freaking way.

Originally posted to Blue Dog State on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:22 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd actually like to have this discussion (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, luckydog, McGirk

    but now doesn't work. Mayber here doesn't work either.

    Bring this back after the election.

  •  My three dogs are neutered (0+ / 0-)

    I like my county's position on this [one of the very few]: It costs $18 to register your dog if it's neutered and $60 if it's not.  Too many dogs are put down every year due to indiscriminate breeding. It is wrong and it must stop.

    "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon

    by trashablanca on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:28:40 AM PST

  •  I think male dogs of certain breeds (0+ / 0-)

    (Pit Bulls) should be neutered, if their not 'studs'. That being said, it's a personal opinion. Laws demanding it piss off my libertarian side.

    Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

    by McGirk on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:33:58 AM PST

    •  first they came for the pit bulls... (0+ / 0-)

      the effort to control our dogs.. and US... starts with the "bad" breeds.

      California passed an override of their long standing "no breed specific legislation" to allow locations to require mandatory s/n for pit bulls... shockingly, this effort was aided and abetted by an otherwise well respected pit bull rescue group.

      You don't imagine this will stop with pit bulls, do you?

      As you say, this should be a personal choice by the dog owners.

      Are we "small government" Dems, or are we not?

      •  Having lived with a couple of pits (0+ / 0-)

        They are the sweetest dogs, but when they bite, they never let go. i think that most of the problems are due to undiciplined ownership. But one can't deny the illegal dogfighting breeders training pits to be fighters. That said, I feal that demanding circumcision is wrong, but owners who don't neuter male pits should be willing to accept full liability for their pets actions, in the event they injure anyone.

        Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

        by McGirk on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 03:38:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  the only thing that comes to mind (0+ / 0-)

    It's time you put your mouth where our balls are.

    It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
    (-1.88, -6.77)

    by Bundy on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:00:48 PM PST

  •  I left a good vet (0+ / 0-)

    Because every time I was in he pressured me to have the dog neutered and I got sick of it.

    Most indiscriminate breeding is because of bad owners who are lousy parents.

  •  Here ya go (0+ / 0-)

    Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

    by McGirk on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:29:06 PM PST

  •  Why wouldn't you get your dog neutered? (0+ / 0-)

    I'll admit to not being a dog person but don't you just automatically get them fixed?

    The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. - Pierre Trudeau

    by lonestar canuck on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 12:39:36 PM PST

    •  uhhhhh (0+ / 0-)

      because I don't want to ?

      You're quoting Trudeau, but can't fathom why I don't want the State of, for example, California, to strip my dog of his balls and me of my property?


      Blue Dog State

      by Blue Dog State on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 03:06:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Never said I agree with the law (0+ / 0-)

        You and your dog's balls can live a happy life together - I was just curious.  Sorry.

        The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. - Pierre Trudeau

        by lonestar canuck on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 03:46:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  a variety of reasons not to... (0+ / 0-)

          besides the issue that some guys are uncomfortable with attacks on ANY balls.

          Health reasons.. some people are concerned about the consequences of s/n (especially early s/n)

          Some dogsports require intact dogs

          Some people may want to breed their dog in the future.  Most dogs shouldn't be bred, and most people shouldn't get involved in breeding.  But you can't know if a dog is of breeding quality for several years...

          These seemingly harmless laws are just the tip of the iceberg...
          mandatory s/n is just the first step towards restricting dog breeding entirely.

  •  any place (0+ / 0-)

    any time

    really--you name it

    because this just isn't right

    I was born to vote Democratic, and this kind of stuff makes it impossible.

    Blue Dog State

    by Blue Dog State on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 04:37:11 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site