Neutering help scheme

[SparklyGlitter95]

Hello everyone, I thought I would start this thread so people are aware that the dogs trust currently helps with the cost of neutering your pet if you are receiving certain benefits, and your dog is on their list of eligible breeds. However, they are stopping this scheme altogether after January 1st 2021. So if you qualify, your dog is of neutering/spaying age and you are wanting to use the dogs trust for help with neutering costs, do so before the end of January or you will have to pay full price.

On another note does anyone know why they are scrapping this? Surely it means more people will not get their pets neutered as they can't afford it, and will have more dogs end up in shelters etc in the long run? Thanks

I think you have rose tinted glasses on. I personally know 3 people who have been made redundant due to covid and would struggle with vet bills etc now. If a friend or loved one of yours was in that situation would you seriously look them in the eye and tell them its their fault for ever getting a pet in the first place, and encourage them to rehome?

Rose tinted glasses? I'm not the one expecting charities or other people to pick up my bills for elective surgeries.

I also wouldn't be telling anyone that their financial dire straits were their fault - that's deeply unpleasant, and if the only way you can make your point @SparklyGlitter95
is by personal attacks then you probably need to rethink the foundation for your argument.

I actually do a fair bit of work with major UK charities and homeless people. It's is perfectly possible for pets to have a good quality of life with owners who have limited financial means, but ONLY if someone else picks up the tab. That's not rose-tinted - it's reality.

I regularly donate my time and expertise to run a homeless vet clinic in my evenings off - through that I can offer the basics, but I'm also very aware that if one of those dogs gets hit by a car/breaks a leg/whatever, then the resources simply don't exist to offer major surgery and so I have to have the extremely difficult conversation with that owner that their pet needs to be rehomed or euthanised. Not much rose tinted about it.

That's why I strongly believe it is important that people consider the financial implications of pet ownership and don't rely on charity - because there are limits to what it can provide, and fundamentally pets are a luxury and their rehoming/lack of access to treatment has consequences for animal welfare.

If you think that's an indication of may lack of compassion then I'm sure @PoleToPole and @SparklyGlitter95 can tell me about their experiences of providing charity/homeless veterinary services and how they'd deal with those situations

But as a PP said, lots of people can claim dogs are owned by other people, in order to qualify for the free treatment

@PoleToPole why is it that the veterinary profession is painted in a bad light because we don’t work for free however other businesses providing a service are not penalised in the same way.

Veterinary treatment is not free. If we provide it for free then how do we pay the staff and overheads. PDSA manage it through donations but it wouldn’t sustain a private business....so we just consult for free for hours and make a massive loss?

“What about people who are financially stable when they get a pet and then their circumstances change along the line due to redundancy, illness etc?”

Except...

Neutering is something you plan in when you get a pet, not a few years later after unexpected things have happened.

Also, you have the option of just not doing it...

I’m pro neutering in general, but plenty of people decide not to neuter their dogs and just don’t give them the opportunity to breed.

Neutering is something you plan in when you get a pet, not a few years later after unexpected things have happened.

I agree, it should be. But if you are struggling to buy food of course you will break into your neutering/ emergency vet fund.

@SadSeal

*Neutering is something you plan in when you get a pet, not a few years later after unexpected things have happened.*

I agree, it should be. But if you are struggling to buy food of course you will break into your neutering/ emergency vet fund.

In which case you can control reproduction by preventing mating/supervision. Neutering is not an essential service.

Additionally the dogs trust scheme is already limited to a very specific demographic of dog owners with specific breeds - it's clearly targeted at certain dogs owned by certain people in certain areas. It may well be that finances are not the barrier to neutering in those communities. Human behaviour is complex and changing it isn't always as simple as offering something for free.

That's why I strongly believe it is important that people consider the financial implications of pet ownership and don't rely on charity

So are you saying no-one should have used the neutering service offered by dogs trust even if they were eligible, because why not just keep an eye on your dog so as not to take advantage of the service? I don't think anyone willingly relies on charity unless they have no choice. Also I thought neutering helped with certain behaviours in dogs, it wasn't all about preventing breeding?

In which case you can control reproduction by preventing mating/supervision. Neutering is not an essential service.

That's not the only reason to neuter, though. What about health issues like pyometra?

I don't think anyone willingly relies on charity unless they have no choice. Also I thought neutering helped with certain behaviours in dogs, it wasn't all about preventing breeding?

Then you've never worked in charity veterinary services where people will willingly register their pet with their mate on benefits in order to get free/discounted services. Trust me, plenty of folk want a freebie.

Neutering isn't all about preventing breeding but neither is it a behavioural panacea - it can make many behavioural problems worse, and increase risks of other physical disorders - that's why the pros and cons for each dog should be evaluated in a way that charity programmes focussed primarily on population control often don't. It's another important strand of responsible pet ownership.

“I agree, it should be. But if you are struggling to buy food of course you will break into your neutering/ emergency vet fund.”

If money’s that tight, it’s not neutering you’d be looking to charities for help with, its much more basic stuff.

The free neutering services are really less about financial need and more about preventing unwanted breeding by owners who otherwise don’t bother to neuter, not can’t afford it so much as just don’t.

Charities are in the same financial difficulties everyone else is this year... they’re having to prioritise.

The scheme was targeted at certain breeds, those that were over represented in pounds and rescues. I don't imagine it was ever intended to be a long term initiative but rather to reduce the numbers of less sought after breeds. Maybe it has achieved the results they wanted?

Sorry @Veterinari when did I personally attack you? I did not intend to attack you or anyone else at any point so sorry if you feel i did. It just seems like you have zero compassion or empathy for the people who really did benefit from this scheme, or those who would in future. It's comes across as though you think every single person is out to abuse the system. I know for a fact there are genuine people who are very grateful for the help, not everyone is out to rinse the system.

Perhaps breeders should be obliged to issue neutering vouchers as part of the price of a puppy/kitten.

There is a lot more information coming out and research being done on neutering the massive negative effects it has on dogs, especially at an early age like 6 months which is what a lot of vets, rescues etc push for. Perhaps neutering is falling out of favour. Hopefully.

The rescue we got our dog from recommended keeping him entire. They judge it on a case by case basis.

I did not intend to attack you or anyone else at any point so sorry if you feel i did. It just seems like you have zero compassion or empathy for the people who really did benefit from this scheme, or those who would in future. It's comes across as though you think every single person is out to abuse the system.

@SparklyGlitter95 typing 'I did not intend to attack you' and following it with a personal attack where you tell me I have no compassion or empathy seems rather hypocritical don't you think? Your intention is clearly to personally attack me - at least be honest about it.

Also please point out where in my posts I have said anything that indicates judgement if people in financial difficulties, or a lack of compassion for their situation, or where I've said every person is out to abuse the system.

You seem to have wilfully ignored the fact that I'm someone who actively volunteers to support others - what do you do that gives you so much moral superiority?

I did not intend to attack you or anyone else at any point so sorry if you feel i did. It just seems like you have zero compassion or empathy

Are you sorry? Or are you personally attacking @Veterinari again?

If you consider what I've written to be 'personal attacks 'you must have very thin skin. Yes i realise you probably feel further attacked by me saying that

Then you've never worked in charity veterinary services where people will willingly register their pet with their mate on benefits in order to get free/discounted services. Trust me, plenty of folk want a freebie.

This part here where you talk about plenty of people wanting a freebie. Plenty of people don't, they genuinely need the help and support.

@SparklyGlitter95

If you consider what I've written to be 'personal attacks 'you must have very thin skin. Yes i realise you probably feel further attacked by me saying that

Ok so you're just here to slag other posters off, provide nothing to support your accusations, faux-apologise and then start name-calling again when called out on your hypocrisy.

It's clear there's no danger of reasoned discussion, intelligent debate or informed opinion here

Good stuff. At least that's clear.

Neutering isn't an emergency service. If you can't afford it don't get a dog. If you get a puppy and your circumstances change drastically then you probably need to think about rehoming

Or this part where you say you think anyone who falls on hard times should rehome their (often much loved and very much part of the family) pet. Not very empathetic if you ask me.

@SparklyGlitter95

*Then you've never worked in charity veterinary services where people will willingly register their pet with their mate on benefits in order to get free/discounted services. Trust me, plenty of folk want a freebie.*

This part here where you talk about plenty of people wanting a freebie. Plenty of people don't, they genuinely need the help and support.

If you cannot distinguish between 'plenty' and 'every single person' I cannot help you.

Yes plenty do, plenty don't.

No one said every single person except you when you were putting words in my mouth to support your imagined narrative.
Because attacking me is clearly preferable to acknowledging you may have misread.

It's clear there's no danger of reasoned discussion, intelligent debate or informed opinion here grin

Oh my goodness you've just attacked me and slagged me off. 🤣

@SparklyGlitter95

*Neutering isn't an emergency service. If you can't afford it don't get a dog. If you get a puppy and your circumstances change drastically then you probably need to think about rehoming*

Or this part where you say you think anyone who falls on hard times should rehome their (often much loved and very much part of the family) pet. Not very empathetic if you ask me.

And again - you seem to be struggling with comprehension.

'You probably need to think about...' is not the same as 'everyone should'

Additionally it's reality. Many homeless hostels don't allow pets. If you're financially limited you probably can't afford food/accommodation/vet care for your pet. That doesn't mean it doesn't suck. It does, which i why I spend my free time offering free veterinary services to people in this position. But as I've clearly said, those services are limited. So yes the reality is that people in that position need to think about other options for their pets. Realistic pragmatism is not the same as a lack of empathy.

What solution are you offering?

@SparklyGlitter95

*It's clear there's no danger of reasoned discussion, intelligent debate or informed opinion here grin*

Oh my goodness you've just attacked me and slagged me off. 🤣

You're the one proving my point 🤷‍♀️