Der Beitrag The Conan Law: A Political Stunt Against Zoophiles? erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

The French new Animal Welfare Law of 2021 is now reaching its third year and is now time for an assessment.

This law failed at its first objective as setting major steps into protecting animal welfare. Nevertheless, it came with a vast array of anti-bestiality measures.

However, even on the side of the fight against animal sexual abuse, the law is still far from reaching expectations. As the case law shows, penalties aren’t proportionate at all with the level of suffering endured by the animal. Having chosen “being the owner or the guardian of the animal” as an aggravating factor, the law wrongfully sends the following message: if you abuse someone else’s animal your punishment will be lower.

In terms of the fight against sexual offences, the lawmaker promised that this law would enable to catch “zoophiles”, having portrayed us as “future sexual offenders” ready to “switch to human abuse”. The research already demonstrates that the thesis lack scientific support at best, and are the product of an anti-zoo hate campaign at worst. Moreover, during the debates on zoosexuality, the existence of people that are truly loving their animals – considering them as partners – have been set aside so that only the most sinister cases would be mentioned.

The prohibition of all forms of zoosexuality, regardless of any infliction of violence or coercion, is a very dogmatic choice. By taking a very conservative stance on the number of artificial inseminations conducted in France, we founded out that zoosexual acts would only represent less than 0,1 % of all human – animal sexual contacts. Furthermore, we should remind ourselves that it is also possible to legally castrate any animal without any medical need. Hence, we can state that the aim of this law isn’t to protect animal sexual integrity.

To conclude, this report reasserts that it is essential to recognize the existence of people that are truly loving their animals, those being at the core of their sexual orientation. Thus, it isn’t a question of sexual offending or violence, but simply of love and acceptance. This law and the arguments that have been used to justify it recalls the ones that were once used to discriminate against homosexuals and queer people in general, as those were considered deviants until recently. This report demonstrates the reality of zoosexuality, one that is very far from the one portrayed in the media.

Click here to read the full report

Der Beitrag Prohibition of Zoosexuality: legal situation in France erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

This article is based on research carried out in France. The following comments are therefore not universal.

Christianity
In ancient texts, zoosexuality is referred to by means of periphrases. In Latin texts, for example, we find: “fornicationem contra naturam” (fornication against nature), “cum animalibus coires” (copulating with animals) or “cum quadrupedus peccat” (sinning with quadrupeds), and so on.

(Figure 1: Decretum by Burchard of Worms, 1051, Pecudibus fornicantur / Quadrupedus fornicatoribus)

It would appear that no word for zoosexuality existed until the 12th century, when the word sodomite came into widespread use. The latter refers to the Sodomites, inhabitants of the city of Sodom (Genesis 10:19). It is therefore an antonomasia (a proper noun turned into a common noun). According to the biblical account, an inhabitant of Sodom named Lot grants hospitality to two angels sent by God. All the men of Sodom then surrounded his house and asked Lot to bring out these strangers the people of the town thought were men, in order to “know” them (Genesis 19:05). To know in the biblical sense means to have a carnal relationships. Lot refuses and offers them two of his virgin daughters in exchange. The Sodomites decline, and God destroys the city with “a rain of sulfur and fire” (Genesis 19:24). Although there is some doubt as to the interpretation of the refusal of hospitality, biblically, the Sodomites are clearly male homosexuals. By extension, sodomy designates any type of sexual practice (hyperonym) said to be unnatural (non-procreative), a fortiori including zoosexuality.

There’s still the word bugger, a synonym for sodomite tinged with heresy. This word refers to the Bulgarian priest Bogomil, founder of Bogomilism. In the 13th century, under the influence of inquisitorial propaganda directed against the Bogomil heresy, buggers (Bulgarians) were branded sodomites. This appellation of “bugger” was purely due to infamy, since the Bogomils practiced asceticism (including sexual abstinence).

Speciesism
The word bestiality first appeared in the 14th century. It comes from the Latin “bestia” and refers to any behavior that likens man to a beast. This definition begs the question: how is a beast supposed to behave? For humans, a beast is a primitive being essentially characterized by its ferocity (bestiality) and stupidity (beastliness). And indeed, in its natural habitat, a hungry wild beast won’t say hello to you before trying to eat you. But are they any more ferocious than man? The beast is thus a referent of human imbalance; bestial has come to designate the criminal, the madman or the torturer.

The word bestiality acquired a second, sexual meaning in the 16th century.

(Figure 2: 1525, Notable rulings by the parliament of Toulouse, “As a crime of abominable lust called bestiality[…]”.)

This “sexual bestiality” is a metaphorical figurative derived from the original meaning of the word; zoosexuality would be regressive, because it is directed towards the animal. Bestiality is therefore speciesism, including sexual speciesism.

Dilemma: between an unbalanced human and a willing animal, which sexual partner would you choose? When our contemporary sexologists speak of bestiality, they are referring directly to this brutal, stupid and primitive zoosexuality; to put it simply, this zoosexuality without love.

Animal Protection
The 19th century saw the birth of the word zoophilia. Its meaning at the time was simply that of its etymology: an affection (philia) for living things (zoo). The first French occurrences of the word coincided with article 453 of the Napoleonic Penal Code of 1810. But the word didn’t really spread until the 1820s. It can be linked to the creation of the London Zoo in 1828, or to Martin’s Act of 1822, an Anglo-Saxon law now considered the first animal protection law in the West. After Martin’s Act, French newspapers spoke of the “zoophilia of the English.” Obviously, a zoophile was seen as someone who condemned animal abuse. An animal protection society is called a “zoophilia society” or a “zoophile club”!

(Figure 3: Newspaper article “The great week of zoophiles / For animals, please.” from Botrot, 1926)

A breeder is zoophilic if he takes care of his animals by applying, for example, this “zoophilic ointment” then on sale in the shops.

(Figure 4:Celnart’s book “Zoophile manual”, 1827.)

(Figure 5:Advertising for a “Zoophilic ointment” from Peyrat firm, 1868.)

Little by little, zoophiles were ridiculed for their excessive love of animals. Zoophilia thus took on a negative connotation. This shift is potentially misogynistic, since as Féré notes, zoophilia is mainly found in women (1897, Zoophilie et zoophobie, Charles Féré). Whereas typically bestiality is mainly found in men.

(Figure 6:The zoophile mockery, 1935, “Do not excite the animal / A zoophile / In this cold weather, you should wipe it off when it (she) comes out of the water.”)

 Psychiatry
The word “zoophilia” is said to have first appeared in a protosexual sense in the 8th edition of 1893: “Following on from material fetishism, we still have to think of certain cases where animals have an aphrodisiac effect on humans. One could speak here of erotic zoophilia.”

(Figure 7: Krafft Ebing, 9th edition of Psychopathia Sexualis, “Zoophilia erotica”)

The case associated with “thierfetischismus” is that of an adolescent sexually aroused by contact with animal fur (Die krankhaften Erscheinungen des Geschlechtssinnes, Tarnowsky, 1886). In psychiatric circles, zoophilia became sexual. But it was only after the war that the word zoophilia gradually replaced bestiality (probably under Anglo-Saxon influence). Ironically, the zoophiles of yesterday condemn those of today! Through the influence of psychiatry, zoophilia acquired a pathological connotation that it still retains today.

Krafft-Ebing proposed the word “zooerastie” as a category in his classification, with the meaning of pathological bestiality. The word was never widely used.
Clifford Allen coined the term bestiosexualité (The Sexual Perversions and Abnormalities, Clifford Allen, 1940). This word was also little used in France. It is cited only to highlight the existence of a word that predates “zoosexuality” based on the same “sexual” root.

Zoosexual liberation
The term “zoosexuality” was coined in the early 1990s by American practitioners (formerly zoophiles) on the Internet.

(Figure 8: A message posted on March 3, 1994 by “L’Étalon Doux” on the Usenet newsgroup “alt.sex.bestiality”)

It’s easy to understand the reasons that led these zoosexuals to this linguistic protrusion: no word had ever exclusively described zoosexual reality. As we’ve seen, “sodomite”, “bugger”, “bestiality” and “zoophilia” are polysemous, so they can’t exclusively describe the act. What’s more, they have negative connotations: the sodomite is a sinner, the bugger a heretic, the bestial a brute, the zoophile a mental case! For its proponents, the word “zoosexuality” would be the missing word capable of naming an interspecies practice devoid of negative connotations.

The eternal question then arises. Which word to use? Zoophile or zoosexual? Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The word “zoophile” is simple, understandable, has positive semantics and is suitable for everyone, including platonics. But it has a psychiatric connotation, and has been taken up by those wishing to import the “anti-contact” movement of pedophile origin to zoosexuality.

The word “zoosexual” emphasizes sexuality rather than affection. Effective in combating the anti-contact movement. Some experts have included sadism in zoosexuality. And as a final argument, zoosexuality is a clone of the word homosexuality, purposely chosen in the hope of one day being at the same level of societal tolerance as homosexuals. The word “zoosexual” thus embodies this idea of intervention in reality through language. Let’s reverse this logic. Does the word zoophile constitute an obstacle to a possible normalization process? We think not. For example, the French militant magazine Arcadie (1954–1982) called itself “homophile.” This in no way prevented the normalization of homosexuality, and in fact prefigured it.

Today, the word zoophilia is still very present; the word zoosexual has not taken hold. In this linguistic mess, diminutives thrive: zoo (noun), and zooey (adjective) (thanks to the Zooier Than Thou podcast). Word choice is important, but it’s not everything. Zoosexual liberation will first and foremost involve the fight against societal amalgams.

Article written by Chienlit (October 2023)

Images from Gallica (Figure 1), Tolosana (Figure 2) and RetroNews (Figure 3, 4, 5, 6).

Der Beitrag Below the Words erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

What made my retweet special is the comparison it made between the penalty that would face someone condemned for such acts of violence against an animal, usually a fine of a few hundred euros, with the penalty of someone convicted for sexual acts upon an animal. In France, zoosexuals face 6 to 18 months of suspended jail time, a minimum of 5 to 10 years registered as a sex offender, a life ban on keeping an animal (contrary to acts of cruelty, for which the ban can be temporary), and mandatory therapy. Note that the severity of the penalty does not depend on the gravity of the acts. Usage of constraint, violence, or infliction of injuries has no impact on it. However, for some reason being the owner of the animal is an aggravating factor.

In my post, I claimed that anyone committing “any sexual acts with an animal that asked for it” faced such a sentence. With an account having as a description “Zoosexual and horse lover fighting prejudice”, my tweet became viral and reached 600.000 views in less than two days, which isn’t bad for an account that only had 20 subscribers. Many people reacted to “who asked for it”. It aimed at bringing up the following questions: can animals make sexual advances to a human being? Should such behavior face repression in the absence of violence, constraint, and injury?

The term “any sexual acts” has also been deliberately chosen since with the new French anti-bestiality law, the notion of “atteinte sexuelle” (sexual abuse) which is very wide, was chosen to replace the one of “sévices de nature sexuelle” (sexual violence) that only incriminated active penetration of the animal since the Junior Case in 2007. In 2022, a local politician was one of the first to be trialed. He had allowed two of his 21 dogs to mount him. He declared: “I take good care of them, I do not practice sodomy upon them, they are the ones doing it if they please to do so” (1.) No news article covering the case claimed that signs of mistreatment were found. He was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months of suspended jail time with the other complementary penalties we mentioned earlier.

In a country that practices factory farming, where artificial insemination is the norm, even for companion animals, this level of severity is questionable. Zoosexuality isn’t “only” compared to mistreatment, but as we said anyone convicted faces the same sentence as for “cruel acts”, and even more, if we consider the complementary penalties someone convicted for cruel acts won’t be enlisted to the sex offender registry.

On my Twitter account, I made other posts, in one of which I gave a link to my article in French that is very critical of the arguments given by the French animal welfare association Animal Cross in its 2019 “investigation” on zoosexuality (2.) In another one, I reminded that in 2006 the Danish ethical committee in its conclusion recommended against a total ban on sexual interactions between humans and animals in the absence of violence and constraint. It even claimed that such prohibition could be counterproductive as it could deter people from bringing their animals to the veterinary in case of an injury (3.)

My Twitter post was still going viral, and I was still receiving hateful comments, death threats, and encouragement of self-harm or suicide, most of them are still on Twitter to this day. Sometimes, I managed to discuss with some, covering themes like consent, animal sexual behavior, and my mental health.

On the 7th of September, two days after publishing my post, my account was suspended. That may be not surprising, however, the reasoning was. It “has been suspended for violating the Twitter Rules due to a user report. Specifically, for violating our rules against graphic violence or adult content in profile images”. My profile picture shows a grey horse facing the camera in front of a sapling forest, and my banner a few horses grazing in a field during sunset, both pictures were found by typing on DuckDuckGo “horse picture copyright free” and picking some of the first results. I appealed and the next day Twitter refused to reinstate my account without giving further explanation. I appealed again, demanded to get more details, and received the same answer.

This decision reminded me of the one pronounced in Germany in the years 2009 – 2010 when the Zeta Verein association tried to legally register as an association. It was refused as their goal was “against public decency”, no other explanation was given. It also made me think about what happened to the French community, which between 2019 and 2021 tried to present its arguments in an attempt to prevent the new law from being too harsh on zoosexuals. On the 29th of June 2021, following a complaint against an unknown that was filed by Animal Cross and its president Benoit Thomé for death threats, identity theft, and harassment, a raid took place in the houses of members of the community. (4) Two years of procedure later, no evidence had been found against them. However, following an investigation for doxing, Mr. Benoit Thomé will be trialed in 2024 for the publication on the website of his association of an “interview of a zoophile” that gave at its end the address and name of someone he thought to be a member of the community.

As was shown with this event, even tho contradictory debates shall be at the core of democracy, giving arguments defending zoosexuality can have consequences, for zoosexuals but also researchers, politicians, and journalists, and even lead to censorship. However, with the aggravation of the severity of the punishment following a conviction for zoosexual acts, the necessity of a rational examination of such a ban becomes undeniable. Therefore, the taboo surrounding this topic must be broken and, in that matter, the censorship of any debate about the prohibition of zoosexual acts on Twitter isn’t a good start.

Charles Menni

Der Beitrag When the debate about Zoosexuality reaches Twitter erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

Zooier Than Thou was started by Douglas LeConte Spink (Fausty), who went through a tough time for being a zoophile and even went to jail for it. During that time many lies were spread about him as well. Fausty did not retire after his prison sentence, but instead deliberately sought to educate the public about zoophilia. Among other things he had many conversations with the journalist Carreen Maloney, so that his story was finally published in the book “Uniquely Dangerous” .

A month ago Fausty died of cancer. Inviting zoos from other countries to join his podcast and especially interviewing our founding member Michael Kiok was one of Fausty’s goals. Now the first episode with Michael and Komet is online. More will surely follow.

And may Faustys memory be a blessing to us all.

Der Beitrag Zooier Than Thou erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

1. The appeal is granted. The Federal Constitutional Court would come to the conclusion that we were “meant” by thislaw and this would be considered as a inappropriate restriction of the right ?on sexual self-determination . The law would be history and we would have achieved a moderate political  success.
2. The appeal is not accepted for decision. The Federal Constitutional Court would state that we are not meant by the law, but only those people who apply sexual violence to animals (as by forcing them to sex). Then our constitutional complaint would indeed seem to be failed, but the clarification of the Constitutional Court would mean that our goal, to have sexual partnerships between humans and other animals regarded as legal in the public opinion again, would still be achieved.

Der Beitrag Why we see our lawsuit against §3 Satz 1 Nummer 13 TierSchG as a success erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

“to use an animal for own sexual acts or to train it to be used by other persons for sexual acts and to force it by this into a behaviour, which is against the nature of its species.”

The fine can be up to 25.000 Euros.

In the public debate, this law is referred to as “Zoophilieverbot”, the ban on zoophilia.

The aim of the Zoophilieverbot is to enforce the protection of animals against sexual assaults. However, sexual violence was liable to prosecution before by the animal welfare law §17 and §18. This has not been changed.

On December 8, 2015, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected a complaint against the § 3 subparagraph 13 of the Animal Welfare Law. The explanatory statement specifies, this rule is fulfilled only if the animal is forced into a behaviour which is against the nature of its species.

The court says, that this force has to be equal to physical violence to fulfill this rule. Thus, the sexual intercourse with non-human animals is not prohibited generally.

Der Beitrag Germany’s constitutional court decides about the supposed zoosexuality ban. erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

On February the 1st in 2013, the Federal Council of Germany rubber-stamped an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, which contains, in our opinion, a purely political motivated ban of consensual intimate contact between humans and animals. This violation of the human right for free development of personality was established by reason of the assumption that there would be numerous animal brothels in Germany. The Badische Zeitung did some research and in September the 28th in 2012 they published the very revealing article “Are there any animal brothels in Germany?”. None have been found by this day. However, the originally planned ban on castration of male piglets without anesthesia, as well as the ban of branding horses has been moved some years into the future. No need for further explanations. Despite our efforts the legislation ignored us during the whole process and established a law based only on moral principles to supress and criminalize a minority, which is unconstitutional in the eye of some liberal legal practitioners.

This law is counterproductive in it’s current form and creates a dangerous example.

As an association for the interests of zoophile people, we are committed to:

results-oriented politics without blind activism
decriminalization and a support of scientific studies of the phenomenon zoophilia
a society with a secular morality, whose goal is the welfare of all living beings
a respectful approach to the personality and sexuality of all creatures

During this year there will be a panel discussion on the topic. In previous years we always had held a panel discussion and a demonstration in Berlin in time for the ZRD . For organizational and climatic reasons, these will now be moved to the warmer months.

Der Beitrag ZRD 2016 erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

In the winter of 2015­-2016, Canada has been forced to re­open some of the debate around its
bestiality laws. The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is “Does bestiality require
the penetration of a penis or does bestiality include fondling or oral sexual contact?” The answer
given by the lower courts may be surprising to the lay person.

Brief History of Bestiality in Canada

In early Canada there were few criminal cases pursued against buggery and sodomy. When
these cases did make it to trial they were often left unprosecuted unless a violent or abusive
narrative was involved. In fact, while the sentence for these crimes was death until 1841, when
compared with other commonwealth countries, very few Canadians ever faced such severe
punishment.

In 1969 there was a brief period of hope that when homosexuals, via the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, gained some of their rights and freedoms in Canada zoosexuals would also
gain their rights with the removal of the sodomy and buggery laws. Unfortunately, this hope did
not last as the social conservative and religious backlash caused by these changes were not
handled well by the then government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The anti­homosexual laws
remained and exceptions were made for only certain instances of homosexual practice. This
meant that anti­zoosexual laws were left unchanged. Remnants of these polices can still be
found today? for example, if three homosexual men engage in acts of anal intercourse together,
they are breaking the law in Canada to this day.

The current law, section 160 of the Canadian Criminal code, came into effect in 1985, with only
a few minor cosmetic changes in the last 30 years.

It reads, in part,

Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on
summary conviction.

In 2011, Bill C10 was passed in an attempt by the socially conservative government to impose
more sexual morals on Canadians by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for many
already illegal sexual acts. Most of the changes were in sections of the criminal code which
were seldom used.

It has been argued that the act of zoosexual behavior should be a protected act under the
charter of rights and freedoms of Canada.(1) As outlined in the 1995 case before the Supreme
Court, Egan v Canada, sexual orientation should be a protected right.(2)

Current Case before the Supreme court

The case before the Supreme court of Canada is an unfortunately disturbing one. My analysis is
that of an average citizen who is familiar with the laws around zoosexuality and animal rights in
Canada but with no formal training in law.

The facts are these: A man serially raped his daughters for over a decade. In four instances he
used the family dog. The dog never had penetrative sex and was used to orally stimulate the
daughters. While the man was found guilty on repeat charges of rape, the British Columbia
provincial court and BC superior court both ruled that the interpretation of oral stimulation as
bestiality was not legally correct.

The BC attorney general has brought forth case number 36450 to the Supreme Court of
Canada arguing that this is neither an animal protection case, nor is there a case for limiting the
interpretation of a moral law. The argument they brought forward is that all sexual contact with
animals should be made illegal because the law in this section of criminal code deals with public
morals and that any infraction should be dealt with in that light.(3)

It should be obvious that any thinking person, myself included, will condemn the rape of the
young girls and the treatment of the dog in question. The young girls were obviously harmed in
the acts their father performed. It is interesting to note that the dog seems to have been
indifferent to the whole affair. No reports of the dog’s welfare have been made, unlike cases
where zoosexuals have suddenly had animals seized due to “abuse”. It is worth noting the
interesting double standard.

With no zoophile organizations in Canada to intervene there is no one mentioning the protection
of both the rights of the animal in question nor the rights of normal zoosexual individuals
involved in non­abusive relationships with animals. Rather, the only interested intervener was
“Animal Justice Canada” a legal defense fund for animals. While, according to their webpage,
they do a lot of work for animals it is difficult to find a lot of collaborating information on the
group outside of their web presence. Those successes listed, while laudable, seem to be low
hanging fruit. Even the founder is more notable for his several failed attempts at political office
than his animal welfare work. Animal Justice’s perspective is that animals must be protected
and that any sexual contact, including mutually enjoyable contact or when the contact is initiated
by an animal, is abuse because animals cannot consent. The attorney general makes a more
persuasive case that the section of the legal code involves sexual morals, animal protection
being in an entirely different section of the code and not the reason for the proscription against
bestiality.

I think it is important to examine the argument that consent is required from an animal before a
physical touch is involved. At what level of touch does the consent issue come into play? Under
Canadian law if you do not consent to be touched, anyone who does so can be considered to
be assaulting you. Will we then outlaw animals as pets? And what of the food industry whose
long habit of controlling every intimate detail of animal reproduction includes, under any
reasonable definition, the rape of cows, bulls, sows, mares, stallions and so forth. Do those
animals consent? Is animal rape okay when it is done for no enjoyment but solely for money?
Live cover is so seldom used in animal husbandry practices anymore that any definition of
bestiality that includes the touching of animal genitals which exempts AI and semen collection is
would appear to be a religiously moral law that has nothing to do with either animal protection or
the defense of man’s respectability. We have already lost those in our treatment of animals.

It is a given amongst zoophiles that animals can consent and that the consent should be sought
out. The broader implication of this is that many of the acts we perform on animals should also
require this same protection. In the end, I would happily take my chances and give up my rights
if the result of this case were to protect millions of animals from abusive practices, but we all
know that this is not going to be the case.

Animal Justice claims:

This is the first time in Canadian history that the top court has considered any legislation
directly protecting animals. It’s also one of the first times that animal advocates have
been granted permission to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Animal
Justice intervened to ensure the Supreme Court hears the perspective of countless
animals who have no voices of their own. Whatever the outcome of the case, it was a
victory for us to be there and speak for them.

which is simply a mischaracterization of the case in question. It is unfortunately the court was so
bereft of guidance that a group such as this was allowed intervener status. The biggest problem
with this group is their argument of what is necessary and unnecessary harm and indeed what
qualifies as harm. Their submission does not provide facts and information? rather it assumes
facts which are very much not in evidence. Is artificial insemination in which an arm is placed
without any sedation inside a mare a necessary harm? Is cunnilingus on a mare in which the
mare backs into the feeling with no restraint a harm at all? I would love to see any debate on
these topics and indeed on how we treat animals before the supreme court but, of course, that
would be out of the question. As with most animal rights groups, this group considers animals
as “lesser” than humans and that they must be protected even from things they might like.(4)

Moreover, the criminal code of Canada already protects animals from harm via animal
protection sections. Section 160, the bestiality provision, is simply an antiquated leftover from
when buggery was part of the penal code. We could hope it will be struck down and certainly
hope the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with the limits set forth by the supreme court of
British Columbia. Canada needs an organization similar to ZETA to organize a legal defense
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to provide education to the public and provide
resources to zoosexuals who have a hard time reconciling their place as part of a society that
reviles them so much.

Hopefully in the future we will have a better way than outlawing something that is truly harmless
to protect both our animal companions and those animals we use for farming.

Further reading
1. http://www.inter­disciplinary.net/wp­content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egan_v_Canada
3. http://www.scc­csc.ca/WebDocuments­DocumentsWeb/36450/FM010_Appellant_Her­Majesty­the­Queen.pdf
4. http://www.scc­csc.ca/WebDocuments­DocumentsWeb/36450/FM030_Intervener_Animal­Justice.pdf

Der Beitrag Guest Submission: The Law in Canada erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

The quickest answer came from PETA with an astonishing question to answer time of 20 minutes!

“We support neutering as the better option. Vasectomies leave reproductive urges intact, while neutering greatly diminishes and possibly eliminates them. Dogs who have been neutered are far less likely to roam far from home or fight.  Additionally, they are protected from testicular cancer and run less risk of contracting prostate disease.”

According to the recent scientific Articles behavioral changes due to neutering/spaying differs from case to case. The outcome and impact of neutering/spaying can not be determinded beforehand. The reproductive urges are not determined by the gonads, but by the brain itself. Yes, hormones have an impact on the urges, BUT they are not the only factor!
Calling the removal of an organ that can get cancer as “cancer prevention” appears to be inappropriate,too. Think about  removing a lung because you could get lungcancer.

The Humane Society International (HSI) sent an apology for not answering as quickly  as they wanted, because they forwarded the mail to their veterinarian division and these forwarded it to their senior staff veterinarian. Sadly said “senior staff veterinarian” didn’t write an answer till today (14.01.2016).

Last one till now are the World Animal Protection USA who didn’t answer the mail in person but linked to an Online article:

“We’re sending you a link that may interest you. (although there is more research out there)

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/June-2010/The-Trouble-With-Pet-Sterilization/“

While this Article is quite interesting (and goes straight to our question) it shows for us how hard it is even for vets themselves to talk about this topic. The writer concludes with:

“[…] the lack of discussion on this subject in academia and its apparent hard sell among veterinarians in practice is enough to make me wonder whether the most likely answer to the question of veterinary disinterest in these procedures—as with any safe surgical procedures with legitimate applications––has much more to do with fashion than with anything else.”

As we noticed that the terminology seems not to be consistent when talking about this topic, we also asked the blogger known as SkeptVet (http://skeptvet.com/) to help us out a bit by giving us the insight of an American Veterinarian.

“As far as terminology, you are correct this is often inconsistent. Technically, “neutering” means to remove the gonads, and “sterilization” means to render an animal unable to reproduce. Since neutering is the primary method of sterilization in the U.S., the words are often used interchangeably. “Castration” technically also means removal of the gonads, but it seems to be used most commonly in U.S. English to mean removal of testes, which “spaying” used for removal of ovaries.!”

“Techniques which prevent reproduction but do not alter sex hormones, (such as vasectomy and tubal ligation) are essentially the same as not neutering in terms of the health risks and benefits. These procedures do prevent reproduction, which reduces the number of unwanted puppies (which is one of the major reasons neutering is done). And they do reduce the risks associated with reproduction, particularly in females. However, the other health conditions associated with neutering are unaffected by these techniques.”

So what are these risks? Linked in the answer we got from SkeptVet is the following paper: “Evaluating the benefits and risks of neutering dogs and cats” http://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Benefiits-Risks-of-Neutering-in-Dogs-and-Cats.pdf

Here are the paper’s tables about the effects of neutering:

For an in dept explanations please read the paper yourself as SkeptVet shows the inconsistency of scientific data.

Conclusion:
Neutering/spaying and their alternatives are a very complex field in science and furthermore in a discussion with animalprotection services. Although all the participants know about the alternatives, those aren’t given a chance to be used in the US due to the fact that there seems to be a lack of interest.

It is your and our mission as pet owners to ask the vets, ask the protection services and last but not least the scientists, because only when we ask we can change something and show that there is an interest in scientific works towards our concerns.

Personal Opinion from the Autor:
As I here have the option towards vasectomy and tubal ligation I would use it. I know about the risks and would like to talk about cancer screenings for animals, because  in my opinion these would be the better treatment.

Der Beitrag Castration: without an alternative in the US? erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.