Money.... there's hardly enough of it to help people's uncontrolled breeding and all the problems that become of it, let alone other species.

It sounds like a great idea but... not realistic for now at least.

We haven't even gotten down birth control correct for people as yet. The new products that keep coming on the market for less and less periods have been causing major problems...one of them was taken off the market recently. Spaying and neutering is much better as unneeded medications will not pollute the animals. Even people get "fixed" when they don't want kids. (men get vasectomies and women get their tubes tied.) I guess the pharmaceutical companies figured that anyone who cares that much about their pets will do the right thing and get them fixed...especially since it cuts down on diseases in pets such as UTI and cancer. As for strays, if people got their pets fixed their would be less strays, If we shut down the pet stores and puppy mills even less strays. And mnay people especially nowadays have enough trouble paying for food for their own pets...who is going to buy medication for strays?

People can barely manage their own birth control well enough as it is. At least when we mess up, it only results in one child (usually). If you forget to give Fluffy their pill, then you could end up with half a dozen "babies". And honestly, what's the point? Either your pet is suitable for breeding, or they're not. And if they're not, YOU SHOULD JUST SPAY THEM. And heck, even if they are suitable for breeding, 99% of the time, you still shouldn't be breeding them.

I'll tell you why. Because so many people are inherently irresponsible when it comes to their pets. People dont want to pay a hundred dollar vet bill every six months to get their animal checked out in order to get the medication. No to mention trying to get them to dose their animal on a monthly basis on top of that. NEXT and this is a big one - there are TOO MANY hormone therapies going on already fish and other marine invertebrates and other sea creatures are having trouble due to all of the unnatural hormones getting flushed down the toilet and tossed into the environment in other ways. When fixing a pet is easy, one time cost, relatively safe and permanent why put all that money and energy into placing more hormones into an environment already saturated with hormones.

You make my day mazer! :~)

Add to the list of problems: the side effects that result from use of hormones.

Yep, I don't understand why there's a need? Spaying/neutering is not only an effective, permanent and fairly low-cost form of population control, it eliminates the risk of certain cancers (testicular, ovarian and uterine) and greatly reduces the risk of prostate and mammary cancers.

Also, while S/N is not the be all end all solution for behavioral issues that it is often touted to be, studies have shown that in general N/S pets are less aggressive, less likely to fight, less likely to bite, less territorial and less likely to roam. Marking behavior is greatly reduced as well

Finally, sterilization does not change the pet's personality or cause weight gain. The same can not be said of hormonal birth control.

Do you think people applying for grants give a whit about any of the above? I was thinking more in terms of a once a year patch or something that would work with a one-time process. My whole point was that it seems there would be lots of money in such research and also would be lots of takers but yet, we aren't hearing about it if it exist

I recall reading about various animals in the wild being given some sort of one-time-only birth control but can't recall what or who they were using.

Spaying and neutering is expensive and not an option for everyone.

There are low cost and free spay/neuter programs. Even if there aren't these programs in a particular town, a spay from a vet runs $80 - $150. A monthly prescription for birth control would likely cost $30 or more a month. A "once a year shot" would likely be the same as or exceed the cost of a spay. So spay/neuter is really not expensive at all.

Most areas offer low-cost spay and neutering, which costs way less, in the long run, than caring for 10 pets.

Medication is unsure and has side-effects. Current medical procedures work. Medications would actually cost more.

Spay/neuter is part of responsible pet ownership, and like providing needed food and vet care, should be considered when getting a pet.

Here is a link that might be useful: One example

Maybe what they ought to do is making these kinds of surgerys a requirement to be a vet- you take your pet into these big,buildings where hundreds and hundreds of vets- to- be who are doing it free of charge one after another and another, you don't pay, its just done.

its either that or make it unlawful to keep a dog or cat that isn't fixed- or just accpet that nothing will ever get any better..

Research and money to prevent more unwanted cats and dogs via medications is sort of like spending time and money figuring out how to create a barrier for a doorway. Just close the durn door! (ie. spay/neuter) Spend the research money on cures for diseases which afflict pets who are loved and wanted.

The ongoing expense of birth control medication would be as much as, probably more than, the one-time expense of spay/neuter. The level of effort of making sure it was used correctly would be vastly more than the level of effort involved in a one-time spay/neuter. It would also be a greater level of effort and expense than keeping your unspayed female confined while she is in heat, so there would not even be a real benefit to someone who planned to breed. Even humans often fail to always use our own birth control properly, and the consequences of raising an unwanted child are huge. No one's developing it because there realistically would be no market for it.

In addition to what was already stated, what about males? This is only for females obviously, and any un-neutered male can impregnate a female that is not spayed or not on birth control.

Most people find giving monthly heartworm pills hard enough - they forget or become lazy or don't want to spend the money. I think birth control (whether monthly pills or yearly injections) is a good thought, but too many people would opt to do this over the permanent surgery and then would most likely fade out of it.

Also, wouldn't the female still go into heat? I know that human females who are on birth control go through their menstrual cycle in between periods of birth control use - it would be dangerous to never have a menstrual cycle.

Actually, a simple Google search shows that there are several contraceptive vaccines that are are under development or testing. These vaccines are seen as particularly important to reduce the feral cat problem and animal welfare groups have provided some of the funding for the vaccine development.

You can do a google search for lots more information on it or visit this website:

Here is a link that might be useful: Alliance for Contraception in Dogs and Cats

Its probably just as expensive as fixing them anyway.

I've read a few research summaries about contraception for deer. The deer population is growing and they are becoming a huge nusiance is some parts of the country, I can imagine the hurdles for giving contraception to deer would be similar for feral cats.

As far as domesticated animals, it should be as easy as heartworm prevention. A once a month pill... however we already have excess hormones in our environment feminizing the fish and amphibian populations due to human hormone based contraception.... I tend to think that we can contain/supervise/spay and neuter with great results and minimal impacts...

Honestly if you can not afford to spay/neuter your animal you probably should not have one. If you can't afford a simple procedure, then what happens if something bad happens to the animals? Like an accident? Why people get pets they can't afford I will never understand.

Spaying and neutering is part of the cost of owning a pet, just like vaccines, heartworm prevention, flea/tick control, wellness exams, and feeding them. If one can't afford to do these things, then one cannot afford to own a pet. Nobody NEEDS a pet- it is a luxury.

Most rescue organizations spay/neuter before allowing the animal to be adopted, and their adoption fees are generally very reasonable. If one had limited budget and truly desired a pet, this is a very cost-effective way to get a pet with some of the basic healthcare matters already taken care of. I got my Tatyana, a full-bred Husky, for $125, current on vaccines, heartworm negative and on prevention, and spayed from a local rescue.

I totally agree with Mazer on the reasons an alternative birth control for pets hasn't been developed. It's not needed.

I don't think its the COST of spaying and neutering that the OP is hesitant about. Over the life of the pet, the cost of birth control would far exceed the cost of a spay....

Perhaps she has other issues besides cost?

Actually, the OP mentioned in her second post "Spaying and neutering is expensive and not an option for everyone."

Do you think people applying for grants give a whit about any of the above?

The most important section in any grant application is the "Need" section where you convince reviewers that there is a real and compelling need for the research you are asking them to fund. Given the laundry list of reasons a group of lay people generated within moments about why such research is not needed, at least with respect to domestic animals, I find it difficult to believe that any granting agency would be readily convinced to provide funding.

Exactly, holligator. Carmen, i took the time to list the reasons (other than population control) to spay/neuter to remind you (and others) why exactly spay/neuter is important. in doing so, I digressed from the original topic slightly, but you never answered the question of why you are so against spaying your pet-quality Lab?

As for deer...... they should just let hunters take as many deer as they please for like 3 or 5 years... look what heavy uncontrolled hunting did to bison.. millions down to 500. HOWEVER that was uncontrolled for a whole gen (30+ years), I'm talking like for 3 to 5 years. THAT would do it... and curtainly is more realistic then allowing wolves to reclaim all their formal range.

Its silly to birth control pets, just fix them/ or don't have one.

can't believe i'm saying this but:

Well said, runsnwalken :-)

Surprised you... didn't I?

Ideally we could let big predators(Wolves, Grizzlys,mountain lions), come back full circle, but sense we farm, and changed things, it isn't possible.

Pets have different systems then we do and therefore need spying/neutering.