Inventor offers $75M for a way to sterilize pets

[Michael]

A very rich, very impatient retired surgeon wants the pet overpopulation solved.

So Gary Michelson has put a hard-to-ignore enticement on the table: $75 million.

The person or group that comes up first with a safe, one-time non-surgical means to sterilize male and female cats and dogs gets $25 million, Michelson's non-profit Found Animals Foundation will announce today at the National Spay/Neuter Conference in Chicago. And up to $50 million more will be available to support the research of one or several individuals who come forward with plausible approaches.

Full story...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-15-michelson-pet-sterilization_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

[Eleven]

That's a really hopeful story.

[Glitterpixie]

Unfortunately, I think that if anything like this did become available then it would do little to solve the overpopulation issue. Many people simply won't have it done, even in area's where neutering and microchipping is offered free then the take up is often low.

My other concern is that it is highly unlikely that any steralisation technique is going to be completely safe, there are bound to be risks and side affects. It is unlikely to be suitable for all individual dogs, just like neutering.

Introducing new steralisation techniques to solve the over population problem is like trying to heal a broken bone with sticking plasters, it may seem like a good idea but it just won't work! The fundamentals of the problem need to be addressed and that is that most people see it as their right to own and breed dogs, regardless of any responsabilitys. People need to start viewing it as a privilege and one for which they have to work to earn. The best proposal I have seen that would do this is is to introduce a system that makes it compulsary to pay to sit a test to obtain a licence to own a dog. A proposal that looks a bit like this - http://www.dogownershiptest.co.uk/the-proposal/

[cheekywhiskers]

Unfortunately, I think that if anything like this did become available then it would do little to solve the overpopulation issue. Many people simply won't have it done, even in area's where neutering and microchipping is offered free then the take up is often low.

My other concern is that it is highly unlikely that any steralisation technique is going to be completely safe, there are bound to be risks and side affects. It is unlikely to be suitable for all individual dogs, just like neutering.

Introducing new steralisation techniques to solve the over population problem is like trying to heal a broken bone with sticking plasters, it may seem like a good idea but it just won't work! The fundamentals of the problem need to be addressed and that is that most people see it as their right to own and breed dogs, regardless of any responsabilitys. People need to start viewing it as a privilege and one for which they have to work to earn. The best proposal I have seen that would do this is is to introduce a system that makes it compulsary to pay to sit a test to obtain a licence to own a dog. A proposal that looks a bit like this - http://www.dogownershiptest.co.uk/the-proposal/

Increased awareness of the overpopulation and availability of low cost S/N clinics have already helped to reduce the number of unwanted pets and the euthanasia rate in shelters. A non-surgical sterilization method would be just another tool to futher help us obtain that goal. It will help people get over their fear of anesethsia, reduce the cost for lower income individuals and managing feral cat populations. A responsibility test is a good idea, but pets are already too wide spread and the cost of finding and fining people who have them without a license or permit is impossible (it also wouldn't help with the feral cat population and unowned animals).

[Glitterpixie]

Increased awareness of the overpopulation and availability of low cost S/N clinics have already helped to reduce the number of unwanted pets and the euthanasia rate in shelters. A non-surgical sterilization method would be just another tool to futher help us obtain that goal. It will help people get over their fear of anesethsia, reduce the cost for lower income individuals and managing feral cat populations.

Any reduction in abandonments over the last few years has been small to say the least, in some areas the numbers have actually gone up despite cheaper s/n. I'm not saying that non-surgical steralization wouldn't help but I think it will be a drop in the ocean while the root cause still remains.


A responsibility test is a good idea, but pets are already too wide spread and the cost of finding and fining people who have them without a license or permit is impossible (it also wouldn't help with the feral cat population and unowned animals).

Impossible? No it is very very possible. Just this year Switzerland introduced a dog ownership test, it's not perfect but they damn well did it. The proposal I linked to is not just a fleeting idea, it has been two years in the making and happens to have some extremely influential backing at both a national and international level. If that proposal is not law in the UK within the next 10 years I will literally eat my hat, I am that sure it will happen.

Of course it will help unowned animals, how did those animals become unowned in the first place?

[Eleven]

I'm not saying that non-surgical steralization wouldn't help but I think it will be a drop in the ocean while the root cause still remains.




I think you underestimate it's potential.

Seems that many people would like a low cost orally administered solution and would find it more palatable than a government required suitability test - at least in the U.S. (the country in which the offer has been made).

[Glitterpixie]

I think you underestimate it's potential.

Seems that many people would like a low cost orally administered solution and would find it more palatable than a government required suitability test - at least in the U.S. (the country in which the offer has been made).


I think you overestimate it's potential.

Firstly someones got to come up with this drug. The pharmaceuticals no doubt know how much of a money spinner this could be and are no doubt trying to come up with something, so far they've got nothing.

Secondly once a drug is developed then it needs to go through clinical trials. I would not be happy giving or recomending such a drug over surgery until it had been passed safe with at least one generations use possibly two. With the avereage lifespan of a dog being over 10 years then that is a long time to wait. Just as in humans, a contraceptive will have side effects. I would not want some of the side effects of the human 'pill' to be present in such a drug. A large dog with an unstable temprement could be potentially very dangerous.

Finally you would have to persuade people to use it. BYBs, the ones mainly responsable for the overpopulation issue, will not be interested. Ignorant people who have the 'accedental' litters would remain ignorant until time and money was invested in educating them about the new 'wonder' drug. In reality such a drug would take in excess of 20 years to bring to market and need widespread support to make any difference at all.

On the otherhand the DOT is already been developed, it has been introduced and tested in switzerland and will be introduced in the UK. The US generally lags behind Europe with animal welfare issues but usually follows eventually with similar legislation. I firmly believe that until the fundamental problems are adressed then anything else leaves you either running round in circles or with 'sticking plaster' solutions.