Additional charge for intact dogs?

So I was about to sign Talon up for a training class that starts Jan 8th, but while doing so I realized his vaccinations would be due soon. So I have to get that done before I can start the class. I did their vaccinations at a vet in Tacoma that does low cost vaccines so I don't have to pay for a checkup as well, and do the checkup's separately at my vet. I loved the low cost clinic their, the vet's were awesome, the staff were awesome, and they understood about Art's special needs. They were my go to vet for most things non-emergency.

Well, I decided to look around to see if I could find a low cost clinic so I could get Talon's one vaccination done without having to pay an exam fee at my normal vet here. I found one that did $18 for the DAPP and $18 for 3-year Rabies and a required $10 for a small exam. It's not bad compared to $50 for an exam plus cost of shots.

As I was looking I found this:

I'm just a bit baffled as to why they would require more money because your dog has all it's bits. I mean, it's not like it automatically makes the dog harder to deal with.

Any thoughts?

Yep, there are several clinics in my area who do this. The intention is to punish those with intact dogs in the hopes it will encourage altering. Because, you know, that's sure to work. Dumb. All it does is discourage people with intact dogs from using their clinic. I'm pretty confident nobody has read that and thought, well gee then I'll get him neutered to save the $20!

I won't support clinics with differential fees like that. Now, my county charges $11 more per rabies license on intact dogs, likely on the premise that intact dogs "cost" the county more because they breed (still off base IMO but makes a LITTLE more sense). That's only per rabies tag though and I can't really opt out, so it is what it is. And it's only $11.

Same end effect but most of the ones I see are worded inversely: ___ is the cost BUT if your dog is altered then you get the rebate and only have to pay ____!

This is pretty common.

Our vet even charges more per office visit for intact dogs. And the city charges more to register them.
It's supposed to encourage s/n.

...I think it just encourages people to not register their intact dogs or take them to the vet lol

I actually think that wording makes more sense. I realize the practical effect is the same, but I think it's very different to read "you get a discount!" than "You and your dog's dirty gonads have to pay extra!" If places are going to charge differential fees based on dogs being sexually intact, a discount for altering makes more sense than a penalty for leaving intact. One comes across as positive reinforcement; the other punishment.

WHOA really?

I couldn't pay that vet. No criticism of you as I'm sure you have your reasons. But I'd be out of there so fast. I'd just feel so unwelcome with a policy like that.

This is the first I've ever seen or heard of that! Only time I've seen a price difference for intact animals is when it comes to city licenses. And, I don't license my dogs anyway, but last I saw (which was a few years ago), in my city it was only $10 more if your dog was intact.

Actually now that I think about it, we sell licenses where I work (different city from where I live though), and the form asks if they're spayed/neutered but there doesn't appear to be a difference in price if they're not.

Paying more for exams and vaccines? Sounds a little ridiculous.

*shrug* He's the best in the area lol best office, nice guy overall, licensed and friendly staff, best equipment, best surgical record, happy other clients, went to Cornell.

I pay for the service and his experience/education, their policy was a tiny blip on the radar but ehh he doesn't pester me about Merlin being un-neutered (which I've found most vets do regardless of price policy,so frankly, I'll take the extra money over the pain in the ass questioning)

I personally think it's a bit ridiculous. But I also think it's ridiculous that my I am expected to tip the girl that washes my hair at the salon 15% of the price of the whole shebang.
But it's their view. And my hair always looks amazing so at the end of the day... I'll take shelling out a little extra for something to a place that is overall amazing, with a small thing I find kind of weird.

I understand the sentiment and I understand WHY some vets/cities might think this would encourage people to s/n.
and I would assume the response to learning of this policy from average pet owners/MOST PEOPLE is overall good.
I also realize that as a responsible intact dog owner who isn't going to breed her dog and didn't get her dog off kijiji... I'm kind of the minority when it comes to those heading into the vets with their intact dog.

Wow, I'm suprised this is so widespread! This is the first time I've seen anything like this (other than the city tags). I'm shocked they think this works. Though they probably get less intact dogs coming in so think "see, it's working! There are less intact dogs!" um....yeah.

Plus, it's not like this area has 4 other low-cost vaccination places in the same city that do NOT add fee's for intact dogs. :rofl1:

That's just so ridiculous.

Though, now that I've read my training places requirements, they don't specifically require certain vaccinations, they require veterinary permission to join groups of dogs with some sort of vaccination protocol, blood testing, or other proven methods. So I may just look into doing blood titering instead. THough I don't know exactly how that works and I'll likely have to do his vaccination this time anyways since the class is so soon.

Huh, I've never heard of such a thing in my life. Must be a regional thing.

Same here. Actually, my vet's (and his wife's) contempt for my dog's testicles is one reason I was happy to leave the clinic I was working at.

If you want to charge me extra because my dog has testicles, then you don't get any of my money to begin with. I'll do vaccines on my own, kthnxbai.

The city here charges more for intact dogs to be licensed. But Logan is a service dog, so there is no charge for him. TAKE THAT CITY! MY DOG'S TESTICLES ARE SPECIAL!

Wow, I would also find a new vet.

*shrugs* It's normal here. It usually doesn't have the desired effect but whatever. At least they're trying. There are several free or low cost spay/neuter clinics here. I have a hard time imagining most of the people in my area keeping their animals intact due to researching health issues associated with early spueter or something.

Maybe once a clinic realizes you're not trying to breed your dog to anything he wants to hump, they'll be a bit more lenient? I don't know. I've seen way worse things than clinics pushing speuter.

This is really why it doesn't bother me at all even if I have to pay extra. As a responsible owner with an intact dog who isn't breeding, I don't get pestered by them, their policy doesn't leak into their care of Merlin with venom or unwelcomeness.. THEY KNOW I'm not the problem lol and I understand the majority of intact dog owners this policy was created for and the idea of why this policy was created.

Spay/neuter campaigns/policies are what they are. And while I don't agree with the blanket statements of all of them... all in all, I totally get it.

Same with the "adopt dont shop" message or free goodies/incentives for people who adopt their pets. I get the sentiment even if it kind of rubs me the wrong way lol overall, I think they are a good thing

Wow I've never even heard of this before. I had no idea it was a thing at all. Seems really strange to me.

I'll eat my hat if these policies result in more people altering. Seriously. You pick the hat, I'll eat it.

You're right, most people don't keep their pets intact because of well researched health reasons.

But then do you think they're really going to neuter them because the vet charges more?

IMO this has far more to do with shaming people or penalizing them than it does actually promoting spay/neuter. If anything it probably just deters people with intact dogs from showing up at all.

ETA: In the city of Chicago, it's $5 to license an altered dog, and $50 to license an intact dog. Do you know how many intact dogs I saw in rougher areas? And does anybody want to take a guess at how many of those dogs had licenses? The rate of compliance for licensing in the city is TERRIBLE and I saw more intact dogs there than I ever do in the suburbs. And you had to have a license to use the AC's low cost vaccine clinic so a lot of intact dogs got excluded from those services because their owners couldn't afford the $50 fee on top of it.

Sorry, it bothers me. And it bothers me because I think it has much more to do with people feeling good about themselves than it does with actually helping dogs and people. They don't get a pat on the back from me for that.

Target the groups that need the financial assistance with very low cost or free altering. That's what a fabulous rescue group up here does. They target bully breeds in areas where it's common to have fighting rings. They fundraise and get grants to provide spays/neuters and vaccines for free.

I doubt charging more for routine stuff is going to do much to change the mind of those who don't already alter their dogs.

Well to be fair the rate of compliance for licensing any pets in a lot of cities is pretty abysmal, regardless of the cost or reproductive status of the pet.

That's actually pretty laughable, from a logical standpoint.

:hail::hail::hail:

I use a breeder vet. She's 100% fantastic, has done my dogs right every time. She sometimes gives me discounts and while her prices aren't the lowest out there, they're extremely reasonable and for her amount of experience and expertise, it's a bargain.

There's a clinic here in town that does low cost vaccines. All vaccines are $10 each, straight across the board. Microchips $23, you have to send in the chip registration yourself (it's another $20 I think). All of that is regardless of your income, which is pretty awesome. I would never take one of my animals there for a surgery, but to get vaccines done it's affordable and efficient.