Interesting legislation

quote:

It's also my opinion that the majority of dogs in shelters, dying, are there because people are not ready for a pet to be a long haul commitment and when something comes up they dump it. S/N does not help with "we're moving"..."we've got a new baby"..."he barks too much"..."we don't have time for him anymore"....etc.

 
I wholeheartedly agree with this too! 

One less responsible breeder=one more puppy sold in the pet store, Amish mill, or by fly by night BYB's.
 
Responsible breeding is SO not cheap to do...everything you add on top of it really really makes it more difficult to continue on.
 
Now some laws I have read DO allow for you to submit say, entries from a show within the past year or 6 months for each unaltered dog...but fact is...when a dog is done showing and finished...you don't show them anymore usually...you keep them to further your line or use at stud...what then? Some dogs are not ready to be shown until they are more than 1 year old, what then? Again you are forced to spend more money per dog to "fake" enter them in shows just to keep the man off your back! Bottom line is responsible breeders are being forced to pay to do something that those that breed for Hunte Corp can do for free...and if they had to pay anything you can bet they'd have the money to do it before I would!
 
Then factor in the people who will catch on and "enter" shows with dogs they have no intention of ever showing...just to "get over"....the only way to know if a dog was actually exhibited would be to check the judges book lol! But then there will be even stricter laws or higher fees to counteract THAT....and again the responsible breeder will have to pay pay pay....
 
But...that is apparently the plan...to make it harder and harder for the people who breed the right way...to do so, and then eventually...when the only place people can get a dog is the shelter rescue (sounds good, except that won't be the place many people will ever look if they want a purebred puppy), or the pet shop (if you want a purebred puppy)...or some JimBob or Amish kennel outside city limits...well I am sure that'll be okay.

I do think that the fact that this community is trying to enact an across the board dangorous dog law should be seen as a positive thing.

 
Because it's better than BSL??  I think a poorly executed "dangerous dog" law could be even more damaging, with a greater scope of impact. 
 
I CAN see it as a ositive if only from the point that if they want to do this right, it will be an education to the lawmakers and residents on exactly the things we're discussing... How do you measure an "attack", who qualifies as a "victim", what distinguishes "provoked", etc etc... In other words, dilligently issuing a fair and reasonable law means delving deep enough into this to only address the truly dangerous animals they're saying their town needs protection from.  If a small town doesn't have the time/where-with-all to hold a trial (as described above) or find some other means to evaluate each and every case, then maybe they shouldn't have this law if they cannot reasonably uphold it and the rights of the accused.

The new law will require anyone who does not have their dog or cat spayed/neutered to register for a breeder's license

 
Gina - I'm confused.  Is a breeder's license difficult or expensive to get?  If not, why wouldn't someone like yourself simply register as a breeder? 

Unfortunately for everyone who had questions on the specifics of the laws, I don't have anymore information. The article was vague and I haven't been able to find anything else online about it. But it at least seems like the city is heading in the right direction as far as it's thinking on these issues.
 
I like the idea of "dangerous dog" bans much more than breed bans. I also like the idea of having a trial to determine the character and history of the dog before just condemning it for biting when a bite may have been necessary. But I think a blanket "dangerous dog" ban will be a hard thing to enforce, so they'll probably have to do some refining if they hope to pass that one.
 
As far as the spay/neuter law, I like the idea behind that as well--although I agree that it would be very hard to enforce. At the very least, maybe it would make people who don't do it out of laziness or money concerns (along with it, they would be offereing low cost spay/neuter programs) realize that it is something that needs to be done. The Tacoma Humane Society is hoping to become a no-kill by 2008, so they are really trying to get out into the community and educate people about 1. spaying/neutering 2. dog behavior/training (to fix problems before people just give up and "dump" their animals) and 3. helping people adopt the "correct" animal for their family so they don't get so many returns. I think these laws are a result of the HS efforts to educate people

Absolutely! That is positive...and MUCH better than BSL by miles and miles.
 
the problem I see is that....many many bites or fatal attacks, are occuring from dogs running LOOSE or escaping. Now...in majority of these places...it's already illegal to allow your dogs to run loose. WHERE is the enforcement tho?
 
It comes down to manpower...understaffed and underfunded....there aren't enough people at even our fairly large AC for them to have a person out to round up strays when called...any sooner than 45 MINUTES to and HOUR after you call them! that to me...is ridiculous...Arlington ain't that big, lmao! You can drive thru it in 20 minutes! But they have ONE or two guys for the whole city in one or two trucks...not enough given all they have to do.
 
I wish they'd fund the AC better and give them people that were capable and more of them.
 
On the subject of provocation....many bites occur to children from the family pet....I would say those dogs that administer a bite after living with a child sitting on them, hitting them on the head, for months or years...were provoked...but many others would disagree...including the childs parents most likely...in fact many people are seemingly incapable of reading their own dogs body language as relates to family dynamics....is that dog dangerous and deserving of being put down? Maybe so...now...it's gone far and taken much to get it there but now it may indeed be dangerous...but shouldn't that family ALSO be punished and deemed "dangerous" to dogs?

The article was vague and I haven't been able to find anything else online about it.

And, so the unsuspecting voters in that town will think, "Hmm, yeah, protecting against dangerous dogs is a good idea - CHECK, I vote for that." 
"Oh, mandate spay/neuters...?  Well, I spayed my dog and I don't have a problem with it.  It would sure cut down on those poor cats and dogs left in shelters.  Sounds like a good idea - CHECK, I vote for that, too."
 
And that's how we all get punished by bad laws.

I dont have a problem with paying more for intact animals.  Personal responsibility to address a community problem.  That is ok with me since we often see shelter statistics as tonage.  So if my intact animals result in more spays and neuters, if it provides more funding for services, I dont have a problem with it.
 
As to dangerous dog legislation, the time I spend in herding (especially with Nora) would put me at risk.  I prefer individual dogs verses breeds but would appreciate input into the language of the law as well as the regulations for implimentation.

The Tacoma Humane Society is hoping to become a no-kill by 2008, so they are really trying to get out into the community and educate people about 1. spaying/neutering 2. dog behavior/training (to fix problems before people just give up and "dump" their animals) and 3. helping people adopt the "correct" animal for their family so they don't get so many returns.

[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif] - DOUBLE for that!!!
 
 

Cakana...it depends...I believe some of the ones in Cali are around $500 per year (because if they are too cheap then the "thugs" can afford them! Gasp!), they will rise as people find ways around them as well, that's the way anti-breeding legislation works, foot in the door then more more more. It depends on what the city sets. They also in some places, want to come and inspect your home and dogs before giving you one...do they do that for you to license your pet? I would not allow that....if someone has complained, sure come on in....but search me and my private premises without there being any other reason than I'd like to show and breed my dogs? Heck no...

MRV neither do I....in fact I do so already.....s/n dog license is $5.00...intact is $15 I believe. That's a whole lot different than a breeder's license that can top $200-500 and include an inspection. Whole lot different than being TOLD you must have surgery done on your animal on their schedule...but your financial dime and emotional dime as well...should anything go wrong.
 
I hope that people who do live where these mandatory s/n are in effect, are taking their cases to court if their animal dies on the op table during a s/n...if the city is going to require that something be done then they need to step up when it results in death or extreme trauma to the animal. Butfor their law, that animal would still be alive and well...heck I'd send them my carpet cleaning bill for if my bitch developed spay incontinence...lmao.

Miranadobe,
Yep...only give them enough info to make it sound innocuous and like a great idea lol...
You're so right! [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

I agree that there should be no way they'd come into people's house to search for "unfixed" pets. Plus, as you pointed out, how would they know on a female? The best way I see of getting around that is people showing proof when they license their animals. But that would only work in an area where licensing is required. It would still help solve some of the problems associated with people in cities who just let their animals wander around and have babies.

ORIGINAL: mrv

I dont have a problem with paying more for intact animals.  Personal responsibility to address a community problem.  That is ok with me since we often see shelter statistics as tonage.  So if my intact animals result in more spays and neuters, if it provides more funding for services, I dont have a problem with it.

As to dangerous dog legislation, the time I spend in herding (especially with Nora) would put me at risk.  I prefer individual dogs verses breeds but would appreciate input into the language of the law as well as the regulations for implimentation.

 
I don't see how that would put you at risk unless you herd people's animals without permission.....which I doubt...

It would also solve the problem if they had enough manpower to pick UP those wandering animals and issue the citations or rehome them, fixed, if they weren't claimed.
 
Fact is most places AC is undermanned and overwhelmed so these knee jerk fixes come up. It's already illegal in most states to allow a bitch in season to wander free...in fact in some of our southern states it's permissible (due to "archaic laws") to SHOOT them on sight! That's how serious it was once taken....now due to lack of resources the dog catcher is waaay overworked...
 
No not saying they should be shot....just using that to point out that we aren't the first generation to worry about dogs wandering around making babies []