CA AB 1634 PASSES COMMITTEE ON PARTISAN VOTE, 4/24/07

I am pretty sure that was used in Denver, Rats...or a form of that, where you were "required" to license your Pit to keep it...then a few months later oh look...we're coming to get your dogs. Terrifying...that they did that...to this day I still cannot believe it.

 
Ugh, that is terrifying.....and the exact reason I'm not going to give my information to people with the power to do that kind of thing.
 

Where I live you would be liable for a $50 fine for each dog, and I live out in the boonies.

 
If I ever got caught, I'd suck it up and pay the fine. It's worth the risk to me.
 

I'm not going to flame, but couldn't the government just sieze vet records?

 
Thing is, dog license records belong to the city...so they have that info on hand already. They COULD seize vet records, but they'd first have to pass legislation requireing vets to hand over those records- which is time consuming, costly, and it *probably* wouldn't exactly go over well with vets and the general public. So while yes, they could potentially do it, it'd be a MUCH bigger hassle for them, and if something like that came along, the legislative process to pass that kind of law would probably give me enough time to move/find a safe place for my dogs- whereas they could look at city dog license records and start coming after dogs with little to no warning.

whereas they could look at city dog license records and start coming after dogs with little to no warning.

 
IF it were me and I had a breed that could be part of BSL I would most definitely be putting MIXED in the breed designation field of the form.
 

Thing is, dog license records belong to the city...so they have that info on hand already. They COULD seize vet records, but they'd first have to pass legislation requireing vets to hand over those records- which is time consuming, costly, and it *probably* wouldn't exactly go over well with vets and the general public. So while yes, they could potentially do it, it'd be a MUCH bigger hassle for them, and if something like that came along, the legislative process to pass that kind of law would probably give me enough time to move/find a safe place for my dogs- whereas they could look at city dog license records and start coming after dogs with little to no warning.

 
 
All it takes is "One "silly little phone call to AC for anything, and then they will have access to everything, log license info, vet records...........

The open hearing is May 16th.  You can contact the legislators through the state website.  An email can be sent to the democratic and republican caucus.  I think even out of state folks could make an impact.
 
The issue of non compliance, enforcement and unintended outcomes could be points for dropping the bill.

All it takes is "One "silly little phone call to AC for anything, and then they will have access to everything, log license info, vet records...........

 
They DON'T have instant access to vet records- or at least they shouldn't. Animal control doesn't keep every registered dog's vet records- vets do, and unless they go out and pass a law that specifically requires vets to turn over all of their records to the city, they can't just call a vet and say "Hi, give us all of the vet records for this dog." I'm sure there are confidentiality agreements involved that require the vet to get permission first from the owner to give records to anybody- at least that's my understanding, and if that isn't the case, then I have a HUGE problem with that. My dog's vet records are nobodies business but mine.
 
Either way, I can see ZERO reason for my dogs to be licensed- and plenty of reasons for them not to be. They have plenty of identification if they get lost, so that isn't an issue. The worst that could happen is that I'd get caught and be fined. For me, not having the city knowing the breeds of my dogs is worth the risk of having to pay a fine.
 
And honestly, I can't see myself getting caught. Especially with us about to move way out in the boonies. Unless AC starts driving around and demanding to see every single dog's city licenses, I just can't think of a situation where I'd get caught anyway.
 

IF it were me and I had a breed that could be part of BSL I would most definitely be putting MIXED in the breed designation field of the form.

 
But what if they decide to look into all "Mixed Breed" dogs and see what they look like they're mixed with? I just can't see one good reason for the city to have records of my dogs- all I can see is how it would be used against me. I'm not saying that no one should ever license their dogs...just that right now, with BSL as rampant as it is, I don't feel comfortable doing it.

Ratcicles, I don't know about your state, but where I live once the AC has been contacted and a complaint has been put against you they have the right to confirm rabies shots, and sometimes even check if the dog is altered.

Either way, I can see ZERO reason for my dogs to be licensed- and plenty of reasons for them not to be.

 
It's the law and the responsible thing to do.  One of the arguments the the BSL folks make is that owners of bully breeds aren't responsible owners.  By not licensing your dogs you are just feeding into their argument.
If I see a dog in our apartment complex without their license I report it to our management.  I don't know if the dog has had it's rabies shots or not and the safety of my pets is more important.  At least when I see a license I know that the dog has had it's shots.
 
 

But what if they decide to look into all "Mixed Breed" dogs and see what they look like they're mixed with?

 
I really don't think that the AC is going to get into their black helicopters and check every mixed breed.  They would be looking for the breeds listed as bully breeds.  Actually putting mixed in the breed description is probably the most accurate thing to do.  After all if you don't have a pedigree on the dog and you got it from a shelter you really don't know for sure what the breed is. 

Ratcicles, I don't know about your state, but where I live once the AC has been contacted and a complaint has been put against you they have the right to confirm rabies shots, and sometimes even if the dog is altered.

 
That's if a complaint is filed against you. My dogs don't bark, don't go outside unrestrained, and most of my neighbors don't even know we have dogs. The house we're about to move to is 11 miles from a main road, and we will have no neighbors for miles. The property is double fenced, and my dogs will never, ever be off of my property. Who is going to complain about me, and for what?
 
 

It's the law and the responsible thing to do.  One of the arguments the the BSL folks make is that owners of bully breeds aren't responsible owners.  By not licensing your dogs you are just feeding into their argument.

So are you saying that, even though my dogs regularly see the vet, wear rabies and ID tags at all times, are UTD on shots, on flea and heartworm prevention, are spayed and neutered, are fed a great home cooked diet, well trained, well socialized, and well groomed...I am not a responsible pet owner, because I see ZERO reason for the city to have record of my dogs? What exactly does a license do? Having a license doesn't prove that someone takes care of their dog or is in any way a responsible owner. It's simply a way for the city to keep track of what dogs are out there, what breeds, and who owns them. Sorry, but I AM a respnsible pet owner- I simply don'y like government interferance in my life, period.
 
And if people are fine with the city having records of their dogs then fine. Good for them. I personally see NO reason for it, and I'm not doing it. Then again, I'm also the type of person who thinks that the government shouldn't keep records of individual people, so take everything I'm saying with a grain of salt. This is something we'll have to agree to disagree on. What animals I own, and what kind, is no one's business but mine.

 

If I see a dog in our apartment complex without their license I report it to our management.  I don't know if the dog has had it's rabies shots or not and the safety of my pets is more important.  At least when I see a license I know that the dog has had it's shots.

 
A rabies tag does the exact same thing. In some places, a rabies tag also counts as a city license. Here, the two are seperate.

I really don't think that the AC is going to get into their black helicopters and check every mixed breed. 

 
But how do you know that they won't? Gina already posted that a similar tactic was used to eliminate bully breeds in Colorado- requireing people to register their dogs, and once they did, coming in and seizing and killing people's family pets. Maybe I'm being paranoid...but what if I'm not? What if, next time, they DO look into all mixed breed dogs? "Oh hi Ma'am, just here to have a look at your dog. Oh, yep, that looks vaguely pittie to me. Put him in the truck, we'll be taking him away now."
 
No thanks.

I don't think the government has the time nor the funds to be checking on every single mixed breed.
I do agree it is your responsibility to license your dogs.
Here one pays 5 bucks per license........25 bucks for my dogs.......if I got caught without a license I'd be shelling out hundreds of dollars........not worth it to me, but you do what you want.

A rabies tag does the exact same thing. In some places, a rabies tag also counts as a city license. Here, the two are seperate.

 
In our county the license tag is the rabies tag.  You can't get the license without be UTD on the rabies shot and you can't get the rabies shot without getting a license.
 

Ratsicles, just wanted to add that if you consider running a Pitbull rescue, you had better get your dogs licensed or we will read about you in the newspaper.

I don't think the government has the time nor the funds to be checking on every single mixed breed.

 
You hope. You'd be surprised what people are willing to spend time and money on when they decide to go on a witch hunt.
 
 

In our county the license tag is the rabies tag.  You can't get the license without be UTD on the rabies shot and you can't get the rabies shot without getting a license.

 
It's that way in most places. It used to be that way here, but recently they changed the policy and now you have to send in your rabies certificate to apply for a license. They may do it the normal way in the town I'm moving to in a few months- and if so, my dogs will be licensed. I'd never deny them a rabies vaccine for the sake of not having them licensed. As it is though, I have the ability to get them vaccinated without licensing them- and I like that, for reasons stated above.
 

Ratsicles, just wanted to add that if you consider running a Pitbull rescue, you had better get your dogs licensed or we will read about you in the newspaper.

 
Yeah, thanks a ton for your concern. IF I end up running a rescue, which is pretty up in the air right now and probably won't come about for a year or two, I will license my dogs. Running a rescue puts you at a different level- because not only are you responsible for your personal dogs, you're responsible for finding responsible homes for the ones in your care. With that kind of outside scrutiny coming in, it'd be harder to get away without licensing the dogs. So as much as I hate the idea, I'll license them. Although, it will probably be the situation that timsdat mentioned in his post- in the town I'm moving to, their rabies tag will *probably* double as a license anyway, so it'll probably be a non issue.
 
I honestly can't think of one good reason to license your dogs, rovided that not licensing them doesn't interfere with them being properly vaccinated and identifiable. Because it's the law? The type of people who believe that EVERY single law should be followed, regardless of the potential consequences of following said law, no matter how useless, ridiculous, or harmful that law could potentially be...well, I'm unlikely to ever see eye to eye with that type of person anyway.

I don't license my dogs either.
 
Tasha is half Chow and I'll be hornboggled if someone is going to register her toward BSL. Any BSL happy folks would be happy to claim Wolfgang and Floyd as needing special concern too.
 
Secondly, the veterinarian who spayed her is retired. Just what am I supposed to provide for proof of alteration???
 
Obviously, if we get a ticket, we'll deal with it, but not until then.

Should I license my GSD?  Is the only reason you guys don't because you're worried that because they are pits and chows, the city or state can easily find you if/when they ban these breeds?  Or are there other reasons not to license?

Slightly off-topic, but according to the suburb we're moving into, even my cats have to be licensed, and I'll do it since we're renting and the landlord is very worried about letting me have my pets so I need to play it by the book.  However, I have a cat that got a lump for three months after her last rabies vacc. and I am NOT doing it again, I do not want her to get a sarcoma next time. Since they are all indoor cats and the other two will continue with rabies vaccs she has zero risk anyway, but I'll be damned if I can't license her.  Maybe I can get a paper from the vet explaining her "exemption"?