What happens when you take your dog to the pound

excellent post MRV....
 
[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=bravo.gif]

From the article:
About 50% of all of the dogs that are “owner surrenders” or “strays” that come into my shelter are purebred dogs. The most common excuses I hear are:
We are moving and we can#%92t take our dog (or cat). Really? Where are you moving to that doesn#%92t allow pets? The dog got bigger than we thought it would. How big did you think a German Shepherd would get? We don#%92t have time for her. Really? I work a 10-12 hour day and still have time for my 6 dogs! She#%92s tearing up our yard. How about bringing her inside, making her a part of your family?
 
Uhm, so AB1634 is going to eliminate human stupidity?  A person who doesn't value their dog living in Ca with a large dog who is going to move to another city is suddenly NOT going to take thier dog to the pound because of this law?  I don't get it.

I notice how quickly the focus switches  from the plight of the dogs in shelters , which is what my post was about, to defeating a mandatory S/N law that will inconvience some breeders, by costing them some money.   Shows how people have different sets of values in my opinion. 

Well, it must be a no kill. But, all that is happening is that the shelter down the street is like that one because yours won't take just anything that walks through the door. If they did, they'd be euthanizing for a sniffle, too.

Our shelter?  We're not a no-kill, we're a "low-kill".  We don't kill for space or put time limits on a dog's stay.  We only kill because the dog is very old, has painful health conditions, or has such severe behavioral problems it cannot be rehabbed (and they DO rehab - we have a full time professional behaviorist plus two different trainers that come twice a week).  When we run out of room we look for fosters or rescue groups.  Our shelter, the county shelter, and other local rescues have a partnership (KAN - Kent Animal Network) so they can move animals back and forth or into each other's foster programs to drastically reduce the number of kills at the county shelter.  Typically, our shelter will take animals from the county shelter because they always have more animals and do run out of space since their facility is older.  We've got plenty of sick dogs (lots of kennel cough at the moment) and plenty of dogs with other health issues that are not put down because they can still have a high quality of life.  It is a common local misconception that our shelter is no kill.  In fact, my cousin just got married and used wedding money to make a donation b/c she thought we were no-kill.  I didn't have the heart to tell her otherwise.  We will take anything, even weird stuff like lizzards, pot belly pigs, and fish!  Our shelter is quite popular and my understanding is that they do recieve enough in donations to operate this way.  They are not part of HSUS (even though it's called the Humane Society) so all their money is from private donations.

The only no-kill shelter I know of in my area is a cat shelter.  I went there and it was so awful I reported it to the police.  All of their animals were very sick and neglected.  Most were ferals and looked like they were in constant terror, having been trapped, declawed, and then shut in a cage in the "intake" room (where they keep all the cats too wild to be free roam) for months or years because no one is going to adopt a sick, older cat that was feral.  They are only one step ahead of being animal hoarders and we left with a cat that we rescued from the rescue!  Turns out she had two different infections, had a host of behavioral problems from being declawed as an adult, and died shortly after because she had a terrible, incurable cat disease (FIP).  The whole experience has made me very leery of "no kill" private rescues.

ORIGINAL: Liesje

We don't kill for space or put time limits on a dog's stay.  We only kill because the dog is very old, has painful health conditions, or has such severe behavioral problems it cannot be rehabbed (and they DO rehab - we have a full time professional behaviorist plus two different trainers that come twice a week)... 

 
Thanks for the detail posts.  My rescue organization also PTSs for heallth and severe behaviorial problems.  I think most, if not all do this.  It is the humane thing to do.  We don't characterize the organization as kill, no-kill, or low-kill.  Its sounds to me as a promotion gimmick to get more funds for the shelter's cause.  If that works I think it is great. 

We don't characterize the organization as kill, no-kill, or low-kill. Its sounds to me as a promotion gimmick to get more funds for the shelter's cause.

We don't either, it's just something I made up on the spot, hence the " ".  They don't call themselves a "kill" shelter, but they will answer honestly when people ask ("Yes, we euthanize.  No, not for space, time limits, or breed restrictions").  In fact, it was the first issue addressed in our training.  Anyone not OK with their terms and conditions for euthanasia was welcome to leave right away and not waste their time.  I would have a hard time working for a shelter or rescue if I did not agree with their PTS criteria, which is why I chose the shelter I chose.  I think that it's the most fair and realistic way to go about it (only PTS old animals or ones that are suffering or truly dangerous).

The original post linked to a website on spay neuter bill in CA.  The plight of shelter dogs is real and many on this board work to address it in their local communities and nationally with rescue organizations.
 
However, my purchasing a pure bred dog from a responsible breeder who makes back expenses at best, is NOT responible for over population and euthansia rates.  Mandatory spay neuter programs rarely impact the target population.  Many of those random breeders will just ignore the law. 
 
The posting of the link with the other topics clearly listed on the left side of the page made the spay neuter comments a valid concern. 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

ORIGINAL: Liesje

Geez!  I'm glad the shelter I work at isn't like that!!

Well, it must be a no kill.  But, all that is happening is that the shelter down the street is like that one because yours won't take just anything that walks through the door.  If they did, they'd be euthanizing for a sniffle, too. [&o]

I agree with mrv.  It is not awful to buy a dog from a breeder.  What is awful is if you get a dog from a breeder that is not reputable enough to take the dog back for you and rehome it if you can't care for it.  It isn't bad to get a dog from rescue either, or from a shelter.  What is bad is to get one from a pet store, or get one before you really do all your homework, or get one because your kid wants one even if you hate dogs, or to suddenly abandon your dog because you got a new job, apartment, boyfriend, or pregnant.  The overpopulation would STOP if people just took some time to be educated, committed, and responsible.

 
It seems to me that the reason that we haven't solved the pet overpopulation and shelter problem yet is that we target the wrong people for education - the puppy buyer.  The one that needs to be targetted is the breeder, and the only way I think that can happen is through legislation, because if they don't have to do something, most of them won't do it.  It's the breeders that choose the owners, and their lousy choices result in shelter deaths.

It seems to me that the reason that we haven't solved the pet overpopulation and shelter problem yet is that we target the wrong people for education - the puppy buyer.

 
 
sorry...this just made me giggle.

I have to say, it's really creepy to me that we are discussing an issue then someone joins the very same day to defend one of the sides. It's like the white yorkie thread a few days ago. Creepy, like something told them to join that day....... sorry OT I know, I'm a conspiracy theorist today.

I always find that interesting too! I've never had to call in troops, but if I did...I'd be in trouble since none of the hounds can type...lmao.
BUT...all that said...
 
[sm=backtotopic.gif]
 
[]

ORIGINAL: mrv

Actually I spend my time, evaluating, pulling and transporting and financially supporting breed rescues.

You can not legislate morality.  The proposed bill is highly unlikely to address the issues which it was presented to address.  This type of restriction of requiring vets to report owners, requiring high cost licensing,  etc. is likely to lower compliance, not improve it.

Look to the issues of why dogs are released to shelters.  Work to provide low cost spay and neuter programs.  Enforce general licensing, provide dog training through public recreation programs. 

I can not support a proposal that is so clearly against responsible breeding practices.  I just can not support a law that allows commercial breeders to continue on their merry money making way and condemns responsible breeders.

BTW  Poorly written refers to AB 1634  not the passage in the link

 
If you are evaluating this bill by what you see in your own area, then I understand why you think that there should be all those measures like low cost spay/neuter, training, enforced dog licenses, etc.  But the thing is, we already have all that here in California, and we have a great rescue community that is severely overwhelmed, and yet we still have too many adoptable animals dying in our shelters.  We're not new at all this.  We didn't just look at the shelter problem and decide the only way to fix it is with legislation.  We've tried everything else and will continue to do so, but it's not enough.
 
And yes, you can legislate morality.  The fact that there is legislation against child pornography and prostitution shows you can legislate morality.  And just like speed limit laws, it's recognized that no law will stop every law breaker, but without legislation, people think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.  They say they do it because it's legal, and they're right.  That's why we need to make irresponsible breeding illegal.

I don't think this issue is as black and white as the opposing sides are making it.

I don't happen to think that licensing enforcement does ENOUGH.  When I moved to Dallas, I researched many things, including BSL and licensing requirements came up as a part of that search.  If I had another breed of dog, I might not have researched BSL, and might not have been aware before I moved of a licensing fee.  There is NO enforcement of this in Dallas that I have seen.  In fact, very few people I talk to here even know they're supposed to have licenses.  There is no public awareness campaign about it at all.  If I, a fairly well informed dog owner with every intention to follow the letter of the law, didn't know then how can we expect less engaged owners to know??  Nobody has EVER stopped me to ask if I have a license, and when I had my dogs vaccinated at the SPCA, they didn't say anything, either.

The story posted was a really really sad picture of reality that I think a lot of people are ignorant to.  Having said that, I hardly thing ANYONE on this board is in the ignorant group, and posting it was, in my opinion, a little inflammatory and perhaps that was by design.

I am not shy about this:  I support mandatory spay and neuter with very specific criteria.  I believe breeders should be regulated and licensed themselves, not just the dogs.  I believe the fees should be high, and I believe these costs should be recouped in the "price" of the dogs available.  I believe there should be considerable money spent investigating and enforcing breeder requirements.  When a violation is found, I believe the penalties should be stiff.  I believe that every dog adopted or purchased anywhere should come with a mandatory spay/neuter agreement that should be implemented at the APPROPRIATE AGE healthwise for that particular breed.  Allowances should be made for "breeding stock" which may be adopted/sold with specific licensing and fees, paid either by the breeder wishing to maintain the breeding stock, or the purchaser agreeing to home such breeding stock.  I would like to make very clear that I do not object to mixed breed dogs.  The breed is irrelevant.  Mixed breed breeders would be governed in the same way purebred breeders would be.

I have the utmost respect for the *intentional* breeders on this board and the responsible breeders across the nation.  The breeders on this board represent the highest standards of integrity, both in continuing high quality bloodlines and finding appropriate homes.

I understand that the text of the laws are often written poorly and don't solve any real problems.  And I understand the resistance to those poorly worded laws.  What I do not understand is the reluctance to offer a viable alternative.

We have seen just recently the result of unaltered dogs coupling without the knowledge of their owners.  How would breeders guarantee that their stock doesn't fall victim to this very event without spay/neuter?  I just cannot see the purpose in a dog which is never intended for breeding to be left unaltered.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.

High fees and strict enforcement are the only ways that I can think of to drive BYBs out of business.  I welcome any viable arguements.

Sorry, a little off topic, but...
 

There is no public awareness campaign about

(licensing) 
 
In my town, if you don't renew your dog license (or notify the town that you've moved) then your name/your dog's name(s) is/are posted on the local access TV channel dedicated to town info... Seems to work for compelling people to act - whether by simply reminding them, or by shaming them.

A great idea, really.  But I'm curious what causes people to license their dogs to begin with?  How do they know you have one to license?  Just curious.