# So where are the solutions?



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Instead of turning the (should I breed my dog) threads into all the dogs dying in shelters and ultimately rescue threads, how about ideas to stem the tide of unwanted pets.

I don't know what the answer is. 

My one attempt at a solution was to suggest local legislation to at least require some guidelines and liscenses to breed. Maybe a fee also.

That idea was roundly beat up on by almost everyone in the thread I suggested it in.

People apparently are anti any legislation at any level.

No breed legislation, no spay neuter laws, nothing.
O.k. then where are the other ideas.

Bitching about things and expecting folks to just stop breeding are unrealistic in a free society where people can do what they want as long as it's legal.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I don't know what the answer is either 

I happen to like your guidelines/license to breed, and would add something about 'owners' as well. Whole problem with that is, nobody wants people 'telling' them what to do, how would any of that be enforced? and who would be the 'one' to make the decision, no you cant breed, yes you can, no you can't own a dog, yes you can

Unfortunately there are as many dumb owners as there are irresponsible breeders. 

(I want to add tho, I am one lucky person, that every dog I've either rescued or bought, was exactly what I wanted, and wouldn't change a thing)


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

I think the answers are pretty much known at this point. There may be controversy about some points, but there's not a lot of mystery. It just comes down to education: talking and persuading and shifting social norms.

But simple ain't easy, and you can't legislate decency into people.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I think the registry should become more involved. Not just AKC, but on the individual breed level. 

I know people would still breed unregistered dogs, but those folks would be easier to to single out by uneducated buyers.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Merciel said:


> I think the answers are pretty much known at this point. There may be controversy about some points, but there's not a lot of mystery. It just comes down to education: talking and persuading and shifting social norms.
> 
> But simple ain't easy, and you can't legislate decency into people.


Well I'm not educated or enlightened. I never hear answers from rescue folks.
Just how bad things are. We already know things are bad.

I have to step out but the type of legislation I'm talking about would not affect ethical breeders and is not that complex to write or enforce. More when I get back.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Lilie said:


> I think the registry should become more involved. Not just AKC, but on the individual breed level.
> 
> I know people would still breed unregistered dogs, but those folks would be easier to to single out by uneducated buyers.


 
I agree. Something like the SV system. I know it wouldn't fix the problem but I think it's a move in the right direction.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Jack's Dad said:


> Well I'm not educated or enlightened. I never hear answers from rescue folks.


The answer is a combination of education, shifting social norms, and financial assistance in the form of free/low-cost spay and neuter programs.

-- Puppy buyers need to be educated about the differences between breeders and breeds, so that they can make an informed decision about where to find an appropriate purebred dog and which individual dog (not breed stereotype, not glossy Disney image) is a good, realistic fit for their preferences and abilities.

-- Puppy buyers also need to be educated about the shelter/rescue adoption options. For many homes, a screened and semi-trained adult or adolescent dog coming out of foster care is a better choice than a puppy. For many others, it's not. But people need to have all the information available so they can make the right decisions for their individual situations.

-- Pet owners should have more support in training and socializing their dogs. Many shelters and rescues offer free or low-cost training classes. Many breeders offer rebates for proof that dogs have finished training classes (or earned a CGC, or somehow otherwise demonstrated that the owner is putting in some minimal work). These are good steps; we can do more as individuals by shifting social norms so that people recognize that dogs _do_ need time and work, and can't just be tossed into the backyard and expected to educate and exercise themselves.

Even something as simple as doing jump drills or heeling games with your dog in a public area (which is handy in and of itself as a proofing exercise) can create the opportunity to open a dialogue with people about training their dogs in a fun and humane way that fosters a strong relationship. I can't tell you how many times people have stopped me to ask questions after seeing Pongu practicing in a city park -- and some of them were people I'd never have guessed wanted help with their pups! People who have that bond with their dogs don't put them in shelters.

-- Free and low-cost spay and neuter programs targeted at lower-income owners and dogs prone to overbreeding (usually pit bulls and pit mixes) are worthy of support and signal boosting.

-- Pet owners who want to breed their pet dogs "just because" should be discouraged. Sorry, no way around that one.

-- Animal cruelty laws, which would already cover most of the obvious clear-cut puppy mill abuses, should be stronger and better enforced. They are a _low_ priority for most law enforcement offices right now, I will tell you, because the victims don't have voices (or votes) and the political will is just not there. If you care about dogs, that's a good place to push for change.


----------



## katieliz (Mar 29, 2007)

^^^ there ya go, jd, there's the answer for ya...and it takes time, lots of time for cultural norms to shift. starts with the kids. education and more education. and then more time.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

When I was a boy I had racing pigeons. In order to own and confine or breed racing pigeons, you had to apply for a permit. Small fee for inspector to see if you were up to code.
The code or ordinance gave you such things as distances from property lines and neighborhood dwellings etc... Basic care requirements of water food etc..

With pigeons you were allowed to let them fly for exercise but could not allow them to just sit for obvious reasons.

It was all pretty basic stuff and I don't remember it all. As far as enforcement. They could inspect at any time or by complaints. With animals or birds it is usually enforced because of a complaint. 

It's not perfect and won't stop all BYBs for sure but having to meet certain requirements and purchase a permit along with the knowledge that a complaint could shut you down might make it less appealing to some.

Merciel.

Some of your ideas are good in theory, but I've been around for a long time and have not seen any of this in action, except the attempt to legislate low cost mandatory S/N.

Read some threads on here about anything to do with mandatory S/N and see how well it goes over. About as well as any new laws.

I also think rescue has some house cleaning of its own to do.

For many in rescue it's not just about saving animals but also telling people how to raise and train them. Not going to go over well with many, including me.

You can't cram training methods down peoples throats anymore than religion.

Also rescues aren't always up front. Out of a dozen or so dogs that I have had in my life, the only one that ever bit a human being was a rescue. Was supposed to have been fostered and vetted. Well I kept that dog and spent a fortune on trainers, behaviorists etc.. The dog had perfect obedience right up until he bit someone else. So that experience coupled with looking at the adoption requirements of the so called reputable rescues was enough for me.

I admire some who do rescue and those who adopt but it's not my cup of tea.

I do however, not like the fact that there are so many homeless dogs.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

I never said anything about _legislating_ low-cost spay and neuter. The programs aren't mandatory and they shouldn't be. They are simply options that are offered for people who might not be financially able to cover the cost of the surgical procedure. People can and should be _encouraged_ to use them, but no one's being required to do anything.



> You can't cram training methods down peoples throats anymore than religion.


I don't think I said anything about that, either. The point is to make the information, and the opportunity, _available_ to people. The option is there. It's up to them whether they want to use it.

It is, frankly, a little bizarre to me that you say in one paragraph that you don't want to "cram training methods down peoples throats" and yet, in the same post, want to... cram S/N down their throats instead? Seems like a bit of a disconnect.

The whole point is that requiring people to do things tends to go over like a lead balloon, in addition to being logistically impractical. The better approach -- the "answer" this thread was ostensibly seeking -- is to let people weigh the pros and cons for themselves once they have all the information to do so. That is what actually works and is working.

And yes, some rescues aren't up front. Some breeders aren't up front. A lot of buyers and adopters aren't, either. How is that relevant?


----------



## ugavet2012 (Apr 15, 2010)

Jack's Dad said:


> When I was a boy I had racing pigeons. In order to own and confine or breed racing pigeons, you had to apply for a permit. Small fee for inspector to see if you were up to code.
> The code or ordinance gave you such things as distances from property lines and neighborhood dwellings etc... Basic care requirements of water food etc..
> 
> With pigeons you were allowed to let them fly for exercise but could not allow them to just sit for obvious reasons.
> ...


Any dog can bite. My experience is totally the opposite of yours....out of my 5 right now 1 is a stray mutt, 1 is a BYB dog, and 3 are from reputable breeders. Of all 5, the only one I sort of worry about biting someone (out of fear, not justified) is the GSD, the one I paid the most for, the one who has the best obedience and most training, the one who came from a very good breeder who is often recommended on here. Actually she has bitten my fiancé. Doesn't color my view of where I will get a dog in the future.


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

Over here we have new laws which require all dogs/puppies/cats/kittens who are advertised for sale to be micro chipped and the number must be displayed in the add or it can not be run in a paper/poster etc
Not sure how this is going to go but anyone thinking about selling puppies now has to fork out the money to have them all microchipped before sale.....deterrent......guess we will see.
Registration of dogs is mandatory......big fines if you are caught with unregistered dogs. Dogs/cats which are not desexed are more than 3 times the cost to register......incentive to spey/neuter. 
Guess we will see how it goes. Our local paper has gone from nearly a page of "for sale" puppies/kittens to about five per edition since this came in......don't know if that means people have stopped breeding BUT it is certainly harder for them to "sell" if they aren't willing to follow the new regulations.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Merceil

Well I guess I'm tired. I shouldn't have used the word mandatory. 

I am not personally for mandatory S/N.

Since we are talking about rescues, how they operate is relevant to me. The others you mentioned, breeders etc... aren't in this context.

I also should not have used the word cram. The point is the same, however you approach training methods if the goal is to change someone.

ugavet2012. My experience has affected my choice but I don't care what others do. I've had re-homed dogs, dogs from animal shelters, a gift, and when I was younger even one from a pet store.

If I ever get another dog it will be from a breeder or possibly animal shelter. 
I don't choose to have a rescue organization in my life forever with one of their dogs. Just my choice.

My dogs have always had good care but I'll decide what that care is and what my yard is like and where I house them and how high my fence should be and mostly how to train them.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Jack's Dad said:


> The point is the same, however you approach training methods if the goal is to change someone.


The goal isn't to "change" anyone. We aren't talking about people who are agonizing over choices in training methods; we're talking about people who don't even know there _are_ choices. Some people have no earthly idea where to even _begin_ teaching Rover not to jump on people at the door or how to Sit in public.

The questions I get are not along the lines of "what are the pros and cons of getting a Front via shoe targeting vs. throwing the treat between the handler's legs?" They're things like "how can I get my hyper dog to calm down when guests knock on the door?" and "how do you teach a basic Down to a puppy?"

And I'm not out there proselytizing. All I do is take my own dog out to a public place and work on stuff that I need him to do anyway. We don't approach anyone and we never initiate the conversation, because we don't have to. The general public is _amazed_ by just seeing a dog take a straight-ahead bar jump at 16". We literally draw crowds and we aren't doing anything even remotely special.

That very basic level of knowledge and engagement -- of knowing how to train a dog and seeing that it can be _fun,_ not a chore or a perpetual conflict of wills -- is how you keep dogs out of shelters. Dogs get dumped because they chew on things and pee indoors and don't have good outlets for their energy, and their owners don't know how to fix that or aren't willing to put the work in to do it. They get dumped because they haven't made the kind of connection with their owners that keeps them in the home. Teaching owners how to teach their dogs, and making it look fun so that they'll actually DO it, is an important aspect of reducing the shelter population.

None of the stuff I'm talking about, either in this post or my original one, is pie-in-the-sky wishful theorizing. These aren't hypothetical answers. They've been in practice for at least 40 years and they're why the annual kill rate in the U.S. has dropped from 70-75 million per year in the early '70s to a tenth of that number today.

Progress is steadily accelerating. We still have a long way to go, and the solutions to old problems create new problems that need new solutions. But as far as the original big problems go, we know what the answers are. Talk, educate, and push cultural change to increase respect for the value of dogs' lives.


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

Breeding, buying and selling are only part of the problem.
It's the "commitment" or lack of that continues to grow the amount of pets dumped for one reason or another. Everyone loves that cute little puppy or kitten, then for what ever reason or excuse the now dog or cat is of no use or value to the owner simply dumps the poor critter.
So a big part has to be owner responsibility.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Jack's Dad said:


> Instead of turning the (should I breed my dog) threads into all the dogs dying in shelters and ultimately rescue threads, how about ideas to stem the tide of unwanted pets.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is.
> 
> ...


Many of us libertarian types believe perfect legislation would be the perfect solution, however perfect legislation doesn't exist... Its almost always the case that legislation ends up with unwanted side effects, and sometimes does more damage than good. Consider the CA laws forcing everyone to neuter... talk about a genetic choke point. If such a law were to pass in the states, all breeds would be decimated in short order, and eventually even the species itself would be destroyed. (google "founder's effect").

I'd be more inclined to support a law that said any dog bred must pass a CGC-like test or something like that... its not that hard to pass and will quickly weed out those who don't put any effort at all into breedings... then, have severe penalties for breaking the law and *enforce* that law. Selling some puppies for $300 a pop with the risk of getting a $10,000 fine isn't worth it even by those with "idiot grade" logic. Does that sound excessive? Maybe, maybe not. Down here the shrimp baiting season runs Sept - Nov. During this time you can stick 10 poles in shallow water and put shrimp bait at each one so you can throw a net over them and harvest shrimp. You must get a permit for $110, and can fill 1 (one) 48-quart cooler with shrimp per 24 hour period. If you are found in violation of this, the authorities seize any shrimp you have, go to your house and seize any shrimp there, seize the boat, and seize whatever vehicle was used to put the boat in the water... that is a much more severe penalty than $10k... so there *is* a precedent for the "severe penalty" model... and you know what? Rarely does anyone ever break that law. People will get hammered drunk while shrimping, will smoke pot while shrimping, but these same people will absolutely not violate the shrimp laws because of the risk/reward ratio of that particular crime.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Severe penalty/rarely enforced has actually been shown conclusively to be ineffective in changing behavior, particularly when contrasted against mild penalty/frequently enforced. We pay a lot of attention to these studies in trying to reduce crime (it is, after all, a topic of considerable interest to politicians campaigning in big cities), and the research is absolutely clear on that particular point. Jail sentences of even just a few days are more effective than 1-2 years for the same offenses, IF the few days are always enforced and the 1-2 years are enforced at the current rate of conviction for those crimes, i.e., not very often. (Enforcing harsh penalties every time, fwiw, quickly loses public support and builds resentment in the community as overly draconian. Also it's not practical: we don't have the resources to handle it.)

I come down on the side of "legislation is not the answer" largely because I work in law enforcement and volunteer in rescue and, having seen the dysfunction from multiple angles, I am pretty well convinced that putting more laws on the books would be at best useless and at worst actively detrimental. You can't get a good law through the tangle of conflicting interests in the system, and even if you could, enforcement would be so minimal that it would hardly be worthwhile. Enforcing current laws against animal cruelty is, in my view, a more practical goal in that direction.

An opt-in system, something like the AKC "Breeder of Merit" stamp but kennel club agnostic (because ideally you'd want to capture the breeders of puggles and labradoodles and all the other dogs being produced and sold for $$$ that the AKC refuses to recognize), would IMO be a better way to go. Requiring breeding dogs to pass a CGC is a great start -- it's easy for a stable dog, only requires a few weeks of training (so shouldn't be too onerous for a breeder, even a one-time "we love our dog so much" pet owner/breeder), and is an appropriate universal test for all breed-standard temperaments.

Something like that would be great, because it would be a clear signal to consumers that the breeder is observing some basic minimal standards. Puppy buyers WANT that signal; that's why the "champion bloodlines" thing has such traction. I've talked about it before, but I've had so many friends who were dead set on buying labradoodles (which, yes, I KNOW I KNOW, but that's what they just HAD to have) and it is just about impossible to find even a half-decent BYB producing those dogs.

If you can find a labradoodle breeder with a CGC on the breeding pair, congratulations, you've just found one of the top 5% of labradoodle breeders in the world. And that is downright sad.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

> *Merciel* The answer is a combination of education, shifting social norms, and financial assistance in the form of free/low-cost spay and neuter programs.


Have you found that the populations of dogs has decreased since the introduction of spay and neuter campaigns?


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

kiya said:


> Breeding, buying and selling are only part of the problem. It's the "commitment" or lack of that continues to grow the amount of pets dumped for one reason or another. Everyone loves that cute little puppy or kitten, then for what ever reason or excuse the now dog or cat is of no use or value to the owner simply dumps the poor critter.
> So a big part has to be owner responsibility.


:thumbup: Personal responsibility. Novel thought.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

MadLab said:


> Have you found that the populations of dogs has decreased since the introduction of spay and neuter campaigns?


The total population doesn't change.

What changes is the _excess_ population: the dogs and puppies that die in shelters. Previously we were just killing all those extra dogs by the tens of millions, year after year after year.

Now they aren't being born. So yes, spay/neuter campaigns have made a HUGE difference. The numbers tell that tale beyond dispute.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

As one of those "rescue folks", I think part of the problem is how inconsistent the rescue world is. For every version of rescue, there are five other versions that look nothing like that version.

Rescue can be adopting from a group or a shelter. Rescue has also been defined as purchasing from a business or home that the buyer feels is "less than" it should be. I have met a few hardliners who swear it isn't rescue unless you yourself are the one dodging rush hour traffic to personally snatch an in danger dog from the freeway.

There are many people out there involved in rescue that think any breeding is evil and there are dedicated breed rescuers that are also breeders. There are rescues that are so strict it takes an absolute saint with unlimited funds, time and knowledge to pass muster. And there are rescues that give an animal to the first breathing person who even looks remotely interested. 

If we can't even agree on what "rescue" is, or what constitutes "over population", how are we ever going to tackle the bigger issues? That is the first hurdle. And too often, the "fixes" that are proposed have a built in bias, depending on the view of the people creating the fix.

The second hurdle is the fact that different regions of the country have different issues that feed the problem. I think that is one of the reasons why so many people get frustrated with conversations such as this. Too many people know only their own experience and then extrapolate some kind of universal truth from that. It might fit that particular corner of the world, but it holds no water in some of corner of the world. 

So, one of us here swears that it is a lack of commitment from owners. And another swears that it is indiscriminate breeding. And another is sure that it is a lack of training that cause dogs to be discarded. 

I think that depending on where you live, and your involvement in the local/regional dog "scene", it can be any of these causes. Or none of them. Or all of them.

What will help alleviate the problems in one area aren't necessarily going to fix the problems in another area. But that doesn't stop any of us from making these grand pronouncements, which are limited to just our own experiences.

There is no one answer to the problem. Ideally, people would put more thought and effort into breeding and more thought and effort into purchasing. I would love to see knowledgeable dog people engaged in legislative efforts to address a city/county/state problem. But all too often there is an "Us vs. Them" attitude between politicians and dog people. If more educated and experienced dog people involved themselves in helping draft proposed legislation, perhaps we would see less crappy legislation with tons of unintended consequences. Instead we end up with purposeful disengagement and then lots of finger pointing and chest pounding after the fact.
Sheilah


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Merciel said:


> Severe penalty/rarely enforced has actually been shown conclusively to be ineffective in changing behavior, particularly when contrasted against mild penalty/frequently enforced. We pay a lot of attention to these studies in trying to reduce crime (it is, after all, a topic of considerable interest to politicians campaigning in big cities), and the research is absolutely clear on that particular point. Jail sentences of even just a few days are more effective than 1-2 years for the same offenses, IF the few days are always enforced and the 1-2 years are enforced at the current rate of conviction for those crimes, i.e., not very often. (Enforcing harsh penalties every time, fwiw, quickly loses public support and builds resentment in the community as overly draconian. Also it's not practical: we don't have the resources to handle it.)
> 
> I come down on the side of "legislation is not the answer" largely because I work in law enforcement and volunteer in rescue and, having seen the dysfunction from multiple angles, I am pretty well convinced that putting more laws on the books would be at best useless and at worst actively detrimental. You can't get a good law through the tangle of conflicting interests in the system, and even if you could, enforcement would be so minimal that it would hardly be worthwhile. Enforcing current laws against animal cruelty is, in my view, a more practical goal in that direction.
> 
> ...


I won't argue that... I know the threat of a massive punishment works for *me*, over the certainty of a slap on the wrist... 

I could see your idea regarding "breeders of merit" working *IF* there were a campaign to also make that program known to the world.. most people probably wouldn't even be aware... I've seen folks who know what "the dog has papers" means, but don't know what the AKC is lol.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

sit said:


> So, one of us here swears that it is a lack of commitment from owners. And another swears that it is indiscriminate breeding. And another is sure that it is a lack of training that cause dogs to be discarded.
> 
> I think that depending on where you live, and your involvement in the local/regional dog "scene", it can be any of these causes. Or none of them. Or all of them.


I agree that it could be any or all. I'm not sure how it could be none.

The shelter/rescue dog problem in the U.S. can be basically simplified to:

(1) Dogs go into shelters.
(2) Dogs don't come out of shelters.

Point (1) can be further broken down into: (a) there are more puppies being born than there are homes available to take them (simple numerical overpopulation -- this has been reduced to a specific regional issue, largely due to successful spay/neuter and education campaigns); (b) people get the wrong dogs for their situations; (c) people don't know how to train or handle their dogs; (d) people aren't committed; (e) death, divorce, foreclosure, other life issues.

Points (a) through (c) can be addressed via education and outreach. (d) and (e) are reducible, but will always be with us at some level, because life and human nature are what they are.

So there will always be a need for shelters, because we are never going to have zero homeless dogs.

Point (2) can be further broken down into: (a) people have misconceptions about shelter/rescue dogs that discourage them from adopting; (b) people do not want the specific dogs available to them via shelter or rescue; (c) people have bad experiences with specific shelters and rescues and write off adoption altogether; (d) the dogs have issues that make them difficult to adopt.

Again, points (a) through (c) can be addressed via education, networking, and outreach (although (b) is iffier because what it comes down to in a lot of places is "shelters are full of pit bulls and people don't want to adopt them." This can probably be reduced but not eliminated). (d) is reducible with good behavioral/training support and knowledgeable, committed volunteer help, but will always be with us on some level because there are some dogs you just can't fix.

It is absolutely a complicated, multifactorial problem. There is no one single magic bullet solution. I don't think we're ever going to get to Nathan Winograd's no-kill ideal, and personally I'm not convinced we _should_, because I don't happen to believe that absolutely every animal can or should be adopted out to a home.

But it frustrates me when people throw up their hands and say "AUGH THERE IS NO ANSWER" because no, actually, there are a lot of answers. There are a lot of things that each of us can do. Pick the part you like and do that. If we all work together, and try not to waste too much time telling other people they're doing it wrong, we can go a long way toward improving the situation.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

I didn't say thats the sole reason lol.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

hunterisgreat said:


> I won't argue that... I know the threat of a massive punishment works for *me*, over the certainty of a slap on the wrist...
> 
> I could see your idea regarding "breeders of merit" working *IF* there were a campaign to also make that program known to the world.. most people probably wouldn't even be aware... I've seen folks who know what "the dog has papers" means, but don't know what the AKC is lol.


That's actually exactly why the studies haven't resulted in bigger changes in the real world. People are like "wait, what, you just want to let these criminals off with a slap on the wrist?! that is BANANAS! that will never work! I won't stand for it!" and then the politicians, who have to worry about getting (re-)elected, don't do anything. It takes uncommon courage for an elected official to buck what appears to be the common-sense thing, especially when that can come off as looking soft on crime. Uncommon courage is, well, uncommon. 

So, oh well, for now it remains purely a point of academic interest.

And yeah, raising public awareness would be key. That's the really hard part with all these things. I struggle with it. We all struggle with it. For that part I just don't have an answer beyond the mantra of "talk and educate."


----------



## Myah's Mom (Mar 25, 2013)

Merciel said:


> (a) people have misconceptions about shelter/rescue dogs that discourage them from adopting; (b) people do not want the specific dogs available to them via shelter or rescue; (c) people have bad experiences with specific shelters and rescues and write off adoption altogether; (d) the dogs have issues that make them difficult to adopt.
> 
> 
> > Like many others, I have seen wonderful, wonderful rescue/shelter dogs. :wub:
> ...


----------



## dioworld (Feb 1, 2012)

It's so sad to see all these dogs in shelter
Some of the reason why people dump their dog to shelter is because the dog is misbehave and uncontrollerable. And it's so easy for owners to dump them off.
Maybe we can do this
1) every dog has to be microchip or a big big fined.
2) once everydog is chipped, then people can't just dump the dog off the street, if they want to dump it to shelter, they'll have first to pay a big dumpoff fee. Tell the owner your dog have X of days to find a new home. If after X days cannot find a new home and shelter cannot keep the dog any longer. Force the owner to come back to the shelter to make them watch euthanization of their own dog. People are so irresponsible they just think dumping it off is not their business anymore, they do not feel the guilty part of it.


----------



## katieliz (Mar 29, 2007)

sit,stay...great ideas & info in your post!

and no, more legislation is not the answer. there has to be a shift in collective consciousness. the throw-away mentality has to be thrown away, lolol...but seriously, it starts with educating the children. it's starting to happen, but it's slow going.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Myah's Mom said:


> The only aggressive dog I've had that has bitten (severely, to a human's neck) has also been from a rescue. The rescue knew about its "issues". But the "save all dogs" and "quick, get them to foster homes, so we can fill our kennel with more rescues asap" is so over-the-top, even pathological, I would say, that it gives some rescues a bad name.
> 
> Rescue organization isn't measured by the number of dogs pulled from shelters. It's by percentage of successful, long term placements of dogs who become happy and healthy. In my opinion, this should be about 90%, but others may disagree.


Yep, totally agree. Save percentage = good home/happy outcome percentage. Not the number pulled from shelters. But, as you rightly note, not everyone sees it that way.

I have met some nutty dogs and nuttier humans while working in rescue. There are a whole lot of absolutely cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs people who get drawn to this little corner of society. Hoarders, puppy flippers, "all an aggressive dog needs is love and hugs" wishful thinkers, and many more. Whole _constellations_ of scammers and idiots.

And even the well-intentioned non-crazy ones are often just astoundingly ignorant. My (non-)favorite story on this front is the foster home who fed a pregnant dog potato chips and peanut butter sandwiches on white bread, because "that's what she likes and she deserves to be spoiled." The poor dog got nothing else. For weeks. By the time we got her, she was both overweight and malnourished. Fortunately she went to foster care with a vet tech who was able to get her on a better diet ASAP, and the puppies were all born healthy and the story had a happy ending.

But it was bananas. And my rescue still uses this foster home, because that is how hard up they are for help. You take the least bad option you've got.

I have a hundred more bad stories, many of which are not even slightly funny and go way over the line into abuse-via-cluelessness (actually, maybe we should make a thread, if there isn't one already. Ultra Depressing Rescue Stories! _There's_ a heartwarming read for a Sunday afternoon). By no means am I even going to pretend that everyone involved in rescue is good or honest or knows what they're doing.

But you find _somewhere_ you can stand and something you can do, and you keep on keeping on, because the alternative is to just give up, and that is not acceptable to me.


----------



## katieliz (Mar 29, 2007)

^^^whew. another beautifully written, thoughtful, truthful post.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

Merciel said:


> I agree that it could be any or all. I'm not sure how it could be none.


Easily. Although we tend to remember the idiots who surrender, there are people who just need to rehome their loved companions for very good reasons. 

I ended up with a pretty well known nationally successful schutzhund III dog in 2008. She was very, very well bred. Had been imported by a well known competitor from Holland as a puppy. This was a well trained, very well loved dog. The owner/handler died of cancer and her husband sends the dog to a woman in another state. Who also loved the dog. But she lost her home to foreclosure and this 10 year old dog that had been a treasure to someone her whole life had nowhere to go. Rescues were full up and a 10 year old would not have lasted a day in an open admission shelter. 

This was not a case of indiscriminate breeding, or owners who lacked commitment or a dog that had never had any training. This was a great dog. And she was still homeless. She was so well regarded, and the memory of her original owner was so powerful, that the local schutzhund community raised the money to ship her to me here, along with the funds to get her vetted so any potential home would know exactly where she was health-wise.

Sometimes people do all the right things and stuff happens. Life happens. They aren't all dummies. It just seems like it.
Sheilah


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

sit said:


> As one of those "rescue folks", I think part of the problem is how inconsistent the rescue world is. For every version of rescue, there are five other versions that look nothing like that version.
> 
> Rescue can be adopting from a group or a shelter. Rescue has also been defined as purchasing from a business or home that the buyer feels is "less than" it should be. I have met a few hardliners who swear it isn't rescue unless you yourself are the one dodging rush hour traffic to personally snatch an in danger dog from the freeway.
> 
> ...


Great post. It gave me a better overall picture of the complicated mess things can be. 

I didn't mean "rescue folks" in a derogatory way. How would one address a group with a common interest? I'm not always the most artful, and certainly not a great writer like some of you are.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

I think a lot of the problem has to do with how people view their animals. To some, pets are just a convenience thing. When they become inconvenient, they are dumped usually when the owners want an easy out. Like Sheila mentioned, there are also unforeseen circumstances that displace very well loved animals who were once in homes with people who were committed to them.


----------



## Belmont (Sep 26, 2012)

There should be a pet tax and registration for all pet owners by law. The taxes are higher if your dog is not neutered. The higher tax serves as a breeding license.

Enforcement should be at the IRS level where you legally have to claim your pet.

The buyer can't receive the akc papers until he registers the dog, and the IRS clears the registration. This will have to be a collaboration between both organizations.

If a vet encounters an owner without registration, the owner automatically gets billed for the registration on his bill, and the vet can register the dog and report the registration to the IRS.

If your dog is from the shelter, all fees and taxes are waived for life.

Money from the tax will fund the shelter, and all shelters should no longer need to kill animals.

I don't know what the tax rate should be, but it should be high enough to fund all shelters and keep them no kill.

It's tough, but the status quo is unacceptable and we need incentives for people to adopt and make it expressive to get from a breeder.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## belladonnalily (May 24, 2013)

What if I choose not to neuter for my dogs health and not because I intend to breed? Legislating everything to death solves nothing but imposes more restrictions on responsible law-abiding citizens. Enforcement would be a crap shoot. People in remote areas with hounds tied to trees the woods would more likely escape punishment than a GSD owner who lives in the suburbs. The guy who leaves his dog in a crate vs. the guy who takes the time to socialize his dog in public places? The good punished along with the bad because of opinions. Taxation and its accompanying legislation has nothing to do with bettering society and promoting values. It is simply about control and revenue. Our government could give a rats ass about the welfare of dogs.

I agree there is too much bad breeding. But having the freedom to do it AND criticize it are both freedoms worth protecting.

15+ years ago I would have been tarred and feathered on this board. I bred my male Golden to my sister's female. The result was 10 of the most wonderful puppies I've ever known. I lost my Gretchen at 14yrs10mos and her brother Gus is still alive at 15yrs7mos. And FWIW, he is still intact. Was it a gamble? Absolutely. Knowing what I do now, I wouldn't do it again. But I wouldn't go back and change anything either.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

> *Belmont*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can I get free tax because I have accidental bred cross mutts??? lol

You gonna start taxing Canaries too???


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

sit said:


> Easily. Although we tend to remember the idiots who surrender, there are people who just need to rehome their loved companions for very good reasons.


That's true (and I mentioned it in my breakdown of where shelter dogs come from), but I don't think this type of situation is what fills up shelters in the U.S.

Even in the big Northeastern cities where the shelters are full of adult and adolescent pit bulls -- which is a sad situation for all kinds of reasons, but also serves as a relatively strong indicator that, as Sue Sternberg has put it, we've "educated the educable" and reduced the problem about down to the minimum currently feasible -- most of those dogs are not there as a result of their owners' life hardships.

It's different elsewhere. When I was growing up, my dad was in the Army and we spent some time stationed overseas. At one stationing in Germany, I wanted a cat, so my parents took us to the local animal shelter and we were given a tour of the facility (which was, by the standards of the time, absolutely beautiful, humanely designed, and state-of-the-art with gigantic "cat jungle" enclosures full of multilevel platforms and toys).

In that particular facility, which may or may not have been representative of other shelters in the country (I was 10, I don't know -- and I would imagine other countries have regional variations just as we do, if perhaps not as severe), the great majority of the animals _were_ there because of owners' life changes, and they were able to be adopted out to good homes easily. The animal population was very low in that shelter. They were functionally no-kill in 1991.

And they declined to let us adopt a cat, because they had a policy of not adopting out to U.S. military families who tended to move and abandon their pets, which was a great disappointment to me at the time but which I remember with a lot of respect now. (And, like most people declined by shelters, we ended up getting two kittens elsewhere, from one of my sister's classmates whose father was just going to drown the farm cat's extra kittens in a bucket. We did take them with us when we moved. Those cats went all over the globe.)

Anyway, the point of that anecdote is that it is (maybe, if the memories of 10-year-old me are trustworthy) possible to get to a place where your shelter population is comprised almost exclusively of owner-hardship surrenders, and if you are in that enviable situation, then most of the bad things that we see in the U.S. just stop being issues.

I don't know if it's possible to replicate that here. I suspect that it is not, at least not in the foreseeable future. America is fraught with much graver social ills, and one of the consequences is that we do continue to have a higher population of cast-off dogs. We can't push the surrender numbers down that far. Therefore we also need to constantly keep working at bringing up the adoption numbers.


----------



## Belmont (Sep 26, 2012)

MadLab said:


> Can I get free tax because I have accidental bred cross mutts??? lol
> 
> You gonna start taxing Canaries too???


No. You would be paying the higher tax for having an unneutered dog to begin with hence it serves as a breeding licence which actually pays for the non kill shelter of the mutts you accidentally cross bred.

The people who adopts your accidental mutts from the shelter gets the tax free pets.

Double incentive to neuter and adopt. Don't want to pay the tax? adopt. 
Want a breeder dog? Pay more to support the shelters.
Don't want to neuter? Pay even more taxes to support the shelter. After all, your "business" is causing an animal over population issue.

This would serve as the incentive to adopt and the financial backing to end kill shelters.

Having a pet isn't a constitutional right, it's a privilege and we have an animal over population issue that needs to be dealt with.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

HSUS funded a very serious $2 million, multi-year, professional market research study in the Gulf South the help shelters understand attitudes toward spay/neuter and shelter adoption, and how to change them. They tested different media approaches and came up with interesting conclusions about messaging that works and what makes other messages ineffective. It's absolutely fascinating reading. 

Here's a link to a PDF of the Powerpoint slides: 
www.animalsheltering.org/how-we-help/.../messaging-spayneuter.pdf


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

It appears that the direct link won't work, but if you go to Animal Sheltering | Home and search for "Gulf South spay neuter" it comes up as the top search result.

Thanks for the resource, I hadn't seen this one yet. 

To me, what's most interesting is that it confirms that the top reasons average pet owners don't fix their animals are not the ones mentioned on this board at all -- medical reasons don't even rate on the survey. It's all about financial barriers (especially for the cats -- oof, that 10-point difference!) and indifference. And those are precisely the owners whose pets _should_ be neutered.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

Let's see if this works:

Here's the 2007 preliminary results:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=9p0icqw8mR_xRGRmHi4cIA&bvm=bv.49967636,d.eWU

Here's a direct link to the 2009 results from google:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=F4MZX8NDPErdCiBSayS52Q&bvm=bv.49967636,d.eWU


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

Jack's Dad said:


> When I was a boy I had racing pigeons. In order to own and confine or breed racing pigeons, you had to apply for a permit. Small fee for inspector to see if you were up to code.
> The code or ordinance gave you such things as distances from property lines and neighborhood dwellings etc... Basic care requirements of water food etc..
> 
> With pigeons you were allowed to let them fly for exercise but could not allow them to just sit for obvious reasons.
> ...


I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I agree with you on a few points here Jack's Dad. I think some legislation is in order, I think the US would benefit greatly by taking some ideas from other countries. Breed organizations, and standards being upheld, etc....Specifically the SV organization. I think that would help to hold people wanting to breed their dogs more responsible. It isn't perfect, but as Myco said, it's a step in the right direction.

I also agree with your thought's in bold above. I do, however, *understand* why rescues go overboard with the training and the "how to raise your dog." They see some terrible stuff, want to try and prevent it from happening to the dog, and do this through their version of "education." *Understanding* something, is different than agreeing with, or condoning it. They also gather funds through their training classes, and I understand that as well.

I also think you are being a little broad-sweeping and dismissive in regards to the responses to the "should I breed my dog" threads. I understand your frustration in only getting "don't breed" and "dogs dying in rescues" and no one will give you any suggestions on fixing this (*I* agree with legislation and some type of breed organization). However, I have also seen people come on that have worked their dog, researched pedigrees, post dam and sires pedigrees and ask for thoughts. Or simply come on asking for information in *eventually* becoming a breeder. The OP's in those threads are usually well received. I'm of the opinion, "if you have to ask on an internet forum, you *probably* aren't *ready* to breed." I mean, come on...."this stranger walked up to me and said her bitch was in heat and she likes the look of my male...should I do it?" If you think that should or would be met with rainbows and unicorns around here....well I have ocean-front property to sell you in Iowa 

Anywho...I agree with your ideas on some type of legislation and some rescues being pushy and "know it all." I disagree with your broad-sweeping statements and demeaning tone about responses to "should I breed my dog threads." It depends on the thread and the knowledge that the OP brings to the table..


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

sit said:


> As one of those "rescue folks", I think part of the problem is how inconsistent the rescue world is. For every version of rescue, there are five other versions that look nothing like that version.
> 
> Rescue can be adopting from a group or a shelter. Rescue has also been defined as purchasing from a business or home that the buyer feels is "less than" it should be. I have met a few hardliners who swear it isn't rescue unless you yourself are the one dodging rush hour traffic to personally snatch an in danger dog from the freeway.
> 
> ...


Wonderfully written, I couldn't agree more! I volunteered at rescues in Michigan, and now here on the West Coast, the differences in each are astonishing. The needs are different, the problems are different, the solutions are different, etc....It really opened my eyes. I agree that there is no *one* solution. Every idea on here, I think, would help move the problem in the right direction. Nice post!


----------



## huntergreen (Jun 28, 2012)

for starters, akc and like groups could stop registering every puppy that is claimed to be pure bread. one start would be mandatory health testing of intended pairings. no test results, puppies are not registered.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Wow… I got to this thread late in the game. I’ve been pretty busy so not a lot of time to fully browse and respond. But, I like this thread - thx Jack's Dad for starting it! 

As a preface to my comments, I would like to state that I, personally, do not feel that it is the “rescue folks” who derail the “I want to breed my dog” threads. However, if people posting on those threads start making inaccurate (or callous) statements about shelters -and the shelter system - it is natural that it will bring a response from those involved in those efforts. 

So, back to the topic at hand…

*What can the shelter and rescue community do (and by extension the public who supports them)*
There is no doubt that spay/neuter programs play a critical role in continuing to reduce the overpopulation problem in the United States. In Chicago, there are a number of well-respected free or low cost facilities as well as free and low/cost mobile clinics that take up residence in high-problem areas. These efforts are essential!

I also feel that the efforts of shelters to communicate and coordinate - at a local, regional and national level - is an important step in the right direction. Yes, it is not perfect now, but I think there are a lot of opportunities to improve efficiencies if we all work together to do so. By that, I mean, work together to secure funding via grants or other means that will enable the development of better technology-enabled “population management” tools. That is just one example of thoughts I have had on that topic. I would love to hear other people’s thoughts!

Additionally, I think we need to continue to work on transforming shelters from depressing places that no one really wants to visit, to vibrant community centers that serve as adoption centers, training centers and education centers. Municipal shelters are not well positioned to deliver against this goal. But, no-kill shelters are. Another benefit of the cooperation between local municipal and no-kill shelters is that _the ability of no-kill shelters to attract more adoption traffic should directly translate into more dogs being pulled from the municipal shelters_. I feel it is absolutely necessary that this trend continue. 

There have also been some interesting efforts at the community level to legislate change. Some cities and towns have adopted ordinances that only shelter dogs can be sold via pet stores. I think this is interesting. It is another way to give the public exposure to the great dogs and pups available through the shelter system without having to go to the dreaded “pound.” I know that in my area, many pet stores have voluntarily switched to a “shelter only” business model. I hope others follow.

*Well, I have talked a lot about what the shelter community can do, now some thoughts on the breeder community.*
I really do think that the breed clubs -and the AKC- need to get their head out of the sand and work together with other local, state and federal agencies to find solutions to better control breeding practices. It is simply mind boggling to me that puppy millers and BYBers can so easily produce and register dogs. This is more than just an overpopulation problem. It is an animal welfare problem. It is a breed health and temperament problem. 

I know that a lot of the breeders on this forum see any legislation designed to address these problems as tantamount to calls for breed extinction… yet, what they don’t seem to realize is that by not doing their job to demand better from the breed clubs and the AKC, they are really the ones to blame for that fact that the notion of a “purebred” dog does not hold the same cultural currency as it did even a generation ago – in fact, in my area, it is often seen as a liability.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Belmont said:


> There should be a pet tax and registration for all pet owners by law. The taxes are higher if your dog is not neutered. The higher tax serves as a breeding license.
> 
> Enforcement should be at the IRS level where you legally have to claim your pet.
> 
> ...


Hi Belmont, 

I know others have disparaged your thought to look at tax codes... but, I would say that you are pretty smart to think about it at that level.

Anyone who has spent even an ounce of time analyzing tax policy knows that it is often used to promote or discourage certain types of behavior. Of course, I am speaking not just of federal/state/city income tax but also of sales and excise taxes.

To build on your thoughts, I would say that maybe we could consider higher tax rates on income derived from high-volume breeding as well as some sales and excise taxes on purchasing a dog from a high-volume breeder.

Of course, I have no idea if there are any existing sales taxes on dogs purchased from a breeder as I have never purchased a dog... so, that may also be a possibility - in addition to the excise tax on high volume breeder purchases - to fund local shelter systems.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Yes, in Ohio, you are supposed to charge sales tax on dogs, unless it is considered a "casual sale." Which means you are not treating it like a business and your bitch had a litter of pups and wow, you sold them. 

If you get a kennel license, you will need a vender's license. With a vender's license you must charge sales tax. There are some exceptions, but you get the jist. It does not prevent people from buying or selling dogs cheap, the bybs, they just do it without a kennel license and without a venders license. 

It really does not prevent the larger scale breeders either because they pass the cost on to the buyers. I do not think the tax itself does anything at all for dogs, as the monies are collected on the state level and put into the general fund, and distributed to the counties, etc. 

Kennel licenses, and dog license monies will go into a dog and kennel fund, after the costs of administering the program. It is all listed out in the Ohio Revised Code for Ohio.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Haven't read replies, but in my opinion, the biggest issue is education. 

Not spay/neuter. 
Not adoption. 
Not overpopulation. 
Not even the BYBs, necessarily. 

Education of pet owners is the big one. 

A lot of times, people don't KNOW that getting their dog from a BYB allows the cycle that everyone is fighting against to continue. 

Someone decides to breed Fido to Fifi because they wanted puppies just like mommy and daddy. 
They sell the puppies to anyone who wants one. MABYE one or two of them will have a forever home, if they're lucky. The rest will go to homes that will rehome the dog if they're moving, not puppies anymore, etc. Basically, when the dog is no longer fun, new, or convenient. 
They go to the shelter. 
Cycle continues. 

The average pet owner doesn't realize that, yes, even if they may provide a loving lifetime home for the animal they're getting, if the money is going to a BYB, they are giving them money to continue breeding and to continue selling to anyone with loaded pockets that will treat their pets as disposable. 

A lot of people don't see the justification in spending up to $2,000 (sometimes more) on a well bred dog from a reputable breeder. 

I think I'm rambling now, but my point is, we need to stop pushing for spay/neuter. People get it. People who want to breed their dogs are going to breed their dogs no matter what anyone says. But if they can't profit off of the puppies they breed and it becomes a burden to sell them because pet owners are educated and go to reputable breeders instead of BYBs, then it might sink in.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

selzer said:


> Yes, in Ohio, you are supposed to charge sales tax on dogs, unless it is considered a "casual sale." Which means you are not treating it like a business and your bitch had a litter of pups and wow, you sold them.
> 
> If you get a kennel license, you will need a vender's license. With a vender's license you must charge sales tax. There are some exceptions, but you get the jist. It does not prevent people from buying or selling dogs cheap, the bybs, they just do it without a kennel license and without a venders license.
> 
> ...


Selzer, thank you for providing insight into how it works in Ohio. It is very interesting. I would, personally, love it if the sales tax from purchasing a puppy was automatically directed to funding the local shelter system - but, that is probably not what currently happens.

Beyond that issue, it is important to know that sales and excise taxes are two different things. I would still think about the possibility of introducing an excise tax on pups from high volume breeders as well as an income tax rate that is higher for people who derive their income from high volume breeding. 

I am not sure if those measures would actually do anything to change the status quo, I am just trying to think outside of the box. 

I welcome comments from all!


----------



## OriginalWacky (Dec 21, 2011)

Konotashi said:


> I think I'm rambling now, but my point is, we need to stop pushing for spay/neuter. People get it. People who want to breed their dogs are going to breed their dogs no matter what anyone says. But if they can't profit off of the puppies they breed and it becomes a burden to sell them because pet owners are educated and go to reputable breeders instead of BYBs, then it might sink in.


I do agree that education is super important. But I also think that S/N at low cost should be available everywhere, and prominently so, and then more people will be likely to utilize that option. At one point, I lived in a place that literally had NO low cost S/N in the area, and I was unable to spay a couple of the cats we had. I took it upon myself to be darned certain those cats were NEVER in a position to breed (and they are spayed now). If there had been a mandatory S/N law, we would have been punished for not having enough money.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

There is low-cost speuter here, but it is run like every other charitable/social program, where if you are below a certain income level you qualify and if you are above that, then you do not qualify.

I think that maybe the cost of speuter should be in your dog-license fee (I believe in a life-time dog license fee, that includes the cost of euthanasia too). 

This way it is not mandatory to speuter your pet, but you have already paid to spay/neuter, so unless you have a reason not to, you may as well get your money's worth. I mean, my brother had a couple of cats, and his income was too high for the low-cost spay/neuter, but his financial situation was so perilous he is on the brink of bankruptcy. Doesn't matter. He does not qualify. 

Just because you make more than the poverty level, does not mean you are going to WANT to use your money to perform what you consider an unnecessary operation. So, if people want people to spay/neuter, the incentive has to go beyond class lines. 

I think that if we could have a life-of-the-pet license fee, and figure $10 x average 10 years, + $180 for spay/neuter voucher + $75 for a euthanasia voucher, people would have to come up with $355 PRIOR to the purchase/adoption of their puppy. I think that for this, the government agency administering the license program, should use their computer database to ensure that ANYONE with an animal cruelty or animal neglect conviction is ineligible to purchase a license for a set number of years. And breeders, rescues, and shelters would be required to keep a list of the license numbers of the people who they relinquished a dog to. Add $40 for a micro chip -- $400, up front before you can talk about getting a dog.

I also think that people should not feel the need to dump an old dog at a shelter for it to be humanely euthanized. Every dog deserves to be put out of its pain humanely if at all possible. It should never come down to what the vet visit will cost to get the purple juice. 

In the world according to Sue, I would probably include a an $80 increase and voucher for training classes, but _that _would never pass into law. But I think that the other items are pretty sound and serves the current government's purpose to reduce the number of dogs dumped onto an over-flowing shelter system. And, it makes pet ownership less than an impulse buy.

EDA: From a breeder-prospective, paying for a spay/neuter for each dog one time, whether or not I choose to ever spay/neuter would be ok. In some places the keep-your-dog-intact fee is much higher, and yearly. Also, I don't think breeders would squirm too much about requiring the license information up front before selling the dog, I think it would be nice to know that someone ran a check on each owner to ensure that none of them have convictions.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

selzer said:


> In some places the keep-your-dog-intact fee is much higher, and yearly.


That's true here. 

For Ozzy, to license him for one year is $42 because he's intact, versus $17 if he was neutered. 

If I'm late on renewing his license, I have to pay $4 for every month I'm overdue for renewing. If he was neutered, it would only be $2 per extra month. 

The ONLY reason I'm against this at all is because 90% of people out here don't license their dogs (I honestly don't think I know a single person who has their dog licensed), so for people like me who DO license, it can be an inconvenience.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Konotashi said:


> That's true here.
> 
> For Ozzy, to license him for one year is $42 because he's intact, versus $17 if he was neutered.
> 
> ...


I agree. Here they hike the license fees up and hike them up to cover costs, but they do not go after people who do not license their dogs. Ok, if they pick the dog up without a license, you will get charged twice the license fee -- 20-24$ instead of 10-12$. But they do not do ANYTHING if you just don't bother to license your dog and never have the dog warden come to your place for an unrelated reason.

Instead of hiking the fees on the people who do the right thing, why not make the people that don't bother to pay. 

This is why I like the idea of having to purchase a license to have any dog transfered to your ownership. At the time of the purchase of the license, you are given vouchers for spay/neuter, micro chip, and euthanasia. And maybe just your license number would be required -- no voucher, just a data base. You take your license to your vet and get the pet microchipped, and the chip number is registered with your info and the state, license. 

Nobody can sell or transfer a dog without a license. If a dog is relinquished to a shelter, a form would be filled out that transfers the chip info to the shelter. 

A dog that is found, running loose is scanned and the proper owner is found and penalized. 

If the dog bites anyone or causes damage, the proper owner is determined by scanning the chip (if the dog is captured or killed).


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

Konotashi said:


> The ONLY reason I'm against this at all is because 90% of people out here don't license their dogs (I honestly don't think I know a single person who has their dog licensed), so for people like me who DO license, it can be an inconvenience.


It does seem pointless.
Over here if you don't register there are big fines. We live in the sticks and we have had the inspector twice to check up on our dogs.
Most register over here as there are big penalties if you don't and they do random checks......and there needs to be otherwise like you have pointed out....whats the point?


----------

