# Good news



## Susan_GSD_mom (Jan 7, 2014)

Here is some news from Michigan... Hopefully it may do some good.

"*Bills would require background checks for adopting animals*

Posted: May 12, 2015 3:04 PM EDT
Updated: May 12, 2015 3:04 PM EDT
Posted By Brianna Owczarzak, Managing Web EditorCONNECT


LANSING, Mich. (AP) -
Animal shelters would be required to run background checks on people looking to adopt pets and could deny adoptions to anyone convicted of animal abuse under bills moving through the Michigan Legislature.

A House committee approved the bills nearly unanimously Tuesday.

The two bills would specifically require municipal-run animal control shelters and private animal shelters to run the background checks on anyone wishing to adopt.

Someone convicted of animal abuse in the past five years would not be allowed to adopt. Someone convicted more than five years ago could still be denied an adoption.

Examples of animal abuse include animal neglect or cruelty or using them for fighting.

The bills now go to the House for consideration."


Susan


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom (Apr 24, 2011)

Thats a great thing ,hope it passess and helps stop the abuse and neglect situations but especially the fighting. situation


----------



## McWeagle (Apr 23, 2014)

Hope this passes. I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't been done sooner. But I guess people would probably kick up a big fuss about their privacy being violated, or something.


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

Some county shelters have been doing this for years.Not looking for convictions but outstanding warrants.


----------



## Debanneball (Aug 28, 2014)

Thats great news! hope it passes..how long will the process take?


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom (Jan 7, 2014)

Debanneball said:


> Thats great news! hope it passes..how long will the process take?


Heh, we're talking about two bills traveling through the State legislature. Could take forever, although it sounds like they have the backing of pretty much all the State legislators.

Susan


----------



## TheLaingFam (May 17, 2015)

Definitely interesting... I definitely don't think all people with a background however should be excluded from the adoption process, some people do change, some people didn't do something that severe, etc.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

McWeagle said:


> Hope this passes. I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't been done sooner. But I guess people would probably kick up a big fuss about their privacy being violated, or something.


This would be my objection. I don't have a high trust level in a volunteer-based rescue having access to that information. I'll submit to a background check for employment but I draw the line at being able to procure a dog.

I don't really have a dog (haha) in this fight, though, given that I don't plan to rescue - ever.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Personally, I think that people should be required to buy a license to buy/adopt a dog. The license should cost approximately $200. The cost of that license should include a check for animal cruelty/neglect convictions, the cost of euthanasia, the cost of a microchip. 

Once the license is purchased, the prospective dog owner could then go to a shelter, rescue, breeder, present the license whose number can be recorded by the seller, and then procure the dog. 

The dog can then be taken to the vet, and at its first visit, the micro chip would be administered, and registered with the microchipping company -- the clinic would then present a bill to the county for the number of microchips they provided and the numbers of the licenses. 

The dog is then licensed for one year or more, depending on the county. 

If the dog requires euthanization for whatever reason, the dog could then be taken to the vet, and produce their license and the vet can perform standard euthanization and present a bill to the county for this. 

The dog could then be sold or rehomed to someone who also has a license to own the dog, and a form would then be filed with the county license bureau to a. transfer ownership/liability of the dog, b. update the new owner's information with the microchip company, c. provide license to the new dog owner.

What this would do:

1. Everyone who homes a dog would then know that the person buying the dog hasn't been convicted of any type of animal-related crime.

2. The person who wants to procure a dog will have to get together a couple of hundred dollars -- more than a on the spur of the moment purchase. And that person would be provided a list of state and local ordinances concerning dog ownership and liability.

3. A dog picked up will be traced back to a current owner, who will be fined, so much for the first offense, so much more for the second, and if the dog is abandoned by the owner, that could effect the individual's ability to obtain another license to purchase a dog. 

4. Situations change during a dog's lifespan. It is to be hoped that when people obtain a dog, they are in a position to provide for it. But when the dog is in pain/dying/hurting, no dog should suffer because the owners do not have the money to pay for euthanizing the dog. Dogs should not have to be relinquished to a shelter to be euthanized. The owners should be able to be there for the dog. Paying up front for euthanization would ensure that the dog could be humanely euthanized regardless to how life has changed for the owner -- then no excuses for allowing a dog to suffer and die, because you cannot afford the vet. 

That's how I think it should work. Then, private individuals would not have to run background checks on people to find the information, and the costs for this would be on the people who would enjoy pet ownership.


----------



## rtdmmcintyre (Jan 7, 2015)

why would we in a free country want even more regulation on our life? at what point would you feel you are loosing your freedoms?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

rtdmmcintyre said:


> why would we in a free country want even more regulation on our life? at what point would you feel you are loosing your freedoms?


Owning a dog is a privilege, not a right. There is nothing in the constitution that preserves the ownership of dogs. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be serial killers, dog fighters, animal hoarders, and all the other scumbags. 

You must have a license to drive a car, and here, you must have a license to own a dog. The way it is currently set up, is just a tax. If you pay your 10 or 12 bucks, whatever, then they give you a license, regardless to how many animals you have, whether or not you have been convicted of any animal-related crimes. Here it is even worse for exotic animals, or was. For $40 you could have as many as you want with zero constraints or requirements. After a bear got loose in one place, and a lion in another, and attacked people, they put some requirements on how they are contained. 

So what do you think, do you think your neighbors ought to be able to own a tiger and a grizzly bear without any requirements? Where do you draw the line. Frankly, fewer bears and tigers have savaged people than dogs.

Unfortunately, dog ownership has not been a thing of beauty here. People neglect and abuse them to the point that they suffer terribly and sometimes die. People throw them out on road ways and wooded areas, and leave them to starve, bewildered or run in front of a car. And people dump them at shelters. 

Should we simply ban dog ownership completely? Places have banned breeds. It could happen. Wouldn't it be better to raise the standard and hold those who offend against animals accountable, and making it much more difficult for them to be in control of animals again. 

Most places have license requirements, why not make them actually mean something?


----------



## Cheyanna (Aug 18, 2012)

Seriously? Your state does not have worse things to worry about? How many convicted animal abusers are actually out there trying to adopt animals? Seems so inconsequential. But I guess if you have low taxes, top schools, budget surplus then you can worry about this stuff.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Cheyanna said:


> Seriously? Your state does not have worse things to worry about? How many convicted animal abusers are actually out there trying to adopt animals? Seems so inconsequential. But I guess if you have low taxes, top schools, budget surplus then you can worry about this stuff.


Personally, I think that most of the time when people dump a dog (in the woods or at a pound), they are abusing/neglecting the dog, and if that is the definition, then there are numerous animal neglectors/abusers.

But, even if that isn't your definition, I think you would be surprised at how many hoarding situations there are, and how many people move and leave the dog tied in the back yard, how many people dump their dog out of car or a litter of puppies, how many people allow dog after dog after dog to be slaughtered in the road or shot by neighbors.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom (Jan 7, 2014)

Cheyanna said:


> Seriously? Your state does not have worse things to worry about? How many convicted animal abusers are actually out there trying to adopt animals? Seems so inconsequential. But I guess if you have low taxes, top schools, budget surplus then you can worry about this stuff.


You might want to read the article that the OP of this thread links to-----> *Animal Cruelty a Reliable Indicator of Criminality*

Susan


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

selzer said:


> Personally, I think that people should be required to buy a license to buy/adopt a dog. The license should cost approximately $200. The cost of that license should include a check for animal cruelty/neglect convictions, the cost of euthanasia, the cost of a microchip.
> 
> Once the license is purchased, the prospective dog owner could then go to a shelter, rescue, breeder, present the license whose number can be recorded by the seller, and then procure the dog.
> 
> ...


All jokes about the government aside, I'd feel much more comfortable with a system like that. I don't tend to trust private individuals unless I have a chance to vet them, and I'd feel uncomfortable with a group of volunteers having that sort of access to my personal data. If this is someone's job with privacy regulations in place, that feels easier to get on board with. This idea seems well thought out and takes into account both people's situations and the lifespan (and changing needs) of the dog.


----------



## Palydyn (Aug 28, 2014)

Honestly, I have mixed feeling about the proposed legislation. While no one wants animals to be abused or neglected, do we really want more obstacles in the way of rescuing animals. Aren't the shelters already filled with animals that can't get adopted. Just check out the concurrent thread on adoption procedures. And yes, Selzer owning a dog may be a privilege and not a right but at least for now you are not required to adopt a dog. 

Case in point: Last year after my beloved Denali passed I tried rescue. Found a dog I thought was perfect to add to the family. Had to have a home visit (fine), have neighbors interviewed (uh, okay), get a letter of reference from current Vet (hmmm, maybe a little over protective) and provide 3 years worth of income tax records (no way). At that point I walked away. Put name and deposit on waiting list for a GSD puppy. If on top of all that I had to submit to a background check, I would pass I don't care if I was adopting Rin-Tin-Tin. 

And by the way, I have a high ranking classified position in a government alphabet agency and I still don't trust the government. Now I am supposed to trust volunteers at a rescue facility? I don't think so.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Palydyn said:


> Honestly, I have mixed feeling about the proposed legislation. While no one wants animals to be abused or neglected, do we really want more obstacles in the way of rescuing animals. Aren't the shelters already filled with animals that can't get adopted. Just check out the concurrent thread on adoption procedures. And yes, Selzer owning a dog may be a privilege and not a right but at least for now you are not required to adopt a dog.
> 
> Case in point: Last year after my beloved Denali passed I tried rescue. Found a dog I thought was perfect to add to the family. Had to have a home visit (fine), have neighbors interviewed (uh, okay), get a letter of reference from current Vet (hmmm, maybe a little over protective) and provide 3 years worth of income tax records (no way). At that point I walked away. Put name and deposit on waiting list for a GSD puppy. If on top of all that I had to submit to a background check, I would pass I don't care if I was adopting Rin-Tin-Tin.
> 
> And by the way, I have a high ranking classified position in a government alphabet agency and I still don't trust the government. Now I am supposed to trust volunteers at a rescue facility? I don't think so.


See, I think that my idea might make it easier for rescues, shelters, and breeders, if the license is already obtained. The license would be obtained from the license bureau, kind of like your driver's license. A full background check would not be performed, the computer would be programmed to check for animal-related offenses, and that would then chuck you out of the system. Anyone with an animal cruelty charge shouldn't be adopting or buying a dog, sorry, so making it tougher for those people to get a dog, yes, yes, yes.

Maybe, some of the rescue organizations would be able to relax a little with the understanding that the person in front of them understands what they need to do to get a dog (already obtained a license); hasn't been convicted of cruelty, perhaps hasn't a history of abandoning animals; this isn't a spur of the moment decision, and so forth. 

The problem we have in this country is that it is actually too easy to obtain a dog. You can walk into a pound, put $25 down and walk away with a dog. If the dog chews on the furniture, you can drive it a couple of hours away and push it out of you car. And you can go to the pound or shelter and bring home another dog. 

If the dog gets old and has to take meds, you can dump the dog in a shelter -- someone will love your old dog and provide the vet care and meds for it. If they take it in the back room and kill it before you leave the parking lot, you will never know. 

If you live in an apartment with a no-pets policy, you can still bring them home from the pound and smuggle them in. Never let them outside, let them poop and pee inside and when you are caught or have to move, you can just dump them back at the pound. After you move, you can go to the pound and pick up another dog or two or three. 

We really could use more of the attitude that dog-ownership is a privilege. No, you shouldn't have to submit your income-tax returns to obtain a dog. But, you should have to present something, maybe proof that you own your home, or a copy of your lease/pet deposit. I guess I understand that rescues want to make sure that you are capable of owning the dog, because they want the dog to have a forever home, not be tossed about again. 

If people had to ante up up front to buy a dog from anywhere, maybe fewer people would pick up and let go of dogs as nonchalantly as they currently do. Maybe.

And if the dog is chipped, and it lands in the pound, and the owner doesn't want to bail him out, huge red flag goes on that record so when that yayhoo applies for his next license to buy a dog/pup, a big fat DECLINED comes up. Oh well, shouldn't have dumped your dog. 

Now, the dude might be able to buy a dog from out of state and bring it home and fly below the radar, but you will always have some people working around a system. The point is that it will clean up a lot of the mess. And maybe something like dropping a dog in the shelter would get you declined for a number of years 2, 3, or 5. Where an animal cruelty conviction would get you declined forever. An animal-related charge would have a temporary suspension, until there is a conviction or no conviction. 

Making it easy-peasy for people to bring dogs home does not necessarily help anything. People who are committed to owning a dog would not resent a few hurdles if they understood the reasoning behind them.


----------



## Hubatka (Jul 4, 2006)

selzer said:


> Owning a dog is a privilege, not a right. There is nothing in the constitution that preserves the ownership of dogs.]
> 
> He didn't say anything about the constitution he asked why give up more of your freedom. Why would you invite the government to control even more of your life than what they already do?
> These laws that block some people can be worded vaguely to block other people that weren't originally meant to be, but I suppose that would be ok with some people here after all its for the dogs.


----------



## Hubatka (Jul 4, 2006)

selzer said:


> Personally, I think that people should be required to buy a license to buy/adopt a dog. The license should cost approximately $200. The cost of that license should include a check for animal cruelty/neglect convictions, the cost of euthanasia, the cost of a microchip.
> 
> Once the license is purchased, the prospective dog owner could then go to a shelter, rescue, breeder, present the license whose number can be recorded by the seller, and then procure the dog.
> 
> ...



No, just no. we don't need anymore stupid laws like this on the books we have enough the way it is.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

We already have to buy a license. 

It does zilch. 

The $12 or $60 for a kennel license pays for a dog warden and the clerk in the auditor's department that sells the licenses. Done. 
It does not pay for shelters. It does not pay for dog parks or poop bags in the park. It does ZERO. 

If getting a license prior to getting a dog can actually mean something positive. I am for that. 

If people have to plan, think, shell out a couple bucks before purchasing their pup, I think that is great too. 

If a license can prove to whomever might sell you a dog that you do not have animal cruelty convictions on your record and have not abandoned an animal in the last 5 years, then I am all for that too.

Freedom is an awesome thing and no, I do not want to see our freedoms be whittled away, but too many people are abusing their freedom here. In my scenario, you would get your license, no problem if you haven't ALREADY abused the freedom that you had to own a critter. 

Something, somewhere has to give. 

The lady with 97 cats in her house, they come and take them away, most of them feral, some of them emaciated, most dying, or dead, or need to be PTS. And in six months she has another 15 or 20 cats. And people do that with dogs too. 

In my suggestion, you can have all the dogs you want. No problem. UNTIL you screw it up. Once you are convicted of cruelty or abandon a pet, then it screws up your chances for another license to purchase a creature.

Pretty much, I am free to do what I like until it impacts another human. But, I am not free to torture or neglect an animal. There are already laws against that. My suggestion is not to curtail freedoms except for convicted animal abusers. And, maybe it is just a little too easy to take the collar off the dog before dumping it, dead or alive. If the dog is chipped, it can be traced back to you. 

I want people held accountable to the evil they do to creatures. I want critters to be safer, by limiting access to them, once someone has been convicted. Even if a judge orders someone never to own a dog again, how is that followed up upon? Of course the guy isn't going to buy a dog license for his next dog, but parole officers don't check up on people in their homes, or check for dog hairs when an offender shows up. 

Having a law requiring sellers to record the license prior to the purchase would ensure that the yayhoo trying to get a dog hasn't been ordered not to own any animals. 

I think there are some crimes that should curtail someone's future freedom. Someone who has committed a felony should not be able to own a gun. Someone who has committed an atrocity on an animal, should not be able to own an animal. Someone who has caused a fatal accident while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should not be able to drive.


----------



## wick (Mar 7, 2015)

If your "system" was implemented it would have the opposite affect your looking for... Also do you value making health based decisions for your dog?


----------



## wyoung2153 (Feb 28, 2010)

rtdmmcintyre said:


> why would we in a free country want even more regulation on our life? at what point would you feel you are loosing your freedoms?


The same reasons there are regulations and background checks when you adopt a child. This isn't about reducing the freedom to won a pet it is making it harder for felons and prior offenders to continue to repeat tha cycle. 

Animals cannot speak for themselves and I think it is our responsibility as a society to ensure their safety and well-being. 

There are certain instances that this fee country thing makes sense, this is not one of them. We are not the almighty we once were and at times, yeah we do need to regulate ourselves to get back on the right track.


----------



## wyoung2153 (Feb 28, 2010)

For those of you not wanting another law or regulation.. what is your solution for the current problem with dogs in shelters and terrible owners who have no right to own one? 


and if you want to pull the freedom card, our nation was founded on the freedom to protect our rights and human beings.... this is protecting outrr rights as GOOD dog owners to continue doing what's right and not allowing some ill intended members of society get away with everything because "it's a free **** country." 

Too many people want to pull the free country card, and guess what, that's part of the reason our society is going the way it is.. I am not against our freedom, I fight for it every day, but at some point we have to look at certain things and understand that too much freedom isn't always the best thing. If we didn't control certain things (murder, rape, theft, drugs, ABUSE, etc.) in the country it would be way worse off than it's already going..


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

wick said:


> If your "system" was implemented it would have the opposite affect your looking for... Also do you value making health based decisions for your dog?


I really do not know what health-based decisions have to do with the price of rice in China. 

I do not see the micro-chip as a health-based decision. Probably half of my dogs are chipped, maybe more, and never have there been any issues with them. 

As for the euthanasia, well, my thinking there is that I am sick and tired of hearing people say things to the effect that they cannot afford to take the dog to the vet. The dog is suffering through death because the owners can't take it to be humanely euthanized. Well, I want to take away that constraint. I think people should be thinking and planning 10 - 14 years down the line when they choose to purchase/adopt a dog. Paying up front for that just makes sense to me, from a government standpoint. Yes, the cost of euthanasia will increase, but others will be paying an increased license to purchase fee. And, some dogs will not need to be euthanized, while some euthanizations will be performed in shelters pro-bono. In the end, it will be dog owners paying for dog ownership rather than Father Government charging everyone who breathes because some people want to own dogs, but are not responsible for them. 

To get a dog humanely euthanized when you can't afford it, one has to drop the dog at a shelter or dump it. Then strangers take the ailing dog into a room and euthanize it, however it suits them to do so, probably usually with as much compassion is possible for people who have to do it all the time, and have to guard themselves from it, and with whatever method whoever governs the shelter determines makes the most sense with respect to the balance between public opinion and operating funds. 

I am not saying people MUST euthanize their dog when their vet says it is time. I am saying that euthanasia is covered up front with the cost of your license, so even if you lose your job, or become disabled, or get divorced in the course of the dog's life, you can still afford to take the dog in and end the pain when you feel it is time.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> There is nothing in the constitution that preserves the ownership of dogs.


Animals are property and we certainly DO have property rights in America. Is property subject to regulation? Yes.


----------



## wick (Mar 7, 2015)

So because your dogs are fine with their microchips or you personally believe that they cause no health concerns means that everyone should feel the same way/be forced to use them? I happily will always microchip my dogs, but there are people who feel differently and question long term affects. 

The bigger issue here is that by implementing this process there is a larger problem of how you would deal with accidental litters and bybs... By requiring lengthy and complicated licensing procedures to be followed by both seller and buyer many more individuals would resort to dumping puppies (both at shelters or on the streets) because it would make it harder to find buyers or transfer animals...that coupled with the lowered adoption rates that would be caused by the excess monetary requirements and red tape would be causing the euthenasia and abuse rate to increase heavily! Not to mention loving people who found strays would be less likely to take them in as their own... I do believe people need to be held accountable for their actions and need to take pet ownership more seriously, but this not only takes away many personal freedoms and privacies (so will most likely never be seriously considered) but also will cause more issues than it is preventing (IMHO).


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

A chip cannot be removed easily, like a collar, when you are sick of the dog, take the collar off, and dump it a few hundred miles away from home. With a chip, that dog will be identified. 

Frankly, I think the main issue with shelters are not puppies, in fact, many shelters import puppies from other areas because of the demand.

If BYBs and Oops-breeders (if there is any such thing), have a tougher time getting their dogs homed because they have to list the license number of the purchaser, than, oh well. That might make them think twice about breeding another litter, or no more oopses. 

Perhaps the shelter would make better decisions as to who gets the puppies. Maybe. If those responsible for the puppies being brought into the world are relying on people who can't or won't obtain a license to purchase a dog, then they are probably feeding the system of dogs dumped into shelters because the are relying on owners who probably shouldn't own dogs.


----------

