Legislation that could eventually affect every dog owner (how much, breeding, training)

[ssg II]

Originally Posted by Calidreemer

Anything beyond general legislation to handle vicious dogs on a case by case basis or handling of dogs/animals in a cruel or harmful way is chipping away at our rights. I don't want anyone to tell me what kind of dog I can have. I understand they are trying to curtail back yard breeders and the pet over population problem, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. As I have said over and over we are smarter than this.

I also resent being told that HOI wont cover you for certain breeds. It's discrimination IMO.

We could not obtain HOI, thereby qualify for a mortgage in Florida if we owned any of the "bad dogs." Yes, it's discriminatory, but based on their claims, it's what they do: limit their liabilities. I live in a small town and have to avoid walking my terriers around certain blocks because some of the pit-bull owners don't keep their dogs fenced or leashed.

As with anything, the few irresponsible "bad-dog" owners and breeders have ruined things for everyone.

[riveree]

Originally Posted by southward bound

SPRINGFIELD, MA – Animal rights advocates in Massachusetts reached
into their bag of political dirty tricks last week to pave the way
for legislation that would be devastating to dog owners and
circumvent public participation in the process.

The legislation, which will be unveiled as House Bill 5092, would:...

Read the full implications of this terrible bill in a report by by John Yates of the American Sporting Dog Alliance:
Main Page @ americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

This legislation is being promoted vigorously by the radical Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS) in states that the polls
indicate are likely to be won by Barrack Obama in the November
presidential election. The list includes Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and now Massachusetts.

This bill would be the beginning of unreasonable restrictions on all dog ownership around the country, and affects ALL dogs, not just sporting dogs. There are links in the article to the bill itself, and you can contact the Sporting Dog Alliance for information about what is going on in your state.
We should all be aware before our rights are taken away!

Well, I don't think of Animal Advocates as being underhanded and having a "bag of political dirty tricks", so we differ there. I may not agree with every action of the Animal Rights Movement, but I think the heart of the movement is in the right place - they are pro-animal.

I also don't consider the Humane Society as "radical", this is the first time I've ever heard of them being to referred to in that manner.

You're correct in that Sporting and Hunting dogs are not singled out in this legislation, it is for all dogs. So let's look at what some of the new laws would be:

*Mandatory spaying of all dogs over 12 months of age (there is a fee-based exception for breeders)

*Limiting the number of litters a female can have to 1 per year

*Reporting of all puppies born

*Outlawing the chaining of dogs

*Allowing towns and cities to impose breed-specific laws (they already do this)

*State-mandated vaccine schedules (no longer up to the pet owner and vet)


Puppy mills would be in big trouble, wouldn't they? Dog-fighters too. Neglectful owners would have a hard time maintaining their neglectful status.

I don't agree with all these points - BSL is always a bad idea in my opinion, for example. I'd have to know more about the vaccine issue (which vaccines, for example). But I'm all for outlawing puppy mills, the chaining of dogs and I think just about all dogs should be spayed/neutered. This legislation looks mostly sound to me.

[southward bound]

Originally Posted by riveree

Well, I don't think of Animal Advocates as being underhanded and having a "bag of political dirty tricks", so we differ there. I may not agree with every action of the Animal Rights Movement, but I think the heart of the movement is in the right place - they are pro-animal.

I also don't consider the Humane Society as "radical", this is the first time I've ever heard of them being to referred to in that manner.

You're correct in that Sporting and Hunting dogs are not singled out in this legislation, it is for all dogs. So let's look at what some of the new laws would be:

*Mandatory spaying of all dogs over 12 months of age (there is a fee-based exception for breeders)

*Limiting the number of litters a female can have to 1 per year

*Reporting of all puppies born

*Outlawing the chaining of dogs

*Allowing towns and cities to impose breed-specific laws (they already do this)

*State-mandated vaccine schedules (no longer up to the pet owner and vet)


Puppy mills would be in big trouble, wouldn't they? Dog-fighters too. Neglectful owners would have a hard time maintaining their neglectful status.

I don't agree with all these points - BSL is always a bad idea in my opinion, for example. I'd have to know more about the vaccine issue (which vaccines, for example). But I'm all for outlawing puppy mills, the chaining of dogs and I think just about all dogs should be spayed/neutered. This legislation looks mostly sound to me.

There's a lot there that appears sound - I would agree. Except in my innermost being I'm convinced that the more regulation we allow into our lives, the fewer fredoms we will have in the long run. Unfortunately, as in every area of society, freedom brings with it responsibility, and not everyone is responsible. Riveree, I understand your comment about walking in the neighborhood. I don't walk with my dog - and am hesitant to walk alone - because there are dogs who wander. The other day we were in our car, leaving the subdivision, when we came upon a boy about 8 or 9 yrs old, who had taken a spill off his bike in the street and was trying to fight off two loose dogs - neither of them were the breeds one would normally be concerned about. One was a young lab, the other a boxer. The child said he was ok, but the dogs had attacked him on the bike and really scared him. I'm glad we were there to intervene at that moment because the dogs scattered. I don't know that the dogs "attacked" him, they might have just been moving-object chasers, and were having sport with this child, but it certainly scared him a lot! And any time you get two or more dogs together, running like a pack, anything can happen.

I'm also very much against breed specific legislation! (and who isn't against puppy mills!)

However, this bill does not target specific breeds, and would have some undesirable effects, for example the fee in leiu of spay/neuter. Now, many of us are not breeders, but if it weren't for dedicated breeders we wouldn't have wonderful show dogs. Can a small but good breeder afford to pay a fee of $500 per dog? Is it fair to ask that? These dogs don't wander, they don't get chained; in contrast to irresponsible owners, their dogs get the best of training, nutrition, grooming, medical care. The study of genetics goes into it, x-rays for hips, eye health certification, presence of other potential genetic disease...many would be forced to shut down. I would much prefer to see existing laws *enforced* rather than new ones passed that hurt the rest of us.

There is a lot of good that animal rights orgs do to raise awareness of inhumane treatment of animals, but the definition of 'inhumane' varries. Peta says putting your pup in a crate for any length of time is inhumane, for example. If it's so cruel, then why do my dogs sometimes go into their crates on their own (doors are always open) just to take a break and a snooze? I think these moves on the part of these organizations are just a stepping stone toward their ultimate goal. They are so "pro-animal" they want to legislate that our dogs and cats will be granted "human" status, whereby we won't be allowed to "own" them. You can't own a human being, right? All under the guise of animal rights and protection. As for HSUS, they are a national org that has little to do with hands-on animal care. They are a lobbying org for the most part, and don't do the fine work of our local humane shelters across the country.

So, there we are. We see some things the same way, we have a different perspective on others. In a nutshell, I'm not for legislating morality or personal responsibility. Pass tight laws that get enforced, and don't punish the innocent until they have transgressed.

[grannynancy]

The 12 month spay neuter is problematic to me.
A dog really needs to be over 2 before it is assessed for breeding.

What is a "breeder" defined as, hopefully not only someone in a "for profit" business
There are folks with working/sport dogs who are very responsible owners who are strongly opposed to spaying and neutering. I have never been resposnbile for a puppy coming into this world but I sure want my working dog to keep his equipment for other reasons. If it aint broke I don't want to risk messing up something

[southward bound]

Originally Posted by grannynancy

The 12 month spay neuter is problematic to me.
A dog really needs to be over 2 before it is assessed for breeding.

What is a "breeder" defined as, hopefully not only someone in a "for profit" business
There are folks with working/sport dogs who are very responsible owners who are strongly opposed to spaying and neutering. I have never been resposnbile for a puppy coming into this world but I sure want my working dog to keep his equipment for other reasons. If it aint broke I don't want to risk messing up something

Good points.

[World Citizen]

Apparently the AKC can see what is happening here. Whether or not you like them, they are conservative in their views.

What Massachusetts has done is formed a "joint municipality committee" who seems to have taken what many Common Councils want the right to pass and they're changing existing State legislation to give them these rights without the citizens / public rights to vote on or participate in the lawmaking process.

* Allowing towns and cities to impose breed-specific ordinances

* Establishing unreasonable nuisance laws that can result in the forced sterilization, banishment, or euthanization of dogs.

I just moved from a town that had horrible, unreasonable nuisance laws and BSL. These laws are normally a municipal ordinance. They are passed after an approval process where the people of the town are allowed to make their voices heard. The Common Council doesn't have the right to just decide to pass laws. They are read, posted publicly -- citizens have the right to respond and bring their concerns to the Common Council and be heard before ordinances are approved and written into law.

Saying that you agree with the good things and the legislation is mostly sound and agreeing to it is allowing the bad things that come along with them.

This is not the way America's government is set up to operate. Our constitution gives citizens the right to participate in the process.

Taking these things to a state level without public involvement is dirty politics.

[riveree]

Originally Posted by southward bound

However, this bill does not target specific breeds, and would have some undesirable effects, for example the fee in leiu of spay/neuter. Now, many of us are not breeders, but if it weren't for dedicated breeders we wouldn't have wonderful show dogs. Can a small but good breeder afford to pay a fee of $500 per dog? Is it fair to ask that? These dogs don't wander, they don't get chained; in contrast to irresponsible owners, their dogs get the best of training, nutrition, grooming, medical care. The study of genetics goes into it, x-rays for hips, eye health certification, presence of other potential genetic disease...many would be forced to shut down. I would much prefer to see existing laws *enforced* rather than new ones passed that hurt the rest of us.

There is a lot of good that animal rights orgs do to raise awareness of inhumane treatment of animals, but the definition of 'inhumane' varries. Peta says putting your pup in a crate for any length of time is inhumane, for example. If it's so cruel, then why do my dogs sometimes go into their crates on their own (doors are always open) just to take a break and a snooze? I think these moves on the part of these organizations are just a stepping stone toward their ultimate goal. They are so "pro-animal" they want to legislate that our dogs and cats will be granted "human" status, whereby we won't be allowed to "own" them. You can't own a human being, right? All under the guise of animal rights and protection. As for HSUS, they are a national org that has little to do with hands-on animal care. They are a lobbying org for the most part, and don't do the fine work of our local humane shelters across the country.

HSUS is an organization focused on education, but there is as much of a need for that as there is for hand-on animal care, don't you think? I think they go hand-in-hand and are complementary to each other.

The $500 to keep a dog intact would have to be passed along to the purchaser of the dog. So it will raise the price of purebred dogs, but if you're willing to pay $2000 for a dog, what's another $500? I think the increased cost will be absorbed by those who can afford it, so I have no problem with that.

It probably will shake out some of the breeders who can't afford the $500 up front for each dog, but maybe that's for the best anyway. Breeding purebred dogs is an expensive proposition and if you can't afford to pay, you can't play. I like Ferraris, but I drive a Honda...sometimes those are the breaks .

Would it be so bad if canines were granted canine rights equal to human rights? Man has a tight grip on his dominance over other species, as well as members of his own species (women, children, certain races and cultures). If we want humanity for all, we truly have to pursue humanity for all. Animal rights and human rights are not exclusive of each other, they are strongly intertwined.

Language is a great way to start on that path. We can consider ourselves guardians of our dogs instead of their owners. We guide and raise our children, but they are their own person, can't we view dogs in the same manner? If not, why not? What threatens us about that prospect?

[riveree]

Originally Posted by grannynancy

The 12 month spay neuter is problematic to me.
A dog really needs to be over 2 before it is assessed for breeding.

What is a "breeder" defined as, hopefully not only someone in a "for profit" business
There are folks with working/sport dogs who are very responsible owners who are strongly opposed to spaying and neutering. I have never been resposnbile for a puppy coming into this world but I sure want my working dog to keep his equipment for other reasons. If it aint broke I don't want to risk messing up something

And this piece of legislation allows for all those things, it just comes at a cost.

A breeder is a for-profit business, if they are not making a profit, then they do not need to be in business. In fact, if they report a running loss for enough years, they will lose their business status with the IRS.

[riveree]

Originally Posted by World Citizen

Saying that you agree with the good things and the legislation is mostly sound and agreeing to it is allowing the bad things that come along with them.

This is not the way America's government is set up to operate. Our constitution gives citizens the right to participate in the process.

Taking these things to a state level without public involvement is dirty politics.

Saying that I agree to most of the legislation is not my vote of endorsement for the entire work, though. If this is actually going to go forward, it needs tweaking. There are definitely parts I would want removed, such as the BSL portion.

You're right, a lot of this legislation just slips right by us if we're not on the alert, but once we find out about it, we can have our voices heard and hopefully affect change where need be.

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by grannynancy

The 12 month spay neuter is problematic to me.
A dog really needs to be over 2 before it is assessed for breeding.

What is a "breeder" defined as, hopefully not only someone in a "for profit" business
There are folks with working/sport dogs who are very responsible owners who are strongly opposed to spaying and neutering. I have never been resposnbile for a puppy coming into this world but I sure want my working dog to keep his equipment for other reasons. If it aint broke I don't want to risk messing up something

Excellent points granny.

What is needed here isn't broad strokes. The laws need to be smarter and more discerning than the proposed bill appears to be. I think this is a shakedown. Reputable breeders should be granted an exception as long as they can provide evidence that they meet particular criteria (e.g. limited breedings per dog per year, animal health certifications, acceptable evaluation of kennel/living area conditions, etc.), otherwise this renders the economics of a "real" breeder marginal at best. I completely agree that 12 months is not enough time to evaluate a dog's reproductive potential. 2 years may not be enough in some instances.

On the other hand, this is Massachusetts and not Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Minnesota or any other real sporting state. I'm not sure that would fly in any of the above. Keep your eye on the ball, though.