Legislation that could eventually affect every dog owner (poodles, bite, veterinarians)

[PudelPie]

I could only wish that NORTH CAROLINA were as enlightened as Massachusetts when it comes to dog legislation and treatment...there's a never-ending supply of strays here..in the shelters, wandering the streets, and alas, dead on the side of the road. Puppies and adult dogs alike. Never-ending. One of my good friends is involved with fostering and the dogs she comes across and their stories...absolutely heartbreaking. Not saying it doesn't happen in New England, but on a much smaller scale. And in fact, the spay/neuter legislation works so well that puppies get shipped up there from shelters here. Interestingly, where i live in Central NC, the one Animal Control officer, who only works part-time, moved here from MA and began doing work on animal's (primarily dogs') behalf. She eventually got funding created for the position

While I'm not for BSL either, I'd rather have a flawed bill get through than none at all. I know many people don't feel that way. That's your right.

And I second Riveree's comments about "radical Humane Society..." and "dirty political bag of tricks..." You need to question the source of this material and what their agenda is. Not blindly accept the barbed sound-bites against dissenting views.

[World Citizen]

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

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.

I am not a breeder and I'm against byb's and puppy mills. If this is their intention, then they should address these issues.

When they pass these kinds of broad bills there are many unintended consequences. Apparently the legislators are sold ideas that sound like good things that harm good, responsible people and good dogs. In this case, it sounds like they came together and put together a bill to make it easier to pass a whole lot of municipal laws by forming a "committee of municipalities" -- (who are anonymous as far as I can see)

Putting legislation in place at state level keeps people from being able to challenge laws that effect them.

Lawyers look at the laws in place and won't even take your case if you've been wronged. It takes deep pockets to take on the constitutionality of a law.

If Massachusetts does this, other states will follow.

[World Citizen]

Originally Posted by PudelPie

And I second Riveree's comments about "radical Humane Society..." and "dirty political bag of tricks..." You need to question the source of this material and what their agenda is. Not blindly accept the barbed sound-bites against dissenting views.

Did you READ the Ordinance???

I hardly call the AKC radical and their AGENDA is to protect the rights of dog owners of all breeds.
On their legislative site, aimed at educating the public, the AKC said this is legislation is "bad for all dog owners". Why are you trying to defend it?

This type of response is what you find from dog owners.... I went door to door trying to tell people about bad laws and had 10 people show up at a Common Council meeting once.

While something has to be done about overpopulation and animal abuse, ... the rights of dog owners MUST BE protected.
Maybe you're not aware of what's going on in our country regarding dog laws and dog owner rights.

Doing "something" is NOT better than doing nothing. But, I guess you'll have to find out the hard way - the way I did - before you'll believe me.

I've got to leave this thread. I do apologize for trying to make my voice heard.
I sincerely hope I've not offended anyone.

[PudelPie]

Originally Posted by World Citizen

Did you READ the Ordinance???

I hardly call the AKC radical and their AGENDA is to protect the rights of dog owners of all breeds.
On their legislative site, aimed at educating the public, the AKC said this is legislation is "bad for all dog owners". Why are you trying to defend it?

World Citizen, I was quoting the originator of this thread, who pulled that quote in from the American Sporting Dog Alliance who refers to the American Humane Society as a "radical group."

[World Citizen]

Over the past few years I've been forced to assimilate a great deal of information about different animal groups... PETA, The Humane Society, DDB, the difference in Animal Rights groups as opposed to Animal Welfare... and, then there's the different breed specific groups which all have their own interests....

I don't want to get into an in depth discussion about these differences but I will say that there is more to everything than meets the eye.

Many of these different animal groups are well organized and bring bad bills to legislators who think that they're selling a good thing....

Because there is so much confusion around these issues that should be of grave concern to all dog owners, we simply can't afford to disregard important information such as this based on the group or how they may word something -- that we may find somewhat offensive.

sorry about the soapbox

[leorah]

Originally Posted by PudelPie

I could only wish that NORTH CAROLINA were as enlightened as Massachusetts when it comes to dog legislation and treatment...there's a never-ending supply of strays here..in the shelters, wandering the streets, and alas, dead on the side of the road. Puppies and adult dogs alike. Never-ending.

This is very true. Rescues routinely run transports full of dogs from kill shelters in southern states. Our group recently brought in several dogs in very poor condition from out of state. Mass spay and neuter education combined with very active and successful rescue groups have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of dogs turned over to shelters. Since 1985 dog surrenders to one of our largest humane organizations decreased by almost 100% and puppy surrenders decreased by over 200%.

Originally Posted by World Citizen

... Apparently the legislators are sold ideas that sound like good things that harm good, responsible people and good dogs. In this case, it sounds like they came together and put together a bill to make it easier to pass a whole lot of municipal laws by forming a "committee of municipalities" -- (who are anonymous as far as I can see)...Putting legislation in place at state level keeps people from being able to challenge laws that effect them....If Massachusetts does this, other states will follow.

The Massachusetts legislature has a documented history of ignoring the citizens of the state and disregarding the voter's wishes. For example, the legislature refused to roll back the income tax rate despite voter approval of the measure, and the legislature also refused to adopt voter approved clean elections laws. And then there's the Big Dig. I understand your concern, but I don't think that many states would look at anything our Massachusetts legislature does and hold it up as a model for good government. Now, if they'd look at our spay/neuter education and model THAT, perhaps that would be a good start!

That being said, I think that BSL's are a very bad idea, and I personally believe that as a society we have too many laws already, too little personal responsibility and poorly enforced consequences for irresponsible behavior.

[southward bound]

Originally Posted by riveree

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.

Not all those who breed are for-profit. That's a very limited but commonly accepted vew.

There is a world of "hobby breeders" out there who love their breed, study its history, its traits, its physical characteristics, and its genetics. They are passionate about improving the breed. They are passionate about breed rescue and educating the public. With costs such as they are these days (vets, supplements, food, shows, training, seminars) these breeders are lucky to break even, never mind making a profit. These are the people who are most likely to make a positive impact on the breed, not those who are in it for profit.

I'm not in favor of forcing these people to shut down so that nothing but profit motivated commercial breeders remain. It's the large kennels that will then make sure pet stores are always stocked.

just think about it, folks! legislation has way more far-reaching impact than what is written on the paper.

[grannynancy]

Originally Posted by riveree

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, I am going to have to disagree strongly with you that a breeder is a for profit business. Most breeders with a serious goal of improving the breed spend a great deal of time and money proving the breeding stock is worthy and are lucky to break even. They do this for the love of the breed and have only a few dogs, and may not even claim deductions with the IRS.

The people making a profit are the big breeders wtih more dogs than they can really relate to / live with and the backyard breeders who don't x-ray their dogs, don't do genetic tests, and just want to get their dogs pay their way and THOSE dogs are bred indiscriminantly.

[World Citizen]

Originally Posted by leorah

The Massachusetts legislature has a documented history of ignoring the citizens of the state and disregarding the voter's wishes. For example, the legislature refused to roll back the income tax rate despite voter approval of the measure, and the legislature also refused to adopt voter approved clean elections laws. And then there's the Big Dig.

I understand your concern, but I don't think that many states would look at anything our Massachusetts legislature does and hold it up as a model for good government. Now, if they'd look at our spay/neuter education and model THAT, perhaps that would be a good start!

That being said, I think that BSL's are a very bad idea, and I personally believe that as a society we have too many laws already, too little personal responsibility and poorly enforced consequences for irresponsible behavior.

The states that already wanted to pass this kind of legislation would hold them up as an example and say -- Massachusetts did it.

That is how BSL spread so quickly and became such a buzz word among legislators. There were 12 in the original group who passed BSL some 20 years ago -- which happened to include the town that I just moved away from...

It's amazing how much power one decision like this can influence decisions. Our legal system is completely governed by decisions that make "a precedent."

[hunterdog57]

Riveree,
The HSUS is not even remotely associated with your local Humane Society. If you donate to the HSUS your local Humane Society will never see any of that money.
As for reputable breeders, they never breed a dog before it is at least 2 years old. They have to be that old before they can have their hips/elbows evaluated. Reputable/hobby breeders do not make a lot of money, if any when they breed. They breed to better their chosen breed. If the dogs don't measure up to the standards, they are sold as pet quality and on a spay/neuter contract. If they are conformation quality they are usually sold but co-owned by the breeder with a very specific contract on the dog.