Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly, that's one of the dumber things I've ever heard. Domesticating and owning animals is "unnatural" if anything is. And unnatural though it might be, it's also wonderful. I would never give up my dogs. But once we decide to do so we have a responsibility as a pet owner to provide the best possible life for that pet and any of its potential progeny. Allowing them to breed willy nilly and overpopulate so that they end up homeless and unwanted is irresponsible to the utmost degree.
Unfortunately, that thinking that MUTGR spoke of is not at all uncommon. This past Saturday, drove to OH to adopt a puppy [English springer spaniel + Brittany spaniel]. In talking with the people running this shelter, and along with others over the past years, it is quite "normal" for quite few people to think that they 'need' to let their dogs / cats have at least one litter - otherwise, for example, "they won't be good around the farm".
So the point of this law is to protect the innocent pets from overpopulating, which forces harsh euthanasia. To that end, we'll force responsible pet owners to spay or neuter their animals to prevent the animals from impregnating other stray/wild/feral animals. Those that choose not to Spay or Neuter their pets will incur a $200 "breeder fee" to help offset the costs of animal control, sheltering, and euthanizing, plus everyone can sleep better knowing there are less of man's best friends being killed unnecessarily.
If i get passed the idea of this just being one more way big brother can step in to control our decisions. I still don't know if it's the best plan, and seems a tad haphazard to me. How do you enforce this? I would assume to adequately enforce this law you'll a more watchful eye for animal code enforcement, checking collar tags, peaking in back yards, windows..."Did i see a cat in that window? Wonder if it has a current tag, let me go take a look." I'm sure for some that isn't a big concern, but quite personally i don't like folks "peaking" through the glass at my house, or snooping around the back yards, poking their heads over privacy fences, etc...just doesn't give the warm and fuzzy...So now we're paying for additional enforcement, but we're hoping that $200/fee will cover the costs of this additional action...if not, we're just further in the red...no biggie. I'd also believe that getting the dogs/cats spayed and neutered will be the most common thing amongst pet owners, and as such, they're probably not going to be collecting some massive set of fee's anyway...so any true revenue generated will probably be minimal at best.
We then have the "bad" owners/people who let their dogs roam free around the neighborhood, or keep outdoor cats that haven't been fixed yet. Do you think these people are going to buck up the $$ to have the animal fixed? Do you think they're planning on paying the $200 fee to keep the animal as a "breeder" or do you simply think they'll leave the dogs unregistered and hope they don't get caught? My guess for many of them, it'll be the latter. If so, we'll still be having the same problems you're having right now, but you'll be paying more money, and in a few years St. Louis City is going to come back with another plan to curb the "poor puppy" problem...and they'll be asking for your revenue's and choices all over again.
PS - we didn't even discuss what it could do to the price of non-rescue shelter pets within the city, not to mention unlicensed, untrained, breeders...the emerging "black market" could be larger than the problem you currently have.
My personal thought, just euthanize the pets that don't have chips/tags/etc. Yes, fido is a great dog, but as stated we don't need a million little fido's running all over the streets hunting for food, or begging for handouts. If it was an overpopulation of bunnies, I'd be out with the .22 and taking them out...an overpopulation of deer, bring out the bow, or the 30/30...either way, there are plenty of ways of taking care of this problem, that shouldn't cost you the tax payer anymore $$, and might be significantly more effective.
If i get passed the idea of this just being one more way big brother can step in to control our decisions. I still don't know if it's the best plan, and seems a tad haphazard to me. How do you enforce this? I would assume to adequately enforce this law you'll a more watchful eye for animal code enforcement, checking collar tags, peaking in back yards, windows..."Did i see a cat in that window? Wonder if it has a current tag, let me go take a look." I'm sure for some that isn't a big concern, but quite personally i don't like folks "peaking" through the glass at my house, or snooping around the back yards, poking their heads over privacy fences, etc...just doesn't give the warm and fuzzy...So now we're paying for additional enforcement, but we're hoping that $200/fee will cover the costs of this additional action...if not, we're just further in the red...no biggie. I'd also believe that getting the dogs/cats spayed and neutered will be the most common thing amongst pet owners, and as such, they're probably not going to be collecting some massive set of fee's anyway...so any true revenue generated will probably be minimal at best.
Rabies are a required vaccination that every dog needs to have. There are laws about it, and there are fines for those who don't get there dog properly vaccinated. I would imagine that they would keep track of the spay/neuter the same way they keep track of the vaccinations. Every pet owner is required by law to have their pet(s) registered with the city. Of course there are people who don't do this, but they're fined if they get caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
We then have the "bad" owners/people who let their dogs roam free around the neighborhood, or keep outdoor cats that haven't been fixed yet. Do you think these people are going to buck up the $$ to have the animal fixed? Do you think they're planning on paying the $200 fee to keep the animal as a "breeder" or do you simply think they'll leave the dogs unregistered and hope they don't get caught? My guess for many of them, it'll be the latter. If so, we'll still be having the same problems you're having right now, but you'll be paying more money, and in a few years St. Louis City is going to come back with another plan to curb the "poor puppy" problem...and they'll be asking for your revenue's and choices all over again.
If the dog is roaming the streets, then hopefully it gets picked up and taken to an animal shelter. If the owners come for it, then they'll be required to pay the $200 before taking the animal with them. That way, they would then be registered as having an unaltered dog. And if they refuse to pay the $200? Give them the option of a low cost spay/neuter or give up their pet. If they give it up and its adoptable, the shelter can spay/neuter the animal and put it up for adoption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
PS - we didn't even discuss what it could do to the price of non-rescue shelter pets within the city, not to mention unlicensed, untrained, breeders...the emerging "black market" could be larger than the problem you currently have.
I think you're taking this to the extreme. I haven't read a lot into this issue, but it doesn't sound like they're outlawing breeders. The city is just trying to get control over the vast amount of accidental litters. I would think people would still be able to legally breed dogs, so there isn't going to be some "black market" where you can only get a dog from. There will still be plenty of dogs in the shelters needing homes. Not all shelter dogs come from the streets. A lot of them previously came from homes. And even so, this law isn't going to magically get rid of all strays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
My personal thought, just euthanize the pets that don't have chips/tags/etc. Yes, fido is a great dog, but as stated we don't need a million little fido's running all over the streets hunting for food, or begging for handouts.
You're worried about a black market and price inflation if responsible owners were required to have their pet fixed, so a better option would be to just kill them all?
Actually i'm not saying that at all. If there are national laws requiring fixed dogs, that means all non-fixed dogs are illegal. Thus, anyone who breeds a dog (intentionally or unintentionally) is breaking the law. So, if this is the case, all new future pets come from people breeding illegally, thus, the black market.
Many responsible owners do not have their dogs fixed (for many reasons), and most of the time this does not result in unwanted litters with animals needing homes.
it is not making unaltered dogs or even breeding dogs "illegal" .... it is only requiring the owners of said unaltered dogs to pay a $200 license fee or whatever they will call it.... i'm sure there would be NO shortage of people still breeding willy nilly....
gotta show the kids the miracle of birth, ya' know?? too bad they don't also feel the need to show them the miracle of death, too.....
Last edited by ShadowCaver; 09-27-2011 at 06:45 PM..
Reason: repair quotings
Actually i'm not saying that at all. If there are national laws requiring fixed dogs, that means all non-fixed dogs are illegal. Thus, anyone who breeds a dog (intentionally or unintentionally) is breaking the law. So, if this is the case, all new future pets come from people breeding illegally, thus, the black market.
Many responsible owners do not have their dogs fixed (for many reasons), and most of the time this does not result in unwanted litters with animals needing homes.
I agree. It is not the responsible dog/cat owners who are the problem. Those who are the problem will likely just dump their pets on the streets rather to comply with expensive laws of required sterilization and chipping.
I see the unintended consequences as making the problem of strays worse, not better. YMMV
I agree. It is not the responsible dog/cat owners who are the problem. Those who are the problem will likely just dump their pets on the streets rather to comply with expensive laws of required sterilization and chipping.
I see the unintended consequences as making the problem of strays worse, not better. YMMV
initially, maybe yes... but in the long haul, no..... just the opposite.....
really... spay and neuter is NOT that expensive.... there are MANY programs that offer assistance to those for whom it is a burden, so that will eliminate the excuse of expense and leaves only the excuses of laziness and apathy....
chipping is even LESS expensive.... if these two things are beyond the reach of a pet owner, than that pet owner likely can not afford the animal in the first place.... and it is destined for the streets or the shelter system sooner or later....
and responsible owners really have nothing to worry about, do they??
I agree...i think many folks who own pets probably shouldn't. If you're worried about putting enough food on the table to feed your family, you probably shouldn't have the additional burden of the animal too. If you were choosing, would you rather have a family member go hungry or your animal? And I highly doubt a person is going to want to see their animal go hungry in the home, so putting the animal outside to fend for itself and scavenge/hunt might seem more acceptable than watching the animal slowly wither away infront of you.
As to programs to help animal owners...i was unaware of these. I'd wonder why they exist in the first place too...but that's for a different thread.
I can't imagine why anyone with any sense of responsibility / half a brain would have a problem with this. Any idea how much of a problem we have with pet overpopulation, irresponsible owners, crowded shelters and animals who are needlessly euthanized every day?
As to what to do with the animals...don't know. Got an idea though. China has a HUGE market for eating dog! We could make them a delicacy (like caviar) and let the Chinese pay us tons of $$ for our hard to get domestic "flavors"
I don't find this funny at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
