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.
Reasonable or unreasonable, and why? But so far, no dog owners have complied with this local law. Arkadelphia is in Arkansas, so I guess that the owners are afraid of the proposed breed banning legislation. So for this hypothetical question, please go on the premise that there would be no breed banning laws in the future.
Quote:
In order to register dogs, owners must first meet several requirements, such as: Pay a $25 registration fee to the City of Arkadelphia per year; have the dog implanted with an identification chip inserted under the skin by a licensed veterinarian; provide proof of rabies and other vaccinations; and have the animal spayed or neutered. The owner must also provide proof to the city of the purchase of $100,000 in liability insurance coverage.
Quote:
Many people have inquired about the registration process, said Donny Manning, director of the city's sanitation and animal control departments. But none have registered their animals. Some residents have already told Manning they don't intend to comply with the law. "A few have already told Buster (Karr, the animal control officer) to come and get their dogs on Feb. 1," Manning said.
Some of it sounds good if it wasn't BSL. Otherwise I'd think it great, except for the liability insurance.
$25 registration should be done with all breeds, most places require a city license already anyway. Most people don't comply with it.
I microchip because it can help save your dog if they are lost. Pet owners should microchip but I'm not sure about forcing them to do it? I guess if a city thinks it would help cut down on strays or pets PTS that are not found in time it might be good. Several of the dogs in shelters are lost pets that could be reunited if they had a microchip.
Proof of rabies again should be and usually is for all dogs, isn't it? Everywhere I lived the city requires that the dog have a rabies shot because it is a health issue. People can be bit by rabid dogs. Other vaccines too, you must have proof of this in most places.
Spay/neuter of pets is also great. For all dogs. Shelters are full of dogs and not just from bybs but pets accidentally being bred. (I know someone who's dog had 4 accidental litters and many others with multiple litters) I think it'd be good to see Pits s/n but also all other breeds. Unless of course owned by a responsible breeder who complies with kennel laws and regulations. Shelters wouldn't be over run if people would s/n their pets. Not just pet Pits, pets, dogs and cats. In many cities you must s/n your dog to get the dog licensed with the city. Again people don't comply with it. If they chose to not s/n the dog they either must pay a higher license fee or in other cases obtain a kennel license. But the owners don't s/n their dogs and don't license them at all, I'm saying all the 100s of dogs not just Pit owners. As I've lived places with these ordinances and it applied to all dogs hardly any made the effort and the city did little to enforce it.
I see little reason to have $100,000 liability insurance for any dog owner.
So I think these things would be great, just not towards Pit Bulls only. Even though I own Pits I'm not saying in defense of Pit Bulls, I'm actually saying it for the betterment of dogs period. If all dog owners did this with their dogs it would help the dog overpopulation and some irresponsible ownership problems. Think how much s/n would help, then rabies shot can be important, we had cases here of rabies still in dogs even though its not a widespread disease. If people didn't wish to comply they'd be the irresponsible owners who wouldn't be able to own any breed of dog.
It is BSL, pure and simple. It's happening in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, which is about 150 miles from me...and cities are jumping on the bandwagon left and right. It is downright scary.
All that being said, I think the requirements really are not out of line, and obviously there are folks that aren't willing to meet the guidelines that have said come get their dog. And how pathetic is that?
I think the $100K liability is over the top - it's saying "my dog is dangerous" when that's crap a lot of the time...still, if that were a requirement for keeping my dogs, I'd be ponying up the money.
I wouldn't say no one cares, I would say they were apathetic until it was too late. And now the die are cast - this is how it happens. A small town meeting takes on a life of its own and something gets passed into law because no one was really paying attention to begin with, or believed it couldn't happen to them. And sadly, there are those who simply do not care.
This is a small town newspaper...and Arkansas only really has one other paper which, in my mind, tends to incite the masses every chance they get. They publish some of the most slanted news stories I've ever seen on any topic you can name. Every time a "vicious" breed looks at a squirrel cross-eyed, they are there to note it for posterity. It's not a highly educated state on the whole and people believe what they are spoon fed. In all fairness, I will say the recent spate of dogfighting arrests and general good-ole-boy-let-this-dog-guard-my-auto-salvage-lot mentality is absolutely breaking the back of the responsible dog owners.
Not very proud to be an Arkansan when it comes to BSL...it's everywhere.
I love the part that says that dogs with "proof of show status" are exempt....one wonders what proof is acceptable to them, and how in the world some guy in an itty bitty town would know one show document from another.
Some of it sounds good if it wasn't BSL. Otherwise I'd think it great, except for the liability insurance.
$25 registration should be done with all breeds, most places require a city license already anyway. Most people don't comply with it.
I microchip because it can help save your dog if they are lost. Pet owners should microchip but I'm not sure about forcing them to do it? I guess if a city thinks it would help cut down on strays or pets PTS that are not found in time it might be good. Several of the dogs in shelters are lost pets that could be reunited if they had a microchip.
Proof of rabies again should be and usually is for all dogs, isn't it? Everywhere I lived the city requires that the dog have a rabies shot because it is a health issue. People can be bit by rabid dogs. Other vaccines too, you must have proof of this in most places.
Spay/neuter of pets is also great. For all dogs. Shelters are full of dogs and not just from bybs but pets accidentally being bred. (I know someone who's dog had 4 accidental litters and many others with multiple litters) I think it'd be good to see Pits s/n but also all other breeds. Unless of course owned by a responsible breeder who complies with kennel laws and regulations. Shelters wouldn't be over run if people would s/n their pets. Not just pet Pits, pets, dogs and cats. In many cities you must s/n your dog to get the dog licensed with the city. Again people don't comply with it. If they chose to not s/n the dog they either must pay a higher license fee or in other cases obtain a kennel license. But the owners don't s/n their dogs and don't license them at all, I'm saying all the 100s of dogs not just Pit owners. As I've lived places with these ordinances and it applied to all dogs hardly any made the effort and the city did little to enforce it.
I see little reason to have $100,000 liability insurance for any dog owner.
So I think these things would be great, just not towards Pit Bulls only. Even though I own Pits I'm not saying in defense of Pit Bulls, I'm actually saying it for the betterment of dogs period. If all dog owners did this with their dogs it would help the dog overpopulation and some irresponsible ownership problems. Think how much s/n would help, then rabies shot can be important, we had cases here of rabies still in dogs even though its not a widespread disease. If people didn't wish to comply they'd be the irresponsible owners who wouldn't be able to own any breed of dog.
I agree 100%. I don't even need to type a response! lol!
If its only for one breed or types of breed then I wouldnt comply.
Quote:
In order to register dogs, owners must first meet several requirements, such as: Pay a $25 registration fee to the City of Arkadelphia per year; have the dog implanted with an identification chip inserted under the skin by a licensed veterinarian; provide proof of rabies and other vaccinations; and have the animal spayed or neutered. The owner must also provide proof to the city of the purchase of $100,000 in liability insurance coverage
All dogs (not just certain) should pay a registration, I pay $2 right now ID chips are expensive so I dont think you could force it on anybody, a tag should be sufficent. Rabies and vaccinations are a no brainer. I dont think you should force a spay / neuter on people. I cant see a good reason for the excessive liability insurance, for any breed.
It is BSL which is a Chicken **** way of not dealing with issues. Goverment is great with that.
If its only for one breed or types of breed then I wouldnt comply.
All dogs (not just certain) should pay a registration, I pay $2 right now ID chips are expensive so I dont think you could force it on anybody, a tag should be sufficent. Rabies and vaccinations are a no brainer. I dont think you should force a spay / neuter on people. I cant see a good reason for the excessive liability insurance, for any breed.
It is BSL which is a Chicken **** way of not dealing with issues. Goverment is great with that.
I agree that the regulations should cover other breeds, especially any of the larger more aggressive breeds like chow chows, german shepherds and rotties. Actually why not all dogs? The price of the policies would vary depending on the breed and size of the dog.
I feel that liability insurance is fair, after all, we all have to pay car insurance and most of us are good drivers. What about $50k in coverage or if you are a home owner, then of course, you'd have assets that the victim could sue for. But there are many dog owners that are renters and with no assets to go after. What if the insurance was only $25-50 a month? So we give up our Starbucks fix?
The micro chip I believe comes from the fact that there are many cases where dogs have attacked or killed another dog or even person and the dogs captured and euthanized, but the owners were never found.
And also, another point is that owning a dog or dogs properly is not cheap. They are like having a small human child. Too many dog owners treat their ownership of them way too casually. Dogs, cars and guns in the hands of responsible thoughtful people are almost always never a problem. Still not a 100% perfect situation as sh#t happens. And the same three in the hands of irresponsible people just causes headaches for the responsible owners and those who choose not to have them.
At the end of the day itll be a rare case when an irresponsible gets insurance or chips their dogs, so all you are regulating is responsible owners, while at the same time things continue the way they where with regards to dangerous dogs.
I agree that the regulations should cover other breeds, especially any of the larger more aggressive breeds like chow chows, german shepherds and rotties.
Please, you are generalizing again! Would someone point me to the place that says these breeds are more aggressive? They are NOT, or at least not Rotties - there's a difference between aggression and being a working dog. A Rottweiler true to standard is to be respected, but is not inherently aggressive.
Quote:
I feel that liability insurance is fair, after all, we all have to pay car insurance and most of us are good drivers. What about $50k in coverage or if you are a home owner, then of course, you'd have assets that the victim could sue for. But there are many dog owners that are renters and with no assets to go after. What if the insurance was only $25-50 a month? So we give up our Starbucks fix?
Yes, and we have to buy uninsured motorist insurance if we want to be protected from the random dumb a$$ who slips through the system and drives around on no insurance, and is too broke to make pursuing a lawsuit worth the time or effort - so where's my You're Stupid and Climbed My Fence insurance? There isn't any - it is assuming I am LIABLE THROUGH A FAULT IN MY DOG OR AS AN OWNER from the get-go. I'd bet the insurance companies are behind this legislation for more than one reason.
Quote:
The micro chip I believe comes from the fact that there are many cases where dogs have attacked or killed another dog or even person and the dogs captured and euthanized, but the owners were never found.
It may be the only sensible wording in the whole thing - and it's the part that should appeal to any dog owner in case your dog is lost or stolen. I believe it may have to do with euthanizing because the owner wasn't located, but I don't think it's because of dog attacks.
Quote:
And also, another point is that owning a dog or dogs properly is not cheap. They are like having a small human child. Too many dog owners treat their ownership of them way too casually.
Amen.
Quote:
Dogs, cars and guns in the hands of responsible thoughtful people are almost always never a problem. Still not a 100% perfect situation as sh#t happens. And the same three in the hands of irresponsible people just causes headaches for the responsible owners and those who choose not to have them.
Again, why is it that I'm being penalized for having large black and tan therapy dogs because they are black and tan and the next door neighbor's Jack Russell, who will hurt you bad, is not? Because of stereotyping. We don't allow racial profiling, but species profiling is okay? That must be because...it's "just a dog".
Please don't misunderstand me - I am all for licensing, vaccinating, doing whatever I need to do to keep my pets - and I'm a responsible owner and able to say that not everyone can or will participate in the most basic of plans...but to make me indemnify by virtue of breed is just wrong.
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.
I guess if a city thinks it would help cut down on strays or pets PTS that are not found in time it might be good. Several of the dogs in shelters are lost pets that could be reunited if they had a microchip. 
ID chips are expensive so I dont think you could force it on anybody, a tag should be sufficent. Rabies and vaccinations are a no brainer. I dont think you should force a spay / neuter on people. I cant see a good reason for the excessive liability insurance, for any breed.
