St. Louis dog & cat owners may be forced to sterilize & microchip (neighborhood, tax)

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Annie53

That is kinda like saying, because we have laws against committing criminal acts.....eventually all of the people who have jobs in law enforcement will all be out of work.

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.

[flynavyj]

Well, the law does state that you can be essentially an "amateur breeder" and that's the reason you pay the $200 fee...however in the past, you didn't have to be a "breeder" or have any intentions of breeding your dog to not get them fixed. Having these procedures done can be a somewhat risky operation, which COULD have some negative effects on the dog, physically, or emotionally. I'm not any type of PETA supporter, i just don't like the government adding regulation to good people in the hopes of controlling the bad folks.

I'm not sure how St. Louis City handles things, but i know in St. Ann, and I believe St. Louis County, there's an animal registration fee. You have to provide proof that your animals rabies vaccination is up to snuff, and pay an annual fee (significantly less than $200) to have the animal, and in all honesty that fee might be higher if the animal is not "fixed" but i can't remember off the top of my head. The wording of this article however elicits a very different response, and makes it sound as if there's an underlying agenda to FORCE citizens to fix their pets...Put that up for vote, and i bet it'd be turned down...least if you did the whole region...however many city dwellers seem to be eager to give up their God given rights .



just poking.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

Well, the law does state that you can be essentially an "amateur breeder" and that's the reason you pay the $200 fee...however in the past, you didn't have to be a "breeder" or have any intentions of breeding your dog to not get them fixed. Having these procedures done can be a somewhat risky operation, which COULD have some negative effects on the dog, physically, or emotionally. I'm not any type of PETA supporter, i just don't like the government adding regulation to good people in the hopes of controlling the bad folks.

I'm not sure how St. Louis City handles things, but i know in St. Ann, and I believe St. Louis County, there's an animal registration fee. You have to provide proof that your animals rabies vaccination is up to snuff, and pay an annual fee (significantly less than $200) to have the animal, and in all honesty that fee might be higher if the animal is not "fixed" but i can't remember off the top of my head. The wording of this article however elicits a very different response, and makes it sound as if there's an underlying agenda to FORCE citizens to fix their pets...Put that up for vote, and i bet it'd be turned down...least if you did the whole region...however many city dwellers seem to be eager to give up their God given rights .

just poking.

Almost every standard and law we have in this country "punishes" the good people in the hopes of controlling the bad. Our society would colapse in chaos if we didn't.

Not a good reason to pass on a law that will stop so much pain and suffering.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

or face $200./year fee?

Do y'all really support this?

Bill Would Require Nearly All St. Louis Dogs and Cats to Be Sterilized - St. Louis News - Daily RFT

Just more big brother creeping into people's daily lives, bit by bit.

Personally, we always spay/neuter our pets and we've also microchipped them in the past. I wouldn't want a law telling me to do this, though.

I'm awfully sick and tired of this type of thing. It happens little by little, but it is constant. All for the greater good.

[flynavyj]

Originally Posted by Annie53

Almost every standard and law we have in this country "punishes" the good people in the hopes of controlling the bad.

Respectfully disagree...Some law's do, for the sake of man's common good (i.e. speed limits) and those are aimed at protecting innocent people from individuals who lack judgement...personally, i'd rather see stricter standards for "giving" out driving licenses, which could allow higher speed limits...what i found terrible were the "variable" speed limits in use on I-270 for a while. Essentially, that was a government entity telling motorists the proper speed in order to maintain traffic flow, which makes some logical sense...but it should have been an "advisory" speed the entire time...and not a "speed limit". Another point on it, is that the speed limit wouldn't increase, but would only decrease. You can't tell me that driving 80mph, or even 90mph at midnight is anymore dangerous than driving 60 mph at rush hour. In fact, i'd be willing to bet that if safe driving practices are adhered to, 90 mph at night might even be safer...

As to other laws. Law's against stealing punish thieves, laws against murder punish murders, laws against lying under oath punish the morally inept. All in all, i think the majority of laws really don't punish normal folks, or put unnecessary strain on them...good normal people will probably follow most laws even if the laws didn't exist.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

Respectfully disagree...Some law's do, for the sake of man's common good (i.e. speed limits) and those are aimed at protecting innocent people from individuals who lack judgement...personally, i'd rather see stricter standards for "giving" out driving licenses, which could allow higher speed limits...what i found terrible were the "variable" speed limits in use on I-270 for a while. Essentially, that was a government entity telling motorists the proper speed in order to maintain traffic flow, which makes some logical sense...but it should have been an "advisory" speed the entire time...and not a "speed limit". Another point on it, is that the speed limit wouldn't increase, but would only decrease. You can't tell me that driving 80mph, or even 90mph at midnight is anymore dangerous than driving 60 mph at rush hour. In fact, i'd be willing to bet that if safe driving practices are adhered to, 90 mph at night might even be safer...

As to other laws. Law's against stealing punish thieves, laws against murder punish murders, laws against lying under oath punish the morally inept. All in all, i think the majority of laws really don't punish normal folks, or put unnecessary strain on them...good normal people will probably follow most laws even if the laws didn't exist.

One specific law I can think of....the law restricting sinus meds because druggies can make meth out of it. When I need sinus meds......I have to show my driver's license now, go on a list as a "user" and I am restricted as to how much I can buy. I am being punished because of what bad people do, aren't I?

Also, all of the press about people illegally using pain meds. So, what is going to happen? More and more restrictions on pain meds.....doctors afraid to prescribe pain meds to patients who really need it because it may raise a red flag with authorities.

So who is going to suffer? People with legitimate pain.....all because of what bad people are doing.

That is just how it is. So, if people look at this law as punishing the innocent....too bad. BTW.....I think that people who breed dogs for money, don't sterilize their pets, don't chip their pets......are far from innocent. How many times have you heard....."Ooopsie....she got out accidently and now she is having puppies." You will find homes for all of them....SO WHAT! That's just boils down to 4, 5, or 6 other dogs that will be euthanized because your "ooopsie" took up homes that those other dogs could have had.

I applaud this law and we need more like it.

[MUTGR]

I question how effective this will be. Many years ago we adopted two puppies out of a litter from the city animal shelter on Gasconade. At the time they required that the puppies be spayed or neutered to be adopted. I remember talking to a city resident there who was totally opposed to it, and he was no breeder. He just didn't think it was right or natural and wanted his pets to have a litter if he (or rather, they) chose.

How are they going to enforce this? I hate to say it, but I don't think this will make so much as a dent in the problem of feral dogs in the city.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Annie53

Almost every standard and law we have in this country "punishes" the good people in the hopes of controlling the bad. Our society would colapse in chaos if we didn't.

That's a bit of stretch. Good people generally aren't punished by making it illegal to do criminal acts (murder, robbery, assault, etc.) because good people generally don't commit criminal acts. Other laws clearly are designed to protect or promote public safety (speed limits, etc.).

I'm sympathetic to the plight of feral dogs in the City of St. Louis, but this is clearly a slippery slope type of deal. Most people don't really care though until it really impacts them directly.

[latetotheparty]

Originally Posted by Annie53

One specific law I can think of....the law restricting sinus meds because druggies can make meth out of it. When I need sinus meds......I have to show my driver's license now, go on a list as a "user" and I am restricted as to how much I can buy. I am being punished because of what bad people do, aren't I?

Also, all of the press about people illegally using pain meds. So, what is going to happen? More and more restrictions on pain meds.....doctors afraid to prescribe pain meds to patients who really need it because it may raise a red flag with authorities.

So who is going to suffer? People with legitimate pain.....all because of what bad people are doing.

That is just how it is. So, if people look at this law as punishing the innocent....too bad. BTW.....I think that people who breed dogs for money, don't sterilize their pets, don't chip their pets......are far from innocent. How many times have you heard....."Ooopsie....she got out accidently and now she is having puppies." You will find homes for all of them....SO WHAT! That's just boils down to 4, 5, or 6 other dogs that will be euthanized because your "ooopsie" took up homes that those other dogs could have had.

I applaud this law and we need more like it.

10 reps owed as soon as the rep fairy frees my wand......

Originally Posted by MUTGR

I question how effective this will be. Many years ago we adopted two puppies out of a litter from the city animal shelter on Gasconade. At the time they required that the puppies be spayed or neutered to be adopted. I remember talking to a city resident there who was totally opposed to it, and he was no breeder. He just didn't think it was right or natural and wanted his pets to have a litter if he (or rather, they) chose.

How are they going to enforce this? I hate to say it, but I don't think this will make so much as a dent in the problem of feral dogs in the city.

dogs and cats don't "choose" to have litters.... it is a purely biologic function.... we domesticated these creatures and made them dependent upon us.... and we have failed them miserably since......

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

I question how effective this will be. Many years ago we adopted two puppies out of a litter from the city animal shelter on Gasconade. At the time they required that the puppies be spayed or neutered to be adopted. I remember talking to a city resident there who was totally opposed to it, and he was no breeder. He just didn't think it was right or natural and wanted his pets to have a litter if he (or rather, they) chose.

How are they going to enforce this? I hate to say it, but I don't think this will make so much as a dent in the problem of feral dogs in the city.

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.