HSUS/banning pet sales question -

[KiaKia]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

so I see this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/MN9L1EAT90.DTL

online.

Today (July 8) San Fransisco considered banning pet sales. One of my friends said that HSUS is behind this and has teamed up with PETA with the goal ending animal ownership AS WE KNOW IT! </dramatic tone>

From reading SDN I have a feeling that there are multiple Humane Societies with similar names and varying goals...but I can't seem to find this information using Google.

SO, is there a Humane Society intent on ending pet sales/ownership, and a similarly named Humane Society that doesn't?

 

[david594]

HSUS is the "Humane Society of the United States" and is a national animal rights organization involved in political activism to push animal rights legislature. They are unrelated to all of the local Humane Societies that are actually involved in helping animals.

 

[KKibo]

Here in Chattanooga, there is a huge lawsuit against the Pet Company from a local animal shelter that found something like 50 offenses when they raided the pet store, such as throwing sick hamsters in the trash compacter, to leaving sick puppies in an isolation room with no medical attention with no AC unit ( the temp was essentially a constant 85-90 degrees) to cleaning cages with undiluted bleach, the list goes on.

Its been a huge deal that is now involving the actual pet company corporation, not just the local store. 👍

 

[VeganSoprano]

It sounds like the law bans the *retail* sale of animals, not sales between private individuals. What this means is that private breeders and fanciers can continue to breed and sell animals as they always have. Puppy mills and other similar operations cannot. This is an excellent thing.

 

[NStarz]

It sounds like the law bans the *retail* sale of animals, not sales between private individuals. What this means is that private breeders and fanciers can continue to breed and sell animals as they always have. Puppy mills and other similar operations cannot. This is an excellent thing.

Agreed. I refuse to walk into a pet store nowadays--most of the animals come from puppy mills which I will not support. Petsmart only adopts out animals from rescues/shelters, so I do support their efforts. There are few other (if any other) pet stores that do not get their stock from puppy mills. This is definitely a good trend!

 

[absvet]

It's hard to find small animals, though, that aren't from pet stores. When I was looking for my guinea pigs I searched for a place to get them that wasn't a big pet store, and couldn't find anywhere! So I ended up getting two from Petco. One had ringworm - easily fixed - but other than that they are pretty good little pets! I hope if this happens it becomes easier to acquire humanely bred/raised small pets.

 

[Angelus9]

You are very naive. This is a terrible thing.

Banning of all pet sales except fish (at this point - fish will come later).

For all practical purposes that will eliminate all pets except dogs & cats (at this point - they'll come later).

Yes, there are bad stores, and I don't think pet stores should be selling dogs & cats either.

So, given that there are good stores, and that there are already laws in place (obviously not always enforced) protecting animals, why not enforce those laws? What are the grounds for eliminating the good store with the bad?

This precedent WILL lead to banning pet animals, not just those sold by stores.

 

[NStarz]

You are very naive. This is a terrible thing.

Banning of all pet sales except fish (at this point - fish will come later).

For all practical purposes that will eliminate all pets except dogs & cats (at this point - they'll come later).

Yes, there are bad stores, and I don't think pet stores should be selling dogs & cats either.

So, given that there are good stores, and that there are already laws in place (obviously not always enforced) protecting animals, why not enforce those laws? What are the grounds for eliminating the good store with the bad?

This precedent WILL lead to banning pet animals, not just those sold by stores.

Just wanted to point out that puppy mills are LEGAL in most states.

 

[rileydog]

It's hard to find small animals, though, that aren't from pet stores. When I was looking for my guinea pigs I searched for a place to get them that wasn't a big pet store, and couldn't find anywhere! So I ended up getting two from Petco. One had ringworm - easily fixed - but other than that they are pretty good little pets! I hope if this happens it becomes easier to acquire humanely bred/raised small pets.

Did you check wildlife rehabilitation centers? The one I volunteer at has many domestic animals - guinea pigs, hamsters, rats, cockatiels, lovebirds, etc - up for adoption. I don't know, but other centers may be similar. They used to take in and adopt out rabbits also, but that has been moved to the local Humane Society, (NOT HSUS), which may be another option.

I agree that pets should only be adopted from rescues and shelters but this is not the way to do it. I wish people had to take a class or a test before being allowed to own pets. Would benefit the person and the animal.

 

[VeganSoprano]

You are very naive. This is a terrible thing.

Banning of all pet sales except fish (at this point - fish will come later).

For all practical purposes that will eliminate all pets except dogs & cats (at this point - they'll come later).

Yes, there are bad stores, and I don't think pet stores should be selling dogs & cats either.

So, given that there are good stores, and that there are already laws in place (obviously not always enforced) protecting animals, why not enforce those laws? What are the grounds for eliminating the good store with the bad?

This precedent WILL lead to banning pet animals, not just those sold by stores.

Do you honestly think legislators will vote to ban pets? Or that citizens will support such measures in large numbers?

Pet stores do not obtain the animals they sell from reputable sources where the animal's welfare is foremost. Banning the retail sale of animals is by far the easiest and most cost effective way to make sure animals are not abused for the pet trade.

 

[david594]

Do you honestly think legislators will vote to ban pets? Or that citizens will support such measures in large numbers?

Pet stores do not obtain the animals they sell from reputable sources where the animal's welfare is foremost. Banning the retail sale of animals is by far the easiest and most cost effective way to make sure animals are not abused for the pet trade.

Its the law of unintended consequences. And it wouldn't really surprise me if people are that dumb to vote for inappropriate legislation.

I think banning bet stores would simply shift dog sales to even shadier routes. The puppy mills will still exist. You will just see them selling via the internet and craigslist where it would be even harder to enforce current laws. Its a feel good idea to say banning pet sales will fix the issue, when all its really going to do is make the problem less visible.

 

[VeganSoprano]

Or it's a matter of SF saying "not in our city". As a city, they cannot regulate what goes on outside their boundaries. But they can have a say in what happens inside. I think your point about unintended consequences would be valid if we were talking about a statewide law. But for a municipal regulation, I don't see it.

 

[Angelus9]

Do you honestly think legislators will vote to ban pets?

They won't have to, as it won't be done in so obvious a fashion. For instance, Mandatory Spay Neuter (MSN). Most of this legislation, strongly supported by HSUS, come out with NO EXCEPTIONS - no exceptions for police and military dogs, for instance.

So. No dogs & cats sold in pet stores. ALL dogs and cats, ALL of them, subject to MSN. You don't think that's getting rid of pets?

In CO a few years ago there was a movement to make a change - you'd no longer be a pet's owner, but its guardian. It was presented in a feel-good kind of way - we love and protect our pets and are responsible for their welfare, therefore it is more accurate that we be designated their guardians as opposed to their owners.

It almost passed.

Fortunately, horse people caught on to the fact that a "guardian" is a different legal entity than an "owner," and AR groups fully intended to make the guardianship of animals be the same as legal precedent for people. IOW, as a guardian, you could never, ever sell an animal of which you were the guardian. Say you had a horse you bought for trail riding, and it hated it and was much better suited to be a dressage horse. You would've been forbidden by law to sell that horse to a dressage home, where it would be happier, because as its guardian, it must stay with you for life.

Condition where catastrophic injury or disease makes you think that either in mercy to the animal, or because you simply could not afford tx, the animal should be euthanized, nope, sorry, you can't. A panel would have to decide, just like when there's dispute about pulling the plug on humans.

 

[david594]

Or it's a matter of SF saying "not in our city". As a city, they cannot regulate what goes on outside their boundaries. But they can have a say in what happens inside. I think your point about unintended consequences would be valid if we were talking about a statewide law. But for a municipal regulation, I don't see it.

So all of the puppy stores will move outside the city limits right? The unintended consequence here as that just as many puppies will be sold and the city will have no way to enforce anything any of their animal related regulations.

So the only difference the laws would have would be that all the San Fran people would have to drive a little farther to buy their designer mixed breed mutts. It may make the city look better for being proactive, but does nothing to address the animal welfare issue.

 

[VeganSoprano]

Mandatory s/n is intended to curb the issue of *surplus* pets - of which there are plenty. That being said, I don't support it because it's unenforceable and tends to create an attitude of "we passed a law, what more do you want?", when what is needed is increased access to low-cost s/n and s/n services targeted at the animals who are the biggest component of the overpopulation crisis (which will vary somewhat between jurisdictions).

San Francisco can't control what goes on beyond its borders. It can't even enforce the conditions that animals are bred under if it is outside the city - which it almost certainly is. Their only jurisdiction is with the stores inside the city, which is not where the vast majority of the abuse is likely to take place anyway. So again, this ban is the city's only way to say that the abuse of animals in the pet trade will not be tolerated in this city.

 

[NStarz]

So all of the puppy stores will move outside the city limits right? The unintended consequence here as that just as many puppies will be sold and the city will have no way to enforce anything any of their animal related regulations.

So the only difference the laws would have would be that all the San Fran people would have to drive a little farther to buy their designer mixed breed mutts. It may make the city look better for being proactive, but does nothing to address the animal welfare issue.

Sure, some people will leave the city to go buy a designer mutt, but people are also all about convenience. If it would take 3 hours to drive to a pet store to buy a golden retriever puppy, but there's one in the shelter that's down the block, I'd say that 3/5 people would go check out the shelter first.

I agree that MSN should have built-in exceptions (not sure which law we are talking about specifically), but I do think the law is overall well-founded. Why are we killing tens of thousands of dogs every year in shelters and making a million more through unwanted pregnancies and people wanting to show their kids "the meaning of life"? Give me a break. Doesn't make sense to me. If you are a reputable breeder, get a license and don't spay/neuter. If you don't want to take away your dog's 'manlihood' and don't neuter, that's just ridiculous and you should be required to fix your dog.

 

[david594]

Sure, some people will leave the city to go buy a designer mutt, but people are also all about convenience. If it would take 3 hours to drive to a pet store to buy a golden retriever puppy, but there's one in the shelter that's down the block, I'd say that 3/5 people would go check out the shelter first.

The puppy stores in the city will be forced to closed and will most likely reopen immediately outside the city. No multi hour drives involved. Unless it takes 1.5 hours one way to get outside the city.

The puppy store owners aren't idiots. They know they have a market in SF, they are not just going to abandon it because of a local legislation.

 

[VeganSoprano]

I honestly doubt the stores will be forced to close at all. An animal is a once-in-a-few-years acquisition, at most. Their bread and butter is the day-to-day supplies like food and treats and toys and litter. All they need to do is what the big chains have done with cats and dogs - allow shelters and rescues to use their space for adoptions. Offer a $5 or $10 coupon to all shelter adopters to get them in the door of your store. They'll end up spending much more than that. Thousands of pet supply stores operate in this country as supply stores, very successfully.

 

[nyanko]

The puppy stores in the city will be forced to closed and will most likely reopen immediately outside the city. No multi hour drives involved. Unless it takes 1.5 hours one way to get outside the city.

Well, it actually does take a decent amount of time and money to get to a lot of places in the Bay area from SF. You have to cross the Bay, after all, and there are only a couple bridges that do. If they put the stores in other cities on the peninsula it wouldn't be too far, though.

I agree though that this sort of legislation is stupid and dangerous, and am generally against it.

However, this quote blows my mind..

But those shelter hamsters almost certainly did not originate at a pet store, said Michael Maddox, general counsel for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C.

Studies by UC Davis and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy have shown that only a small fraction of shelter animals were purchased at pet stores, he said.

I highly doubt those studies were looking at hamsters, and how do we know if they aren't citing them?? Right here is a prime example of something I was talking about in another thread - overextension of study results by non-knowledgeable people looking for something to prove their pre-existing point. Very irresponsible journalism IMO to present it in this way.

edit: National Council on Pet Population's most recent relevant study, it appears In fact, according to Table 2 you can note that dogs and cats from pet stores were significantly more likely to be relinquished to shelters than many of the other sources. It suffers from a too-small sample size when exposed to more rigorous analysis but there is certainly nothing there that builds confidence in pet store purchased animals, which is what the lawyer or whoever there is erroneously trying to attribute to the numbers. And as suspected, it's 100% about dogs and cats and has nothing to do with hamsters.

 

[Angelus9]

Mandatory s/n is intended to curb the issue of surplus* pets

Well, yeah. Mandatory S/N of ALL dogs will of course get rid of "surplus" pets. It will get rid of ALL pets eventually, right? You're talking about legislation making it MANDATORY to neuter all pets. Mandatory neutering of ALL dogs. End of dogs, right?
Tell me where they're going to come from, then.

 

[Angelus9]

I agree that pets should only be adopted from rescues and shelters

Really? ONLY adopted from rescues and shelters? Wow.

 

[VeganSoprano]

Trouble is, we're in absolutely no danger of running out of homeless dogs and cats. If only responsible breeders bred animals, we wouldn't have the overpopulation crisis we have. Pets should not be allowed to reproduce, certainly not while there are far more being born than can reasonably expect to find homes. That is very different from the end of pet dogs and cats.

 

[Angelus9]

It sounds like the law bans the *retail* sale of animals, not sales between private individuals. What this means is that private breeders and fanciers can continue to breed and sell animals as they always have. Puppy mills and other similar operations cannot.

No, they can't. If you follow these matters, you would know that HSUS and other AR groups are constantly working very hard to eliminate ANY breeding by private individuals. They do this by getting communities to pass extremely restrictive legislation, such as very high fees if you breed even one litter a year, for instance.

When these laws are passed, the average private breeder and fancier will either not be allowed to breed, or will be priced out of breeder by the high fees communities will charge. That means that the ONLY people who can afford to breed will be exactly those puppy mill types with masses of dogs who aren't well cared for (quantity of animals produced + lack of care - both done to save money).

 

[david594]

I honestly doubt the stores will be forced to close at all. An animal is a once-in-a-few-years acquisition, at most. Their bread and butter is the day-to-day supplies like food and treats and toys and litter. All they need to do is what the big chains have done with cats and dogs - allow shelters and rescues to use their space for adoptions. Offer a $5 or $10 coupon to all shelter adopters to get them in the door of your store. They'll end up spending much more than that. Thousands of pet supply stores operate in this country as supply stores, very successfully.

Have you been to a puppy mill based pet store lately? The ghetto kind you find in the middle of a shopping mall? Their bread and butter is 100% puppies! They barely sell any accessories. When is the last time you saw someone walking up and down the mall carrying a bag of dog food from the pet store? They don't need to advertise their in house financing for the people who only want accessories.

 

[Angelus9]

Trouble is, we're in absolutely no danger of running out of homeless dogs and cats.

There are areas of the country that are actually importing animals from shelters in other parts of the country because they don't have enough to adopt out. Pit bulls excepted.

If only responsible breeders bred animals, we wouldn't have the overpopulation crisis we have.

Agreed. But your way would punish these very responsible people, while those who are irresponsible and currently don't obey the laws about animal care will continue on, thereby making the situation worse. You'll get rid of the responsible breeders, leaving only those who don't care and don't obey the current laws, so they sure won't obey any new restrictions. Can you see how back-asswards this is, and how harmful to animal welfare in the long run?

Pets should not be allowed to reproduce, certainly not while there are far more being born than can reasonably expect to find homes. That is very different from the end of pet dogs and cats.

No exceptions? No breeding? What exceptions? Do you want to eliminate military and police dogs? Seeing Eye dogs? I have two shelter dogs at my house. I love them and they will live with me all their lives, but do they have issues? You betcha. Not nearly as solid in temperment and physical health as the two other dogs bought from caring, thoughtful, knowledgeable breeders. And there is no way on God's green earth that I want to make it MANDATORY that everyone, including families with children, don't have the choice to get a similar dog, but must go to a shelter. Yes, there are many fantastic dogs in shelters, but, like with another issue, it's a CHOICE, and unlike some of you here, I don't want to take away CHOICE from other people who may not think as I do.

 

[VeganSoprano]

Yes, I have seen those stores - and they should be put out of business and I strongly defend the right of any municipality to say that they won't have such operations in their jurisdiction, just like the municipality has probably already said they won't allow a puppy mill to operate within their jurisdictional limits. For the stores that want to stay in business, there are ways to do it.

 

[nyanko]

Another inherent problem in making laws like mandatory spay/neuter and this pet store law is that it is not getting anywhere near the root of the actual problem. The AR organizations see the plight of shelter animals as an opportunity to push their agenda on people who don't really know any better, or people who are only somewhat informed. HSUS is in a good position to do this because, as the making of this thread demonstrates, their name causes a lot of confusion in the general public. People assume that they have some connection with their local humane societies, and they plaster cute pictures of puppies and kittens all over their advertisements. I really hate that they can get away with that, and that they make so much money under those pretenses that is then used to fund lobbying for laws like this.

To me, this public deception makes them a worse organization than PeTA or ALF or any of the others.

 

[WhippetsRule]

No, they can't. If you follow these matters, you would know that HSUS and other AR groups are constantly working very hard to eliminate ANY breeding by private individuals. They do this by getting communities to pass extremely restrictive legislation, such as very high fees if you breed even one litter a year, for instance.

When these laws are passed, the average private breeder and fancier will either not be allowed to breed, or will be priced out of breeder by the high fees communities will charge. That means that the ONLY people who can afford to breed will be exactly those puppy mill types with masses of dogs who aren't well cared for (quantity of animals produced + lack of care - both done to save money).

Absolutely correct. 👍

 

[WhippetsRule]

Another inherent problem in making laws like mandatory spay/neuter and this pet store law is that it is not getting anywhere near the root of the actual problem. The AR organizations see the plight of shelter animals as an opportunity to push their agenda on people who don't really know any better, or people who are only somewhat informed. HSUS is in a good position to do this because, as the making of this thread demonstrates, their name causes a lot of confusion in the general public. People assume that they have some connection with their local humane societies, and they plaster cute pictures of puppies and kittens all over their advertisements. I really hate that they can get away with that, and that they make so much money under those pretenses that is then used to fund lobbying for laws like this.

To me, this public deception makes them a worse organization than PeTA or ALF or any of the others.

I agree with almost everything you have said, except for maybe the last sentence of your post. I think that by virtue of the amount of money that HSUS has/generates, it is a very dangerous organization and I have seen firsthand the amount of money and effort that they put into their lobbying efforts. However, any group, e.g. PETA, that supports members that who go to a dog show and let dogs out of their crates to 'run free' and be potentially killed by a car, or whose members would allegedly put antifreeze in the water dishes of crated dogs because 'they are better off dead' is pretty scary.

 

[nyanko]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the others either (particularly with being involved in research using animal models). But at least they're honest about what their agenda is so that the people who donate for the most part (yes there are some really dense people who don't, but you know what they say about a fool and his money..) know what they're supporting. I much prefer an honest, outspoken rebel to a deceptive, secretive manipulator any day.

Ultimately the latter has the potential to do more longer lasting harm.

 

[Angelus9]

It sounds like the law bans the *retail* sale of animals, not sales between private individuals. What this means is that private breeders and fanciers can continue to breed and sell animals as they always have. Puppy mills and other similar operations cannot. This is an excellent thing.

You either are not thinking this through or else you know the truth very well and are purposely dissembling.

Banning all retail sales of animals + MSN = elimination of pets.

AR goals are MSN everywhere, elimination of breeding everywhere. If they get their way, no more pets, period. Odd for a veterinarian to consider this "an excellent thing."

 

[VeganSoprano]

I still cannot understand why one would support the use of pet quality animals as breeding stock and retail puppy mill operations. Though again, I'm not a supporter of MSN legislation.

Puppy mills are bad. Unplanned litters and backyard breeding are bad. Planned litters by breeding quality animals are perfectly fine. Rescue is good.

By way of analogy, it sounds like if I said I was against sweatshop labor in the garment industry, you'd say I was advocating that everyone go naked.

 

[david594]

By way of analogy, it sounds like if I said I was against sweatshop labor in the garment industry, you'd say I was advocating that everyone go naked.

To go with your analogy, this law might as well also ban all children under the age of 7 from working in factories in San Francisco because they are opposed to child labor.

Wait? What do you mean that isn't going to fix the global problem of child labor? Well either is a local law to ban the sale of pets going to fix the national issue of animals being treated poorly in puppy mills.

 

[VeganSoprano]

That's exactly my point. A municipality cannot control what goes on outside its jurisdiction. It can control what goes on inside, at least to an extent. And that's the whole point of the municipal code.

 

[WhippetsRule]

A municipality cannot control what goes on outside its jurisdiction. It can control what goes on inside, at least to an extent. And that's the whole point of the municipal code.

Ahhh, there is the rub. First, all major jurisdictions, SF included, and all states so far as I am aware, already have laws/statutes on the books which (criminally, primarily) penalize (to greater or lesser extents) animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect. Moreover, there are other laws regulating zoning and animals, and yet others which (civilly) regulate commercial transactions (ie. retail sales, 'lemon' laws, which also apply to the sale of animals). "New" laws are not the answer. Enhanced penalties for violations, and better enforcement of existing laws, yes. But, of course, that costs money to pay for the enforcement personnel.

Secondly, any law which 'bans' "puppy mills" or "pet-quality" breedings is going to be a law of unintended consequences. While I think that most reasonable people would agree that the concept of a "puppy mill" is bad, if you ask 10 people to define a "puppy mill" you are likely to get 10 different definitions. Likewise, the definition of what constitutes a "pet-quality" vs. "breeding quality" X (pick a breed). If you can't define it, how do you legislate/enforce it? Who gets to decide--the animal control officer? The judge? The municipal legislature? That's why you have to punish behavior, i.e. withholding food, water, shelter, veterinary care, etc.

I'll stop now...

 

[WhippetsRule]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the others either (particularly with being involved in research using animal models). But at least they're honest about what their agenda is so that the people who donate for the most part (yes there are some really dense people who don't, but you know what they say about a fool and his money..) know what they're supporting. I much prefer an honest, outspoken rebel to a deceptive, secretive manipulator any day.

Ultimately the latter has the potential to do more longer lasting harm.

Agreed.

 

[marcwood]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the others either (particularly with being involved in research using animal models). But at least they're honest about what their agenda is so that the people who donate for the most part (yes there are some really dense people who don't, but you know what they say about a fool and his money..) know what they're supporting. I much prefer an honest, outspoken rebel to a deceptive, secretive manipulator any day.

Ultimately the latter has the potential to do more longer lasting harm.

Amen sister! Even I did not know entirely what the HSUS was about until a few years ago😱 I used to, like the general public, thought that they were the mothership of county humane societies and that their commercials to get you to donate money (with that gut wrenching Sarah McLaughlin song and those sad pictures) will go to those dogs. Then I went on their website and read their expense reports and found that only a small portion of that money will go to the animals.

It's looking like they're the legislative mouthpiece of PETA

You're absolutely right Nyan, at least with PETA their agenda is clear and people who support them know that.

 

[Tco87]

This thread made me think of this blog post:

http://www.petmd.com/blogs/fullyvetted/2010/june/humane_society_donations

 

[bunnity]

I think this issue is really hard to find a middle ground on.

On one hand we have the massive overpopulation problem, and as someone that works in a shelter (and plans to base my career in shelters), it is extremely difficult to look at the results day after day. When you are personally faced with the problem, and are physically seeing animals living in cages for months and being put to sleep when they go kennel crazy, any solution is going to start to look good because the status quo is so terrible.
And I think this desperation for a solution is something that is hard to understand for people that don't work in shelters, because it's easy to forget that it's happening, and even reading that X million animals are euthanized every year in shelter does not have half the weight that being present for one of those euthanasias does.

On the other hand, I think anything backed by AR groups is dangerous and is leading toward an undesirable goal. In addition, the results of this kind of law are going to vary a lot by location; where I live there are many people that do not have the means to leave the city via car and bring back an animal, but many of the animals here are from BYBs and oops litters anyway. So the effect is going to depend so much on the size of the city, the mobility of the residents, what the surrounding area is like (I'm near the puppy mill capital of the northeast - Lancaster PA - other areas may not be so saturated with puppy mills), what laws are already in place, and so on. I don't think that those of us living all around the country can really judge what the effect would be in San Francisco, and be able to state whether or not it's easy to leave the city and so on, because we don't live there.

Anyway, the argument on this thread has mostly stated that this law is a bad idea. That's fine, but where we are right now is pretty awful itself. The Philadelphia city shelter gets 30,000 animals a year, and half of those are euthanized. That's one city in one state. So yes, it would be bad to have no pets, but I think it's just as bad that we're killing 15,000 pets a year in my city alone, and it's mostly fueled by puppy mills, pet stores, and backyard breeders. So if we don't like this solution, it's not enough to just say it's a bad idea. We need a better idea, and we need it yesterday.

Whippets is right that we need better enforcement of existing laws, and I'm glad he or she brought it up. Part of that is financial - getting better funding for humane law enforcement is a step. My shelter does humane enforcement for the entire state, and gets zero money from the city or state. That should change. Law enforcement is not enough though - there are so many "oh she got out and came back pregnant" litters, and those aren't illegal or cruel, they're just pointless and sad.

Spay/neuter resources are huge. So many people at my clinic cannot afford to have their animals fixed. "Well they shouldn't have animals" you say, and that's a nice thought but they do have animals, and their animals are having babies all the time. Why not have the money put into enforcing these new laws be put into spay/neuter programs? Why can't cities fix animals for free for people with certain incomes, rather than inevitably house the offspring of those unaltered animals? Education in this area is so important too. People still think that having one litter is healthier, and have no concept of how expensive it is to vaccinate and deworm a litter of puppies every three weeks, or of the consequences of creating yet another litter of mutts. This is where veterinarians should be talking talking talking to their clients. Even if you're recommending against spay/neuter (that's already been beaten to death on these forums) tell people how to tell if an animal is in heat, and how to keep them separate, and warn that an animal may try to get out to breed, etc.

Legally, we should be thinking about laws that would solve the overpopulation crisis, while allowing for the purposeful creation of healthy, friendly pets that are bred toward ideal health and temperament. We need to look at ways to stop puppy mills and backyard breeders while allowing reputable breeders (and I mean breeders that health test, know the breed, provide humane conditions, screen homes, and compete or work their breeding stock) to continue to breed high quality animals. Maybe do a modified form of MSN for mixed breed or unregistered animals, or make it much harder to get a kennel license (and illegal to sell animals without one), or make it much more expensive to license an unaltered animal, or place a tax on pet sales that feeds into a low-income s/n fund. I'm just thinking off the top of my head and there are probably issues with those ideas, but I think it's counterproductive to just shoot down ideas without putting any more up. And I feel very strongly that anyone going into the veterinary profession should spend some time in a shelter and see where the shelter people are coming from and see the homeless animals face to face, and see the conditions that the puppy mill animals come out of, and realize that this isn't something that should be ignored. It is no coincidence that a lot of the arguments on this forum end up between the shelter people and the non shelter people, and I think a lot of arguments would be resolved by seeing why the shelter people get so up in arms about overpopulation and its causes.

 

[WhippetsRule]

I think this issue is really hard to find a middle ground on.

On one hand we have the massive overpopulation problem, and as someone that works in a shelter (and plans to base my career in shelters), it is extremely difficult to look at the results day after day. When you are personally faced with the problem, and are physically seeing animals living in cages for months and being put to sleep when they go kennel crazy, any solution is going to start to look good because the status quo is so terrible.
And I think this desperation for a solution is something that is hard to understand for people that don't work in shelters, because it's easy to forget that it's happening, and even reading that X million animals are euthanized every year in shelter does not have half the weight that being present for one of those euthanasias does.

On the other hand, I think anything backed by AR groups is dangerous and is leading toward an undesirable goal. In addition, the results of this kind of law are going to vary a lot by location; where I live there are many people that do not have the means to leave the city via car and bring back an animal, but many of the animals here are from BYBs and oops litters anyway. So the effect is going to depend so much on the size of the city, the mobility of the residents, what the surrounding area is like (I'm near the puppy mill capital of the northeast - Lancaster PA - other areas may not be so saturated with puppy mills), what laws are already in place, and so on. I don't think that those of us living all around the country can really judge what the effect would be in San Francisco, and be able to state whether or not it's easy to leave the city and so on, because we don't live there.

Anyway, the argument on this thread has mostly stated that this law is a bad idea. That's fine, but where we are right now is pretty awful itself. The Philadelphia city shelter gets 30,000 animals a year, and half of those are euthanized. That's one city in one state. So yes, it would be bad to have no pets, but I think it's just as bad that we're killing 15,000 pets a year in my city alone, and it's mostly fueled by puppy mills, pet stores, and backyard breeders. So if we don't like this solution, it's not enough to just say it's a bad idea. We need a better idea, and we need it yesterday.

Whippets is right that we need better enforcement of existing laws, and I'm glad he or she brought it up. Part of that is financial - getting better funding for humane law enforcement is a step. My shelter does humane enforcement for the entire state, and gets zero money from the city or state. That should change. Law enforcement is not enough though - there are so many "oh she got out and came back pregnant" litters, and those aren't illegal or cruel, they're just pointless and sad.

Spay/neuter resources are huge. So many people at my clinic cannot afford to have their animals fixed. "Well they shouldn't have animals" you say, and that's a nice thought but they do have animals, and their animals are having babies all the time. Why not have the money put into enforcing these new laws be put into spay/neuter programs? Why can't cities fix animals for free for people with certain incomes, rather than inevitably house the offspring of those unaltered animals? Education in this area is so important too. People still think that having one litter is healthier, and have no concept of how expensive it is to vaccinate and deworm a litter of puppies every three weeks, or of the consequences of creating yet another litter of mutts. This is where veterinarians should be talking talking talking to their clients. Even if you're recommending against spay/neuter (that's already been beaten to death on these forums) tell people how to tell if an animal is in heat, and how to keep them separate, and warn that an animal may try to get out to breed, etc.

Legally, we should be thinking about laws that would solve the overpopulation crisis, while allowing for the purposeful creation of healthy, friendly pets that are bred toward ideal health and temperament. We need to look at ways to stop puppy mills and backyard breeders while allowing reputable breeders (and I mean breeders that health test, know the breed, provide humane conditions, screen homes, and compete or work their breeding stock) to continue to breed high quality animals. Maybe do a modified form of MSN for mixed breed or unregistered animals, or make it much harder to get a kennel license (and illegal to sell animals without one), or make it much more expensive to license an unaltered animal, or place a tax on pet sales that feeds into a low-income s/n fund. I'm just thinking off the top of my head and there are probably issues with those ideas, but I think it's counterproductive to just shoot down ideas without putting any more up. And I feel very strongly that anyone going into the veterinary profession should spend some time in a shelter and see where the shelter people are coming from and see the homeless animals face to face, and see the conditions that the puppy mill animals come out of, and realize that this isn't something that should be ignored. It is no coincidence that a lot of the arguments on this forum end up between the shelter people and the non shelter people, and I think a lot of arguments would be resolved by seeing why the shelter people get so up in arms about overpopulation and its causes.

I agree with alot of what you said. Part of the problem is financial and making cheap/free s/n widely available is part of a solution--of course obtaining the $$ to do so is a whole other ball of wax.

As you also say, education is part of the problem and I agree that as future veterinarians, we should be broadly educating our clients, to include things like how to identify when your bitch/queen, etc is in heat and what to do (or not) if she is not spayed.

But I think a HUGE part of the problem comes down to our 'throw away society' attitude. Granted, it is changing, slowly, in some segments of the population, but there is still a very large segment of the population who believes that pets can be thrown away...oh, he pees in the house, time to take him to the shelter (or dump him by the side of the road)....she's not a cute puppy/kitten anymore, time to get rid of her....oh he/she/it ran away...we'll get another one...oh we have a baby now, time to dump the pet. To me, finding a way, one person at a time, to change THAT type of attitude would go a long way toward decreasing the shelter population. Any ideas?

 

[VeganSoprano]

I think controlling overpopulation and changing the culture of disposabilty are, to an extent, two sides of the same coin. I've truly heard people say "that much to treat my dog? I can get a new one for less than that!", and they're right. It's easier to place little value something that is a dime a dozen. If something cannot be replaced so easily, then taking care of the one you have becomes more important. So I think we need to make headway against the overpopulation crisis before we can really expect a sea change in attitudes.

 

[luplodw]

I agree with alot of what you said. Part of the problem is financial and making cheap/free s/n widely available is part of a solution--of course obtaining the $$ to do so is a whole other ball of wax.

Well I know there are lots of events that spay and neuter for cheap. At mississippi state they have events where they spay and neuter animals for $10. If you have more than 3 animals, they will only charge you a maximum of $30. If they can do it....it must be possible to do more! They get the vet students to do these surgeries (so when you graduate from MSU you will have done 80-100 surgeries!!)

 

[purplesaurus]

I think this issue is really hard to find a middle ground on. [...]

Very well put. I agree with everything you said.

But I think a HUGE part of the problem comes down to our 'throw away society' attitude. [...] To me, finding a way, one person at a time, to change THAT type of attitude would go a long way toward decreasing the shelter population. Any ideas?

This is also very true and possibly the root of the problem.

And honestly, I don't know how to change it. We (as a society) have this view with everything, and it is going to take some serious changes to our foundations to make any sort of difference.

 

[bunnity]

I agree WhippetsRule - the human failings at the root of this problem are the same as those causing all the other ones humans have created, and it's hard to fix the symptoms without being able to change the fundamental nature of people.

 

[WhippetsRule]

Well I know there are lots of events that spay and neuter for cheap. At mississippi state they have events where they spay and neuter animals for $10. If you have more than 3 animals, they will only charge you a maximum of $30. If they can do it....it must be possible to do more! They get the vet students to do these surgeries (so when you graduate from MSU you will have done 80-100 surgeries!!)

I think that's fantastic--good for the folks who want to take advantage of inexpensive s/n and great for the vet students who get an opportunity to learn/hone their skills.

 

[lunajett]

You either are not thinking this through or else you know the truth very well and are purposely dissembling.

Banning all retail sales of animals + MSN = elimination of pets.

AR goals are MSN everywhere, elimination of breeding everywhere. If they get their way, no more pets, period. Odd for a veterinarian to consider this "an excellent thing."

Seriously? Are there black helicopters hovering over your home at this moment?

I can't claim to know everything on this issue, but I have worked on MSN locally and read a lot of the ordinances that have been passed. Everyone I've seens has numerous exceptions for "legitimate" breeders, medical reasons, etc. Any vet can cite a medical reason why S/N is not in the animal's interest, and no beauracrat is going to overrule that. Sure, a responsible breeder might have to register, pay a fee, fill out some paperwork. Responsible breeders I've heard from have supported this - it is another way to weed out bad breeders and set the good ones apart.

Does anybody really think there will be black-booted thugs kicking in doors and feeling for testicles or looking for spay scars? What municipality is going to have the funds to do that? Conspiracy theorists can make MSN out to be this awful thing, but it's really just a tool for local HLE to use against the idiots out there. Hopefully, a few Jane and Joe Sixpacks might be stopped from letting their animals breed just so little Suzy can witness the miracle of birth - and that's a GOOD thing. No MSN law will be perfect, and bad apples will always slip through, but when we are killing X million "excess" animals every year, isn't it a step in the right direction? How anybody gets from that to "pet ownership will be banned" is beyond me. Other than a few fringe AR groups, who supports that goal? How would that even serve the HSUS, who, don't you think, would gain most by encouraging happy pet owners to keep sending them checks?

With the homeless animals being killed now, we're in a crisis, and there should be drastic responses, i.e. MSN. You can take it to an extreme and say, "well, if we do that, 10 years from now there will be no pets left." If we get close to the point where there is a shortage of adoptable animals, awesome. Then shelters can take time to really find the best homes, educate potetntial adopters, etc., instead of always feeling that clock ticking down and know they MUSt get these animals out the door or they will be killed. Any law can be changed in the future if warranted. But why not do everything we can to get the overpopulation under control. Once we do that and we are no longer killing millions, then fine, open up some more legitimate breeding.

Maybe I am naive, but given the current crisis I don't see how any of us who love animals can see reasonable MSN laws as a bad thing.

 

[nyanko]

With the homeless animals being killed now, we're in a crisis, and there should be drastic responses, i.e. MSN. You can take it to an extreme and say, "well, if we do that, 10 years from now there will be no pets left." If we get close to the point where there is a shortage of adoptable animals, awesome. Then shelters can take time to really find the best homes, educate potetntial adopters, etc., instead of always feeling that clock ticking down and know they MUSt get these animals out the door or they will be killed. Any law can be changed in the future if warranted.

You can change the law, sure, but you can't "un-neuter" the dogs and cats, can you?

Responsible breeders already spend inordinate amounts of money and time on showing, training, competing in field trials, genetic and health screening, studying pedigrees, properly caring for offspring until they find a responsible home and waiting until the right time to send the puppies home. They generally support the people they sell puppies to for the dogs' lives and take them back in if the owner can't keep them for any reason. If they have to pay a large amount of money for licenses for their intact animals or worse, can't license them at all, where does that leave them? MSN/high fees for intact animals mostly punishes the people who are responsible. People who never take their animals to the vet or don't bother licensing them in the first place, or the "just one litter" types, will continue to be the ones breeding. I can't with good conscience support something that is this backwards and could stand to reduce the gene pool for purebred animals any more than it already is.

edit: And I think WhippetsRule hit it on the head with what I feel like the root of the problem is. It's with society's attitude towards everything, and by extension towards animals.

 

[VeganSoprano]

A law that's more useful by far than MSN is one like NYC's, which states that any animal impounded by Animal Care and Control must be s/n before leaving the shelter's control. This is in addition to mandatory s/n before adoption, which is already relatively commonplace. NYC's law is specifically targeted at the highest risk animals - those running at large or involved in questionable situations potentially involving neglect or mistreatment. It's highly enforceable and funded by the city. MSN that's targeted at the owner is fairly meaningless. It's sort of like dog licensing. Those who are aware of the law and follow an unenforceable law simply because it is the law are probably among the more responsible citizens who would vaccinate their pets and control their reproduction anyway. Those who are disinclined to comply for whatever reason face no consequences for failing to comply. And the law ends up worth no more than the paper it's printed on. There is a need for a few specific targeted and enforceable laws, and a great deal of programs providing accessible and easily affordable s/n, core vaccinations, and microchipping.

 

[bunnity]

^Agreed that licensing doesn't stop the irresponsible people, and that the responsible people would be getting vaccines anyway. There is a middle group of people here though that are prompted to update their rabies vax by that notice from the city - and once they are in the door they generally listen when we talk to them about getting DAPP and deworming done at the same time. So it does a limited amount of good.

Really, I think its main purpose is to make money for animal control, though.

I like the s/n of animals leaving the shelter post impound, because it targets the people that are generally the least responsible. Have any studies been done looking at the before and after statistics for this law? I'd love to see them. It's almost like TNR...

 

[lunajett]

You can change the law, sure, but you can't "un-neuter" the dogs and cats, can you?

😕 Not sure why we would want to or how it's relevant. But anyway, I'm sure the day is not far off when pet owners can have their long-dead pets cloned.

I can't with good conscience support something that is this backwards and could stand to reduce the gene pool for purebred animals any more than it already is.

Purebred animals, by definition, require a restricted gene pool, and most "responsible" breeders move to further reduce that pool by favoring some arbitrary AKC-required traits. So how can you fret about reducing the gene pool while at the same time supporting breeders who purposely restrict and reduce the gene pool?

edit: And I think WhippetsRule hit it on the head with what I feel like the root of the problem is. It's with society's attitude towards everything, and by extension towards animals

Absolutely, society's attitude is a huge part of the problem, with this and countless other issues. Great, so what do we do about it? Sit and wait and hope that maybe "society" will come around to the right (i.e. our 🙂) way of thinking on it's own in, oh, maybe a hundred years? Or try to nudge society in the right direction? Laws have been used to nudge society along in the right direction many times with great success - look at smoking, seat belts, infant car seats, etc. At the time, people bitched and moaned about "gubmint takin' away my rights!" but the laws were passed anyway because they made sense and were for the greater good. Same thing here. MSN isn't perfect or by any means the only solution - it must be accompanied with education, funding for low cost/free S/N, reasonable exceptions, etc. But the point is, it nudges society in the right direction.