My crazy stray pet solution

[StartingoverVet]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, I am not one normally for solving every problem with regulation...but here is my far-fetched solution to the stray dog&cat/shelter problem in this country (can be done on a state by state basis to get around the whole constitution thingy)....

1) Consider every dog and cat to be like a car. They have to be registered and have their genes put in a comprehensive database (cost to be borne by owners...sorry). Unless they are registered to a new buyer, they remain the responsibility of the original owner/breeder etc. This revenue will be split by the government and shelters.

2) Hire (possibly a number of temporary) Pet inspectors from the ranks to examine pets and fine people (triple the licensing rate) for unlicensed ownership. Fines will go to pay the inspectors. Inspectors can be found from the long list of unemployed these days. Unlicensed pets are either tested and licensed or seized.

3) All strays are genetically tested by the government. The genetic parents of any stray found will be assessed to the last owner at 20x the licensing rate. This fee will go to the shelters to help them with funding to maintain their existence.

4) No animal will be adopted without a license.
5) No animal can receive veterinary care and be returned to an owner without a license.
6) No animal can receive grooming without a license.

That's it. That is my crazy proposal.

Initially it would be chaotic, but few(er) people are going to take a chance of large fines of abandoning their dogs (assuming we can find them). The active fining of non-registered owners will increase revenue and increase the database. People who lose their dogs are responsible if they breed while away. Too bad.

To me, it is all about taking responsibility.

Some might not like vets having to check licensing, but car rentals check your drivers license, bars check your age, nothing wrong with vets checking the licensing.

Hell, let them be license issuers! They keep some of the fee and pass it on. That will solve that problem.

Ok. Go ahead and shoot the messenger. Love to hear your (crazy) criticisms & comments.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=11952526

 

[Bisbee]

Would shelter owners have to pay for the genetic testing plus registration/licensing of all the pets in the shelters? Shelters are on such tight purse strings as it is now. They might have to euthanize even more animals for financial reasons just to be able to afford to "own" the rest. Also, I hate that so much in our society is already so regulated...but I can see that the way it is now isn't working for us. I think that vets who care about these things should make the spaying/neutering of pets available to everyone (regardless of owner's income) with a lower fee schedule than other surgeries. As it is now, many people go to low-cost spay/neuter clinics leading to loss of income for local vets. Maybe it wouldn't be this way if they lowered their fees for spays and neuters because they'd be doing the spays and neuters for at least some income. So much to consider.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Would shelter owners have to pay for the genetic testing plus registration/licensing of all the pets in the shelters? Shelters are on such tight purse strings as it is now. They might have to euthanize even more animals for financial reasons just to be able to afford to "own" the rest.

Genetic testing to be done by shelter. But they get the fine revenue to help cover it (plus new licensing revenue sharing). They would be charging adopters the licensing on the part of the govt.... they would not have to license animals that will be euthanized...

Spay/neuter will become less relevant if my program worked.... because who in their right mind would take a chance of such a high fine if their pets procreate.

 

[Chebanse]

I think that your idea has some very good concepts. It seems like it may be a bit strict to actually get anything like that passed... but I think it could have a huge impact on the issue of overpopulation. It made me think of a city ordinance where I used to live (brilliant in concept, but not really enforced). It was required that every dog and cat owner register their pets with the city. This registration was free if the animal was spayed/neutered, microchipped or tattooed, and up to date on vaccines. There was a $50/year fee for any unaltered pet, a $20/year fee for unmicrochipped/untattooed, and the pet could not be registered if it was not at least up to date on rabies vaccines and the owner would be assessed a fine if this was not rectified within 30 days. I don't remember what the fine was if an animal was found to be unregistered. They also placed a 3 pet limit/houshold unless special licensing was attained (ex: breeders). I know this didn't work, because I only found out about this 'law' after living there with my dog for 2 years with impunity 🙄 Your idea sounds like it would be able to be more strictly enforced at least.

 

[TehSwizz]

I love the idea of liscensing in order to own pets. I feel like it would also cut down on abuse/neglect cases. Those cases where the owner just feeds and waters their animal and lets their medical needs go by the wayside. A liscence per pet would probably also reduce animal hoarding instances.

However, my coworker and I were just discussing this this afternoon, I guess it hasn't been implemented well in the past. She lived in an area where you had to have a liscence to own an animal and it just didn't work well. It was somehow punishing the people that already owned animals and were trying to care for them is how she put it.

 

[nyanko]

Speaking from a genetics perspective, using a database to figure out an individual's parentage, particularly in a very inbred population like domestic dogs, is a questionable endeavor at best. Honestly each breed would probably need to have its own database, so then what happens if the stray is quite obviously mutted up? Someone has to guess breeds and run a ton of queries?

And what of feral cats? I assume your plan would include just euthing them all as they're found.

And cat owners are much less likely to spend money on their cats in general. If someone finds a cat they'd probably just keep it, like they do now, and just let it get taken away and euthed if anyone happens to find it. And they'd definitely be less likely to seek veterinary care for it. Yeah, while some points of your plan have some merit with dogs, I don't see it as at all feasible for cats.

 

[TehSwizz]

I think that your idea has some very good concepts. It seems like it may be a bit strict to actually get anything like that passed... but I think it could have a huge impact on the issue of overpopulation. It made me think of a city ordinance where I used to live (brilliant in concept, but not really enforced). It was required that every dog and cat owner register their pets with the city. This registration was free if the animal was spayed/neutered, microchipped or tattooed, and up to date on vaccines. There was a $50/year fee for any unaltered pet, a $20/year fee for unmicrochipped/untattooed, and the pet could not be registered if it was not at least up to date on rabies vaccines and the owner would be assessed a fine if this was not rectified within 30 days. I don't remember what the fine was if an animal was found to be unregistered. They also placed a 3 pet limit/houshold unless special licensing was attained (ex: breeders). I know this didn't work, because I only found out about this 'law' after living there with my dog for 2 years with impunity 🙄 Your idea sounds like it would be able to be more strictly enforced at least.

I really like that idea, but it seems like there is a general lack of enforcement with many of the animal related laws unfortunately.

 

[lostbunny]

I think the biggest problem with getting it started is the cost. How much money is going to go into this to get it started? and then upkeep with the enforcement is going to be another long haul.

Animal cruelty laws are great, but then every now and then you'll watch on the news some puppy mill, with 500 puppies and 200 adult mangey dogs with lice and heart worm, is being condemned. So how is it that in 2011, we can still have puppy mills, and people leaving dolphins in kiddy pools or crocodiles in bathtubs... I think your plan is really good, and works theoretically, but I don't think we could just implement it tomorrow.

 

[Lissarae06]

I feel like there are some good points in your idea SOV, but I don't think it would ever work. There are too many possibilities. For example (this situation actually happened to my vet), what if someone stole your dog and then dumped it? Would you be responsible for someone breaking into your home and stealing your dog? I also agree with nyanko in that this wouldn't work for cats. I do agree that licensing laws should be in place and enforced, I just don't think the general public cares enough for something like this to go anywhere. And Bisbee, while I think low-cost spay/neuter clinics can be a good thing for people that actually have financial difficulties, I think that every vet offering spay/neuters at a reduced price for everyone is a dangerous concept. It undermines the profession. People start seeing the lowered price and want everything cheaper. Vets have a hard enough time keeping the lights on as it is. I think they should charge appropriately for all services, not just most.

 

[Trematode]

Where I am from at least, the laws are primitive to say the least. The SPCA refuses to pick up any cats... I just found out that people on social assistance are allowed to have up to 2 cats. Low-cost spay/neuter clinics are non-existent because the government is not willing to fund any. I wonder what the impact would be if they start tweaking the little things first, then implementing larger things like registration and low-cost spay/neuter clinics, then moving on to the extreme.
I spent the last 4 years in a very poor area with a high population of feral cats around the city and packs of intact dogs that wander on the reserves. I doubt the public would respond well to mandatory pet registration because of the $$$ that is involved.

 

[SilverSpyderGT]

Whole genome sequencing for all pets? Financed by private pet owners? Ha. HAHAHAHAHA.

You thought the 99% were mad before this...

 

[nyanko]

Whole genome sequencing for all pets? Financed by private pet owners? Ha. HAHAHAHAHA.

I think (or at least I assumed/hope!) he was talking about some form of marker based genotyping like they do for forensics and paternity testing.

 

[fromthebox]

SOV - I heartily agree with your ideas about responsibility. I think accountability in pet ownership is severely lacking in this country. I'm not sure everything in your proposal is feasible ..

1) Consider every dog and cat to be like a car. They have to be registered and have their genes put in a comprehensive database (cost to be borne by owners...sorry). Unless they are registered to a new buyer, they remain the responsibility of the original owner/breeder etc. This revenue will be split by the government and shelters.

I think the owner-remains responsible for notifying of re-registration (like a car) is great. I don't think the genetics is going to be an easy sell unless we have a comprehensive database or a strong polymorphism marker to use. An interim solution (would not solve #3) is mandatory micro-chipping or tattooing any time that requires licensing. Fees assessed to owner. Only worry here is that animals may not be brought in for fear of fees which brings us to #2

2) Hire (possibly a number of temporary) Pet inspectors from the ranks to examine pets and fine people (triple the licensing rate) for unlicensed ownership. Fines will go to pay the inspectors. Inspectors can be found from the long list of unemployed these days. Unlicensed pets are either tested and licensed or seized.

This is the most important thing that requires funding. A lot of municipalities/counties have laws on the books, as Chebanse mentioned that assess strict fees on unaltered, unmicrochipped or unlicensed pets. In Santa Barbara county, the fee goes up for each out of compliance item on top of the reg fee, and then it doubles for a second offense, triples for a third. Problem is, there are not enough enforcers to go out in the community and do something about the unlicensed animals. We need funding for this above all else.

3) All strays are genetically tested by the government. The genetic parents of any stray found will be assessed to the last owner at 20x the licensing rate. This fee will go to the shelters to help them with funding to maintain their existence.

Fees to fund shelters or animal control I'm all in favor of, the genetic testing can be iffy, if we could do this, it would be awesome, but I'm thinking we can't, and then people would fight the fees and challenge the tests in court etc...

4) No animal will be adopted without a license.

yes

5) No animal can receive veterinary care and be returned to an owner without a license.

*sigh* I want to say yes, as I know this is good for the overall, but it can cause suffering. Just like we have to treat all who come thru the doors of the human emergency room, regardless of insurance/legal status in the country/lack of any documentation(not that I'm in favor of that really, from a financial standpoint) at what point do we refuse critical care? I would approve the "not returned to owner without" part but to receive care? I may also be missing the point.

6) No animal can receive grooming without a license.

Yes, if you're going to blatantly take your unregistered animal to someone else to get it cleaned/trimmed etc you better be prepared to get refused and reported by the groomer's business. Fees assessed when groomers fail to report unlicensed animals and revocation of license with repeated offenses.

For what it's worth, SB county doesn't have too much overcrowding, at least for cats. We have a great 83-cage shelter assistance program, the humane society, and several private rescues and TNR programs and all of them coordinate with each other. Counting my blessings on that, and we still need more enforcers.

Oh, one thing I'd add to #4, no animal can be adopted w/o license AND if they don't own their home (must prove that) LANDLORD APPROVAL, we require this at the shelter I volunteer at, and it is supremely important, as many cats/dogs get dumped in the college town when the landlords find out about them. Thus, you have to have the OK before you can adopt from us.

 

[redhorse]

I'm usually more of a lurker. But the semester is over and I'm waiting for WI and GA to decide my fate so...

Love that you are getting everyone thinking. Just b/c the problem seems insurmountable doesnt mean we should ignore it. That said...MPO, your idea is completely unenforceable. Random thoughts...

Who collects the fees? We can't even get humans to pay child support.

If the fees were paid, big "if" there, I can see the corruption now.

Can't even fathom this for cats. Who's paying for all the shelter tests on ferals that breed ferals? Hot mess there.

Depending on the fee schedule, are we risking limiting pet ownership only to the wealthy?

What about black market breeding? Enforcement, cost? If I'm Eli-Amish in PA, I'm chaining a few choice bitches/studs in the back shed.

Would this not discourage people from bringing their pets to the vet? Database registration fees, unwanted pregnancies w/associated fines they have no money to pay...

Who deals with the surrendered animals at the vets office...that's a hassle I see few vets wanting to take on. The municipality will take forever to place the pet in a shelter at cost to the veterinarian...or the vet will have to euthanize the animal at cost to the veterinarian (not to mention ethically undesirable)

Maybe we just shut down the Craigslist pet board and all the backyard breeders will go broke? J/K

 

[Minnerbelle]

Even if a reasonably priced assay incorporating enough markers to distinguish exact parentage of highly inbred dogs and cats was developed, I could never in good conscience buy into such a system because there are so many places where the test can be messed up such that a given result would not match up with the alleged animal it came from. It's easy to mislabel swabs or other samples, the extracted DNA can be mixed up, it's easy to contaminate DNA (and I don't trust any lab with monkey technicians to make sure all controls have been done properly 100% of the time), and the results can be mixed up during any step of processing. Automating won't solve all of these problems either. With as many of these have to be done for ALL animals to be on the database, I wouldn't be comfortable with it. I wouldn't want the identity, ownership, and all responsibilities resulting from such ownership of my pet depend on a DNA test at some lab I don't trust. It would also require that that all animals be chipped (and the chip and sample better not get mixed up either) so that the identity of the animal is secured while the test is run. And this is even after going over the hurdle of passing such federal law, establishing an enforcement agency and lab, AND developing reliable assays. I just don't see it happening outside a sci-fi book. It would be very unpopular with a vast majority of the population anyhow I would think

 

[gracietiger]

Nice ideas, SOV! I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be greater responsibility linked to pet ownership. I admittedly only skimmed through the posts, but if I am understanding correctly, the genetic tests would be to identify the original owner of a stay animal? I agree that genetic tests may present a host of issues, but what about mandatory microchipping? Any owner of an animal must not only license his/her animal, but must also either microchip the animal or transfer current microchip information from a previous owner to his/her name.

 

[Minnerbelle]

2) Hire (possibly a number of temporary) Pet inspectors from the ranks to examine pets and fine people (triple the licensing rate) for unlicensed ownership. Fines will go to pay the inspectors. Inspectors can be found from the long list of unemployed these days. Unlicensed pets are either tested and licensed or seized.

How exactly will this go down? Some pet nazi goes door to door and searches nooks and crannies of all homes looking for hidden critters? When the 1 child policy was first started in china, many children were hidden in the countryside as I understand it. Hell, think about how many undocumented aliens are hiding out in the US. If people can go undocumented, I'm pretty sure it would be really easy to get away with animals.

We all know anything that's required but done via voluntary effort won't work, and there are plenty of people who would be fine never seeking vet care or grooming or what have you, as that's already common with many cats, and will be more so if there are penalties assoc with seeking vet care

Even if we were able to document enough pets so that parent of origin could be identified for most animals picked up by AC (doubtful, but let's play along here) it would be difficult to make sure people are up to date with their registrations with current contact info. We'd need constant inspector intervention to do that, and you'd also need a private investigator division to track people down to collect fines from the people who are determined to be "responsible" for an animal. Unless we get heavy duty police action involved, it's easy for people to fall off the grid sort of speak. And even if people can be located, actually collecting fines for that is another issue.

And what happens to all the pets "owned" by homeless people? Will they all be taken away and possibly destroyed? That would really sadden me because some of these animals have the best quality of life of animals I know.

 

[StartingoverVet]

How exactly will this go down? Some pet nazi goes door to door and searches nooks and crannies of all homes looking for hidden critters?

I don't think you need to have perfect compliance for a vast improvement. I think the inspection aspect will mostly be in public/outside. If people never go out with their animals or let them out, then less chance of breeding no?

Even if we were able to document enough pets so that parent of origin could be identified for most animals picked up by AC (doubtful, but let's play along here) it would be difficult to make sure people are up to date with their registrations with current contact info.

Again, the vast majority of people do NOT move. I don't think people are going to start trying to move to evade the puppy police.

And even if people can be located, actually collecting fines for that is another issue.

Good point. I think that could be an issue. Don't really want to start seizing pets for non-payment, but that might be the short-term solution until people comply. Garnish wages? Add it to people's taxes? Don't seem very workable.

And what happens to all the pets "owned" by homeless people? Will they all be taken away and possibly destroyed? That would really sadden me because some of these animals have the best quality of life of animals I know.

Hmmm. Tough one. Charity to pay for their licenses? Money is always an issue. You could always wave the license fee for a certain segment of population, although that opens up a can of worms....

 

[StartingoverVet]

Who collects the fees? We can't even get humans to pay child support.
If the fees were paid, big "if" there, I can see the corruption now.

Depending on the fee schedule, are we risking limiting pet ownership only to the wealthy?

The government is pretty good at collecting fees in general. There are always going to be scofflaws. The vast majority of people pay child support, pay their ticket, and various taxes. No question there will be evaders. I don't look for perfection.

And the fees are not supposed to be high, only the fines. If you can't afford a small fee for pet ownership, can you afford a pet? The fines are purposely large, but if you follow the law, why worry?

An interim solution (would not solve #3) is mandatory micro-chipping or tattooing any time that requires licensing. Fees assessed to owner. Only worry here is that animals may not be brought in for fear of fees which brings us to #2

Unfortunately, I am trying to force responsibility for offspring, which microchipping does not accomplish.

Problem is, there are not enough enforcers to go out in the community and do something about the unlicensed animals. We need funding for this above all else.

This is why you hire "inspectors". The key is to get high compliance, and no municipality is really bothering with. But with 9%+ unemployment, I see a pool of labor that is already being funded available to use. There is precedent back in the New Deal to put the unemployed to work. Plus collection of fines will help the system. I mean, why do you think cities install traffic light cameras. They are profit-centers!

I would approve the "not returned to owner without" part but to receive care? I may also be missing the point.

I may have stated that wrong. You would give the care, but the pet can't be returned without payment of licensing fee. Just like you can't get your pet back if you don't pay Dr. fees at many places.

I think (or at least I assumed/hope!) he was talking about some form of marker based genotyping like they do for forensics and paternity testing.

YES.

I really like that idea, but it seems like there is a general lack of enforcement with many of the animal related laws unfortunately.

That is why I want to hire the inspectors (see response above). Laws without teeth don't accomplish much at stopping the offenders.

Speaking from a genetics perspective, using a database to figure out an individual's parentage, particularly in a very inbred population like domestic dogs, is a questionable endeavor at best. Honestly each breed would probably need to have its own database, so then what happens if the stray is quite obviously mutted up? Someone has to guess breeds and run a ton of queries?

Ok, this is gonna be the biggest issue. I was hoping it would not be that difficult. I mean the FBI manages CODIS pretty effectively. Are dogs that much harder to identify? Didn't realize that. If their genome is that close it could be a big problem. Might need more work on the science there. I need you to do more research for me Nyan!

And what of feral cats? I assume your plan would include just euthing them all as they're found.

I don't see much difference in euth from now. Still, I think combined with TNR programs, you catch the feral, see if you can find its owner to fine, release or adopt it spayed. If I am successful, there would be much fewer ferals as people are afraid to be fined. The reason feral pops don't decline with TNR is the new supply from owners. If we stop that supply we could bring down the feral pop. That is the idea of the program.

And cat owners are much less likely to spend money on their cats in general. If someone finds a cat they'd probably just keep it, like they do now, and just let it get taken away and euthed if anyone happens to find it. And they'd definitely be less likely to seek veterinary care for it. Yeah, while some points of your plan have some merit with dogs, I don't see it as at all feasible for cats.

If that were true, it would be a fatal flaw with cats. I wonder if you assume too much based on current behavior. In an environment of non-compliance things will be much difference than in a more strictly regulated environment. These laws are trying to address ingrained behaviors in the U.S. These behaviors are not the same in all countries so it is not a foregone conclusion that people won't change here


Thanks for all your comments, and keep them coming if you like. Sometimes you need a paradigm shift. That is what I am trying to accomplish. Make big changes. Sure people will complain, but they complain now anyway. Unpopular is not equal to wrong.

 

[StartingoverVet]

By the way, after 2 years, I finally figured out how the multi-quote option worked. Sad isn't it!

 

[Velaineil]

3) All strays are genetically tested by the government. The genetic parents of any stray found will be assessed to the last owner at 20x the licensing rate. This fee will go to the shelters to help them with funding to maintain their existence.

I don't think this would hold up, because so many pets go through multiple homes. It would be difficult to prove if owner A or owner B was responsible, especially if more than a few years has passed. And what if the owner was able to find homes for all of the offspring, but then those owners turned out to be sh*tty and they ended up at a shelter anyway- the owner of the parents shouldn't be fined for someone else's screw up. I mean, yes- they contributed, but they weren't directly responsible.
Also, $$$$. I like your ideas, but sooo expensive!

 

[squirrelsrule]

I like the ideas, but in reality, you know what would happen then... owners would start killing instead of dumping kittens. I don't think that would be all bad because I HATE feral cats, but I can only imagine what they'd do to the poor little tykes: drowning, suffocation, running over with the car come to mind quickly 🙁.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I don't think this would hold up, because so many pets go through multiple homes. It would be difficult to prove if owner A or owner B was responsible, especially if more than a few years has passed. And what if the owner was able to find homes for all of the offspring, but then those owners turned out to be sh*tty and they ended up at a shelter anyway- the owner of the parents shouldn't be fined for someone else's screw up. I mean, yes- they contributed, but they weren't directly responsible.
Also, $$$$. I like your ideas, but sooo expensive!

I don't think this would particularly be a problem. Allowing owner A to unregister their dog to a new owner. Their only responsibility would be providing new contact info (and maybe a signature). Wouldn't you do that not to be responsible for new owner's problem?

Money is more the issue. I think I am assuming that price of genetic testing would come way down, given the high usage under the Law of Large Numbers + innovation. But as with much in life, it often comes down to funding.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I like the ideas, but in reality, you know what would happen then... owners would start killing instead of dumping kittens. I don't think that would be all bad because I HATE feral cats, but I can only imagine what they'd do to the poor little tykes: drowning, suffocation, running over with the car come to mind quickly 🙁.

Yes, I am afraid that the kitty side may be more unrealistic. I would try the dog thing first and then see if it was wildly successful then we could add the cats.

 

[nyanko]

If that were true, it would be a fatal flaw with cats. I wonder if you assume too much based on current behavior. In an environment of non-compliance things will be much difference than in a more strictly regulated environment. These laws are trying to address ingrained behaviors in the U.S. These behaviors are not the same in all countries so it is not a foregone conclusion that people won't change here

I do honestly think that attitudes about cats as more "dispensable" are going to be difficult if not impossible to change on a large scale. This is IMO in large part because of the way people perceive cats as low-maintenance and not as much of an "investment" of time and money as dogs. I'll expand if I'm not being clear, but hopefully I am.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I do honestly think that attitudes about cats as more "dispensable" are going to be difficult if not impossible to change on a large scale. This is IMO in large part because of the way people perceive cats as low-maintenance and not as much of an "investment" of time and money as dogs. I'll expand if I'm not being clear, but hopefully I am.

You are clear and I generally agree with you. I choose to focus on "difficult to change" and choose to ignore the "if not impossible to change" part. Difficult can be overcome, just need more extraordinary effort and will to do so.

 

[Velaineil]

I don't think this would particularly be a problem. Allowing owner A to unregister their dog to a new owner. Their only responsibility would be providing new contact info (and maybe a signature). Wouldn't you do that not to be responsible for new owner's problem?

What I meant was if a dog showed up at a shelter full grown and you went to go fine the current owners of the dog's parents, those owners might not be the same ones as at the time the pregnancy/birth took place. Since the dog at the shelter is already an adult and there's not a really reliable way to determine it's age, it might be difficult to pinpoint which people owned the dog when it had puppies. Or what if the parents had come from shelters and had parented pups before being picked up and adopted? I just feel like there's a lot of loopholes here for people to exploit when trying to get out of paying fines, and it could potentially be difficult/expensive for enforcers to prove anything...

 

[Thylacine]

At least for the cat overpopulation, I think there should be more funding for "spay and release" programs.

 

[Angelus9]

2) Hire (possibly a number of temporary) Pet inspectors from the ranks to examine pets and fine people (triple the licensing rate) for unlicensed ownership. Fines will go to pay the inspectors. Inspectors can be found from the long list of unemployed these days. Unlicensed pets are either tested and licensed or seized.

And here's the problem. How are you going to pay for all the inspectors and all the hours? With the licensing fees? Well, there goes your money. Beyond that, Americans would not, and should not, allow unwarranted inspection of their homes. How will you know which homes to inspect for unlicensed pets? You'd have to go door to door. And besides that invasion of privacy you'd open up a whole can of worms about "inspections." These people have an unfenced yard! These people crate their dogs when they're at work! etc. etc.

No thank you.

This idea of door-to-door inspections has been proposed in a few states before. PETA and HSUS even offered to supply the inspectors. Yeah, that'll be nice.

And returning the dog only if "20 times the licensing fee" is paid? You'll be inundated with abandoned animals.

 

[Angelus9]

ETA: brainstorming ideas is always good! Out of a thousand ideas comes the one that will work.

Here's a link about pet overpopulation, which I only include because of the reference to the Tufts info: http://doglawsatlarge.blogspot.com/2007/12/dog-shelters-import-from-around-world.html

Cats are a different issue.

Mass breeders with poor care and quality of life are a problem. Pit bulls are a problem - my local shelter for the past 10 years has been (depending on when you go) between 90% and 98% pit bulls.

Harassing ordinary pet-owning Americans will not solve any of these problems. Education will.

 

[StartingoverVet]

And here's the problem. How are you going to pay for all the inspectors and all the hours? With the licensing fees? Well, there goes your money. Beyond that, Americans would not, and should not, allow unwarranted inspection of their homes. How will you know which homes to inspect for unlicensed pets? You'd have to go door to door. And besides that invasion of privacy you'd open up a whole can of worms about "inspections." These people have an unfenced yard! These people crate their dogs when they're at work! etc. etc.

No thank you.

This idea of door-to-door inspections has been proposed in a few states before. PETA and HSUS even offered to supply the inspectors. Yeah, that'll be nice.

And returning the dog only if "20 times the licensing fee" is paid? You'll be inundated with abandoned animals.

If I am hiring inspectors from unemployed then there is no change in costs (already paying them unemployment)....

Never intended to go door to door. More of an inspection in public thing <or an inspection of off-leash in neighborhood> If a dog doesn't get outside, can't really get pregnant accidentally (mostly).

With multiple owners there could be an issue over which owner is responsible for a pregnancy. BUT, if all owners are registering their dogs properly, then there is NO problem. You can't say "but I sold it to Mrs. X", unless you ensure it it properly registered after your sale. Then it is just a question of determining age, which I see could be problematic.

 

[Angelus9]

If I am hiring inspectors from unemployed then there is no change in costs (already paying them unemployment).... .

Who will train them? Where will the money come to train them? Yes, they need training. You're in effect giving these people police powers and they had better be well trained.

Never intended to go door to door. More of an inspection in public thing <or an inspection of off-leash in neighborhood>

So the good dog owners who take their dogs for exercise are to be accosted by inspectors, whereas the dogs who never get out of the house are ok? A little inequitable, isn't it?

The vision of anybody walking their dog on a leash and being accosted by an "inspector" who will have legal authority to so accost a citizen and demand proof of licensing, is a horrible thought.

"Off-leash in neighborhood inspections"? You won't make any money by paying people to drive around neighborhoods looking for random dogs running off leash. And so, when my neighbor is raking the leaves in the front yard with his old dog lying in the sun, he's going to get inspected and fined because his dog is off leash?

I'm not trying to squash ideas, here; am simply pointing out the flies in the ointment and more important, keeping an eye on civil liberties.

Draconian legislation only punishes those who already are good dog owners. Like the MSN legislation proposed in Chicago a few years ago. I saw a news report where the legislators were speaking on camera on how much MSN was needed because (wait for it) it would stop dog fighting. No breeding = no dogs to fight. The thought that the people who still fought dogs even though it's been against the law for years would somehow magically become law-abiding citizens and obey the law not to breed these same dogs never occurred to them.

There's a large tech school complex near where I live. Lots of people go there to ride their bikes or walk their dogs. There are several regulars with well-trained dogs and I see their dogs running off leash sometimes, having a blast. Always under control. I will fight really hard to keep these people who are doing everything right - exercising their dogs, training their dogs, cleaning up after their dogs - to allow them to do these simple things instead of banning them under license-and-off-leash inspectors poking their nose into how these good people live their lives and those of their animals.

Again, not bashing here, but encouraging thought that is wider than the make-a-law, let-govt-inspect-everybody responses that IMO are so prevalent today.

ETA: thanks for the thought-provoking subject.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Who will train them? Where will the money come to train them? Yes, they need training. You're in effect giving these people police powers and they had better be well trained.



So the good dog owners who take their dogs for exercise are to be accosted by inspectors, whereas the dogs who never get out of the house are ok? A little inequitable, isn't it?

The vision of anybody walking their dog on a leash and being accosted by an "inspector" who will have legal authority to so accost a citizen and demand proof of licensing, is a horrible thought.

"Off-leash in neighborhood inspections"? You won't make any money by paying people to drive around neighborhoods looking for random dogs running off leash. And so, when my neighbor is raking the leaves in the front yard with his old dog lying in the sun, he's going to get inspected and fined because his dog is off leash?

I'm not trying to squash ideas, here; am simply pointing out the flies in the ointment and more important, keeping an eye on civil liberties.

Draconian legislation only punishes those who already are good dog owners. Like the MSN legislation proposed in Chicago a few years ago. I saw a news report where the legislators were speaking on camera on how much MSN was needed because (wait for it) it would stop dog fighting. No breeding = no dogs to fight. The thought that the people who still fought dogs even though it's been against the law for years would somehow magically become law-abiding citizens and obey the law not to breed these same dogs never occurred to them.

There's a large tech school complex near where I live. Lots of people go there to ride their bikes or walk their dogs. There are several regulars with well-trained dogs and I see their dogs running off leash sometimes, having a blast. Always under control. I will fight really hard to keep these people who are doing everything right - exercising their dogs, training their dogs, cleaning up after their dogs - to allow them to do these simple things instead of banning them under license-and-off-leash inspectors poking their nose into how these good people live their lives and those of their animals.

Again, not bashing here, but encouraging thought that is wider than the make-a-law, let-govt-inspect-everybody responses that IMO are so prevalent today.

ETA: thanks for the thought-provoking subject.

You make some good points, and I am not typically a let's make a law kind of solution... but I think you overstate the effect on "innocent" people.

Who do you think is the cause of the shelter overpopulation. I think the answer can only be "typical" people. This is not a question of puppy mills, but the owner's of dogs being quite honestly generally irresponsible. We need to change this mentality.

I propose the admittedly draconian response to force everyday, good people to be more careful about what happens to the dog they buy. If they don't "fix" them, if they let them run loose, if they abandon them, there will be severe consequences.

Are those off-leash controlled dogs part of the problem. Maybe not, and I am not really concerned (I understand it was analogy).... Personally, if someone stops me to check my dog's license once in a while when I am in public, I don't think that is so bad.

Again we need a change in thought patterns. It is not like people are likely to stop going out with their dogs because of the law. More like they would be less likely to be careless in general (or perhaps own dogs at all - fine by me).

I agree this solution is problematic all around.... I would love to see other crazy drastic solutions, because status quo is not acceptable.

 

[Angelus9]

Who do you think is the cause of the shelter overpopulation. I think the answer can only be "typical" people. This is not a question of puppy mills, but the owner's of dogs being quite honestly generally irresponsible. .

I don't think my local shelter's consisting of 90-98% pit bulls is the result of "typical" people being irresponsible.

This is not a question of puppy mills, but the owner's of dogs being quite honestly generally irresponsible. We need to change this mentality.

Agree 100%. You're right, and that gets back to education is the answer, not more laws. Education has already resulted in shelter levels plunging in many areas, as witnessed by so many areas actually importing dogs for adoption since they have none. Education will eventually solve the pit problem as well.

. I propose the admittedly draconian response to force everyday, good people to be more careful about what happens to the dog they buy. If they don't "fix" them, if they let them run loose, if they abandon them, there will be severe consequences.

Except the severe consequences will be to the animals more than to the people. "Everyday, good people" are already doing the right things. For the others? Can't turn in an unwanted pet to the shelter? People will simply drown it or shoot it or drive it far away from home and dump it. This law will only result in more animal suffering. When abortion was against the law, did that stop people from getting them?

Personally, if someone stops me to check my dog's license once in a while when I am in public, I don't think that is so bad.

Danger, danger, Will Robinson! YOU may not object, but see, that's my point: the increasing tendency to say, I don't mind this, Oh, you do? too bad, we should make a law and you have to like what I say.

We as a country really need to guard against this. I'll keep my Fourth Amendment rights, thank you.

Again we need a change in thought patterns.

Yes. Which gets us back to education. Education on responsibility and all the negatives about owning a pet, education to enable people to retain jobs & housing to be able to afford a pet, etc. etc. There are already laws against abandoning animals, there are already laws about licensing animals and leash laws and humane treatment laws and on & on & on, right? We can't enforce the laws now, and people propose MORE. Let's first take a good long look at the laws already on the books and concentrate on enforcing those laws before writing more, meanwhile continuing to educate as to responsibility (NOT purebred bashing). If we do that, we'll truly help the animals.

 

[fromthebox]

I don't think my local shelter's consisting of 90-98% pit bulls is the result of "typical" people being irresponsible.

Whereas, my local shelter being 90% Chihuahua has everything to do with fighting rings? The irresponsibility of typical people is the root cause, regardless of what each local issue is. There are irresponsible people who want big, un-neutered dogs to help their ego, there are irresponsible people who want the purse puppy right up until they realize it's more than an accessory.

Danger, danger, Will Robinson! YOU may not object, but see, that's my point: the increasing tendency to say, I don't mind this, Oh, you do? too bad, we should make a law and you have to like what I say.
We as a country really need to guard against this. I'll keep my Fourth Amendment rights, thank you.

Ok, so your dog is licensed. Is searching the dog the same as searching you? or is your dog private property at which point we have no right to enforce any regulation upon it without suspicion of - oh wait we have reasonable suspicion that the dog is unlicensed and unlicensed dogs can be termed "contraband". And if we don't, the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. I really don't think this is an invasion of your fourth amendment rights, do you expect privacy in public with an animal? Would society believe it to be unreasonable for an officer to ask for a dog license? SOV doesn't see it that way, and neither do I.

Yes. Which gets us back to education. Education on responsibility and all the negatives about owning a pet, education to enable people to retain jobs & housing to be able to afford a pet, etc. etc. There are already laws against abandoning animals, there are already laws about licensing animals and leash laws and humane treatment laws and on & on & on, right? We can't enforce the laws now, and people propose MORE. Let's first take a good long look at the laws already on the books and concentrate on enforcing those laws before writing more, meanwhile continuing to educate as to responsibility (NOT purebred bashing). If we do that, we'll truly help the animals.

I'm with you here, I really think a lot of the punishments we want are already on the books, but we lack the enforcers. Am I against further legislation? no, but only if we are enforcing what we have on the books and it is truly not sufficient.