How to stop the tragedy?Question:Since I was at the Rescue Shelter this week, it has made me focus even more on the plight of dogs in general. Just in the small condo development that I live in I have seen numerous dogs come and go in just a short time. Three Pit Bull puppies and 2 mix breeds were purchased fo children and young teenagers, only to be given to the pound a few months later. The same old stories, we didn't have time to take care of the dog, we couldn't housebreak it ( no surprise cause they hardly walked it either), it chewed stuff up ( no surprise again, the dog was left alone in the house for 9 hours or more with nothing to do).... etc..... etc.... One young family with a 11 year old kid, moved out of one of the condo that they were renting about 4 years ago and they left the dog locked up in an upstairs bedroom. Some neighbors complained a couple of days later when the dog wouldn't stop barking, and the fire department broke the front door down and rescued the dog... A 16 year old teenager bought a Pit Bull pup about 6 months ago, and I repeatedly told him that he better train the dog or he is going to have big problems later on. Well now his dog won't behave at all, and he literally has to drag it in the house after he walks it, as it growls at him. He told his mom now that he is " tired of the dog" and he gave it to her.... Nobody in the family wants the dog anymore, and the poor dog is stuck in the house for 8 hours a day, locked in a bedroom. Now these are just some stories that I know about in just a small section of a condo development. I am surrounded by subdivisions, Condo neighborhoods, apartments, and I am sure that these stories are played out over and over again. I was trying to figure out how to solve this problem while walking Smokey this afternoon. One solution would be to charge people a licensing fee, let's say $500 when they get a dog. They would have to agree to keep the dog that they license for a some minimum time, let's say 5 years. Then they could get their $500 back. If they brought the dog to a shelter before that time, the $500 would be used to support the local shelters and if the dog owner wanted to get another dog, they would have have to cough up another $500. I bet this would stop hundreds of thousands of people, getting a dog, and within a few months bringing it to the shelter to be put down..... Anyone else have any suggestions? Answer: sorry but the 500 dollar thing is stupid i never would have gotten walker that way i was 16 and didnt have 500 dollars to spend plus vet prices. What they need to do is get a trainer to volunteer to help train and make them take a class before they get it IMO. Answer: sorry but the 500 dollar thing is stupid i never would have gotten walker that way i was 16 and didnt have 500 dollars to spend plus vet prices. What they need to do is get a trainer to volunteer to help train and make them take a class before they get it IMO. Sorry my idea was so stupid......;) Answer: I have to agree, the $500 is not the best idea I have ever heard. Buddy's adoption was $105 and we have spent THOUSANDS on his health care this first year that we've had him and I think that is proof enough that I am responsible enough to be owned by him. I do, think, however, that shelters and rescues should screen better. That, in itself, would better the lives of many, many dogs. Answer: Bob not everyone has the money for stuff liek that we barely struggle to survive but feel the need to have a dog and can support one but not anything like 500 extra. Yet Im with buddy we have spent thousands on Booger alone with her disability so how does money prove responsibilty. What you wanna bet Britiney Spears spent thousands on ehr dog and does she still have them NO. Answer: As a rescuer a fee of $ 500.00 non refundable because of giving the dog up would be a bad idea and lead to more unwanted dogs. For the sake of argument Bob lets say you go and find a dog at the shelter and decide to take it home. You get the dog only with the knowledge the people at the shelter have on it and lets say the person that surrendered the animal did not tell you every thing about him. ( like that never happens huh ) You get said dog home and later on find out that you are having no luck correcting his problems or he does not get along with family and I could list hundreds of what if's would it be fair to forfit $500.00 and how many would take the risk ? Hence I fear would only increase byb and demand to have puppy. Answer: My shelter screens pretty well. It's a no kill shelter and won't adopt pits/pit mixs rotty/mixes to renters because of the high return to shelter rate. Answer: My neighbor brought home 3 lab mixed pups last summer.... They were neglected and mistreated from the start... I finally got the humane society to come and get them...yes the owner relinquished ownership to them...and happily. Why would someone that lives in an upstairs apartment bring home 3 large lab mix pups? I don't know.....the $500. would have prevented them from bringing home any pups....but it would also will prevent me from getting and keeping my dogs....that would be 1500...to keep my dogs? I just can't afford that with all the other costs.... And they do have an excellent life. I honestly don't think there will ever be an answer to the question you are asking.... Until: BYB's quit breeding And EVERYONE is educated on what it really takes to train, feed, and be responsible for their commitment to their animals. Maybe we all could go to our local governments and volunteer to give demonstrations/talks about what it takes to be a responsible dog owner. I know I have many things I could talk about... Hmmm... I might go talk to our next city meeting. :D Answer: I think the trick is finding a way to educate people before they get the dog. I think breed selection has an enormous impact on the success of a dog in a certain home. Our neighbors have a young beagle that they got as a puppy. Not a bad breed choice, as they have kids and leash-walk - but they are shocked by the troubles they are having house-breaking. Another story I recently heard was of a person complaining that their 3 year old female pit mix was dog aggressive. Really? Did you read anything about the breed? When I was teaching dog classes, I suggested to the business owner a "potential dog owner's" class. Breed selection, breeder/shelter selection, potential costs, etc. would be discussed. She agreed it was a good idea and that she had considered it before, but that it was really hard to get people to come in prior to owning the dog. I wish something like that would be feasible. Once they go out and buy the wrong dog, they are already set up for a difficult time. Answer: My neighbor brought home 3 lab mixed pups last summer.... They were neglected and mistreated from the start... I finally got the humane society to come and get them...yes the owner relinquished ownership to them...and happily. Why would someone that lives in an upstairs apartment bring home 3 large lab mix pups? I don't know.....the $500. would have prevented them from bringing home any pups....but it would also will prevent me from getting and keeping my dogs....that would be 1500...to keep my dogs? I just can't afford that with all the other costs.... And they do have an excellent life. I honestly don't think there will ever be an answer to the question you are asking.... Until: BYB's quit breeding And EVERYONE is educated on what it really takes to train, feed, and be responsible for their commitment to their animals. Maybe we all could go to our local governments and volunteer to give demonstrations/talks about what it takes to be a responsible dog owner. I know I have many things I could talk about... Hmmm... I might go talk to our next city meeting. :D I don't know much about BYB. But is it illegal or are there laws against it? Why can't more be done to stop them?:( Answer: Here's something just thinking out loud, or rather, with my fingers:D Our town charges $50 for the first dog licence and $90 for the second, etc. They go a step further because people were not going to buy their dog licences, so now they come to the door. Once a year they go door to door in our township, asking if you have a dog and you must purchase your licence then and there. There's a large announcement in the local paper when they're coming around so you can expect the expence. If you don't have the cash or a cheque, or can't pay for the licence, it is added onto your property taxes. Well, what if you had to show you have taken a Responsible Dog Ownership Class, which could be sponsered by the town, humane society's, etc. before you could obtain your dog tags? There could be a fine for every month that passes and you're in default. Now take it 1 step further, and you must licence and register every dog, just like your car, no course, no licence, can't buy a dog anywhere as you have to own a licence to own a dog, just like a car. BYB would have to see the licence/proof of the course to sell them a dog, or else, if an unlicenced dog is found on a property, the owners and sellers are heavily fined. Owning a dog should be as difficult as owning a car, and just as heavily regulated, jmho. Answer: ^^But with BYB who just sell dogs willy nilly without papers, then there really wouldn't be proof that the dog came from them. Answer: As a rescuer a fee of $ 500.00 non refundable because of giving the dog up would be a bad idea and lead to more unwanted dogs. For the sake of argument Bob lets say you go and find a dog at the shelter and decide to take it home. You get the dog only with the knowledge the people at the shelter have on it and lets say the person that surrendered the animal did not tell you every thing about him. ( like that never happens huh ) You get said dog home and later on find out that you are having no luck correcting his problems or he does not get along with family and I could list hundreds of what if's would it be fair to forfit $500.00 and how many would take the risk ? Hence I fear would only increase byb and demand to have puppy. I agree with not doing anything to impede people adopting a dog if the person interviewing the potential adopter, qualifies them as being responsible. I was thinking more in terms of the people that go out and spend many $100s of dollars for a dog and have no idea of what is involved in caring for a dog. For instance , how many people realize that when they get a dog for a 12 year old, that the dog will have to be cared for by that 12 year old until they are maybe 27 years old or more ( probably married and with their own family) ... The $500 is something that I figured would block the type of person that gets a dog on impulse with little or no planning as to how a dog would impact their life. I bet a very large percentage of dogs that are brought to the pound and wind up being euthanized, were purchased for children. If I am parent, I am going to make darn sure that getting a dog for my kid is really the right thing to do before I make that much of a financial commitment. Answer: Here's something just thinking out loud, or rather, with my fingers:D Our town charges $50 for the first dog licence and $90 for the second, etc. They go a step further because people were not going to buy their dog licences, so now they come to the door. Once a year they go door to door in our township, asking if you have a dog and you must purchase your licence then and there. There's a large announcement in the local paper when they're coming around so you can expect the expence. If you don't have the cash or a cheque, or can't pay for the licence, it is added onto your property taxes. Well, what if you had to show you have taken a Responsible Dog Ownership Class, which could be sponsered by the town, humane society's, etc. before you could obtain your dog tags? There could be a fine for every month that passes and you're in default. Now take it 1 step further, and you must licence and register every dog, just like your car, no course, no licence, can't buy a dog anywhere as you have to own a licence to own a dog, just like a car. BYB would have to see the licence/proof of the course to sell them a dog, or else, if an unlicenced dog is found on a property, the owners and sellers are heavily fined. Owning a dog should be as difficult as owning a car, and just as heavily regulated, jmho. Some excellent ideas.... Answer: I do, think, however, that shelters and rescues should screen better. That, in itself, would better the lives of many, many dogs. That has its positives and negatives also.....Look how long Charlie has been in foster care and he is listed on petfinder again..... Answer: I don't know much about BYB. But is it illegal or are there laws against it? Why can't more be done to stop them?:( I am certainly not an expert on this kind of thing......but I do know, there are far too many wanna be breeders out there.... And something should be done to curb their desire to breed. I was just looking on this classified section and It made me sick to see all the byb's and everything else. :( http://pubat0.pennswoods.net/cgi-bin/classifieds/index.cgi?mode=view&viewcategory=Pets_Supplies_Livestock Not to even mention the fraud ads that get submitted to just steal your money. Answer: Bob not to argue because I see your point but even the best educated people can't be 100% sure a dog will work out. Dogs like people have different personalities etc and it sometimes can not be helped that you have to rehome or give a dog up. Now if this is a habitiul offender lets say a new dog every 6 months maybe then I can see this as a fix. Also as to expensive license I fail to see how that can work as well because first dogs in most places fall under personal property and have no rights. There are laws governing cruelty towards them true but if someone kills your dog you can not sue for pain and suffering or emotional distress as it is by law considered property and even a unlicensed driver has the right to own a car just not drive it. Kenzies Idea good as well but would you convince tax payers that they are going to have to shell it out to fund the enforcement officers, pay their training, etc. I doubt it. Now one thing shelters could and should do is hold classes to new adopters on site and make it mandatory to attend before adoption as these could be held by some of the volunteer staff. After attending the class the teacher has to submit a letter of rec. to staff before adoption. No letter no dog. There really is no 100 % solution to this problem but there are some small ways to help it. Baby steps first. Answer: That has its positives and negatives also.....Look how long Charlie has been in foster care and he is listed on petfinder again..... Not all shelters and rescues are legit, unfortunately. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Should any Joe Schmoe right off the street be able to get a dog? I don't think so... Joe should have to prove himself before hand. Knowledge of dog ownership, breed knowledge, adequate facilities for a dog, etc., etc., etc.. But if a person can afford the adoption fee, vet fees and can show that he/she is capable of providing a forever home for a dog... then they should be allowed. Answer: Not all shelters and rescues are legit, unfortunately. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Should any Joe Schmoe right off the street be able to get a dog? I don't think so... Joe should have to prove himself before hand. Knowledge of dog ownership, breed knowledge, adequate facilities for a dog, etc., etc., etc.. But if a person can afford the adoption fee, vet fees and can show that he/she is capable of providing a forever home for a dog... then they should be allowed. Oh I agree, I just think that "some" shelters/rescues take it to the extreme and turn down a LOT of good potential homes for "silly" reasons *silly was the only word I could come up with... Answer: I just didn't want you to take it offensively, Jess, as you would have been the perfect home for Charlie. ;) Answer: I'm not sure that all shelters have a clue about what dogs they have. Look at the ones killing all pits as vicious. If they held the dogs long enough, they would develop a sense about each dog, but are you going to turn down all adopters for at least a week? Puppies? Mixed breed puppies even? Rescues seem to be better, but around here at least, municipal shelters are only funded enough to be open for 3 days a week, are they funded well enough to make sure their workers are knowledgeable about every breed that comes in the door? Is the shelter relying on that next adoption fee to stay open? I'm not saying that people should not be responsible for their own choices, but could many of these returns be avoided if the shelter mentioned how that dog might not be best for that adopter? Who would send 3 young labs home to an apartment? Why not warn adopters that beagles are often somewhat difficult to house train and equip them with a few handouts on housetraining and a number to call a trainer? Answer: I'm not sure that all shelters have a clue about what dogs they have. Look at the ones killing all pits as vicious. Or the shelters that have numerous pits listed as "lab mixes" or "shepherd mixes". Which helps nobody. I was discussing a similar issue with my friend who runs a rescue recently, and the idea we came up with is that when people ask for an application for a certain dog, they will also get a letter explaining that breeds were developed for certain traits, and that although all dogs are individuals, owners should look at the common traits for the breed. i.e. hounds aren't usually good off-leash, but are generally friendly; herding dogs may nip and need lots of exercise; etc. I think as long as it is presented as informative, and not as if the rescue is trying to drive off adopters, it can only help. Another idea that popped into my head is to offer discounted licenses for obedience classes. Say a license is $20; you get a form to have signed by the school saying you have completed a beginner class, and you get the fee reduced to $5. Yes, there are a lot of people who would just rather pay the extra money, but it would reward owners who took the time to work with the dog. Answer: Another idea that popped into my head is to offer discounted licenses for obedience classes. Say a license is $20; you get a form to have signed by the school saying you have completed a beginner class, and you get the fee reduced to $5. Yes, there are a lot of people who would just rather pay the extra money, but it would reward owners who took the time to work with the dog. Actually, the breeder I got my Shibas from does something very similar when selling her pet puppies, and it's been wildly successful. After the puppy completes a puppy kindergarten course (under an instructer she deems appropriate), she'll refund the owners somewhere in the range of $50 to $100 off of the purchase price of the pup. I would say that the vast majority of people who have bought pet pups from her have chosen to take the class. The refund is a lovely incentive, but even better they end up having a well-adjusted puppy that behaves. I think ideas like this are a step in the right direction. Sometimes that little incentive is enough to get people off their butts, and once they're into it they realize how great it is. Answer: The best idea is to cut back on BYB's and puppy mills and John Q Public who didnt get his mutt fixed and she ends up being bred. I think education is the best way to go, although I am sure like everyone else's city, our city has a very tight budget and they would rather spend it on something other than Animal education. Although if they did in a couple years I think the numbers of euthanized animals would dramatically decrease. Here is a good article about how Albequerkie (sp? Know I spelled that wrong) has cut back on it's pet over population, I am not sure where she got this article from but I am betting I could find the site if need be: "Cracking Down on Pet Owners Albuquerque and a growing number of cities are passing tough new measures aimed at ending euthanasia in animal shelters. Owners are even being forced to clean up after their dog in their own backyard By NANCY HARBERT/ALBUQUERQUE SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Posted Tuesday, Jan. 02, 2007 For the past two years, Martin Chavez, mayor of Albuquerque, has brought his best friend to work every day. His friend doesn't talk, but he's often the first to shake visitors' hands. Dukes, Chavez's two-year-old floppy-eared mutt, is around not just for the company, but as a way to bring attention to the mayor's commitment to reduce the city's exploding unwanted animal population. When he was re-elected to a third term in 2005, Chavez made a promise to end euthanasia at the city's animal shelters. He had already been meeting daily with City Councilor Sally Mayer and regularly with breeders and groomers across the city to come up with an animal ordinance that would improve the way the city treats its dogs and cats and increase the number of adoptions. At the time, the city was euthanizing more than 1,000 pets a month. The law went into effect in October and it follows a nationwide trend of get-tough approaches to pet overpopulation. In Albuquerque, all cats and dogs older than six months must be microchipped and sterilized, unless owners pay an annual fee of $150 to keep their dogs able to reproduce — and another $150 for every new litter. Dogs can be restrained by a chain for only one hour every day, and people who want to have more than four dogs must obtain an additional permit. There is even a provision in the new law that requires dog owners to clean up after their pets in their own yards every week. While authorities won't be checking backyards for hardened poop, Chavez says that additional animal control officers have been hired, to make sure any animals they pick up have been neutered or spayed. Lisa Peterson, a spokesperson for the American Kennel Club, considers the Albuquerque ordinance draconian, but acknowledges it is part of a nationwide trend. Ordinances similar to Albuquerque's have been passed or are being considered by 138 local communities, along with many states. She is concerned that the new laws punish responsible pet owners and breeders, and could even jeopardize the existence of some breeds. In Denver, for example, pitbulls are outlawed completely. This has forced owners to flee the city or go underground, where they keep their dogs behind closed shades and take them out only under the cloak of darkness. In 2006 alone, more than 800 of the dogs known for their ferocity have been rounded up in Denver, most of them destroyed. Often, these laws follow vicious, sometimes deadly, dog attacks and are driven by a concern for public safety. They are also a response to overwhelming numbers of feral cats and puppy litters and reflect a desire to provide them more humane conditions. In Albuquerque, for example, 30,000 animals are brought to the city's two shelters every year. And that doesn't include animals that pass through private shelters and rescue networks. It's a grassroots phenomenon, says David Favre, a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law, who has studied animal rights laws for 20 years. Feral cats, spaying and neutering, local shelters — these are all local problems that don't get the ear of folks at the federal and state levels. "It is not unlike the environmental movement when I was in law school. Animal welfare is a growing social interest." It's too soon to tell how effective these laws will be. "We're in the experimentation phase," Favre says. "We're taking the American approach of trying a hundred different things and then seeing what works best in 10 years." The Denver ordinance has survived court challenge, but earlier this year a Toledo, Ohio, ordinance that allowed only one pitbull per household was struck down by an appellate court, which said the law was unreasonable and discriminatory. To bring even more attention to the issue in Albuquerque, Mayor Chavez now brings a selection of shelter pets to news conferences, department meetings and public appearances. In most cases, the pets find new homes on the spot. The city's euthanasia rate has been cut in half, and Albuquerque is now adopting out more pets than it kills. Chavez's long-term goal: to be able to brag that Albuquerque is a city where all animals that are suited for adoption find homes. "We can't be a complete city as long as we euthanize animals," he says." Answer: That's actually kind of a neat idea.. the requiring the fee to keep your animal intact. Here in Ottawa, all animals to leave the Ottawa Humane Society are microchipped and fixed. Same in the Gatineau SPCA. Here we have an interesting program where if an animal spends long enough in one shelter it is transferred to a new shelter to try to increase the odds it will be adopted. When I adopted my first dog, I have to fill out a rather lengthy questionaire, provide information about my living conditions and how much I knew about the breed type I was adopting and had to have everybody I live with come in to meet the dog before I was allowed to bring her home. Answer: This law is a DISASTER for responsible breeders and owners. HEART is BAD FOR DOGS, and BAD FOR DOG OWNERS!!! Now there is a proposal for a STATE WIDE mandatory spay neuter law in NM. How many think THAT is a good idea???? :yikes: The best idea is to cut back on BYB's and puppy mills and John Q Public who didnt get his mutt fixed and she ends up being bred. I think education is the best way to go, although I am sure like everyone else's city, our city has a very tight budget and they would rather spend it on something other than Animal education. Although if they did in a couple years I think the numbers of euthanized animals would dramatically decrease. Here is a good article about how Albequerkie (sp? Know I spelled that wrong) has cut back on it's pet over population, I am not sure where she got this article from but I am betting I could find the site if need be: "Cracking Down on Pet Owners Albuquerque and a growing number of cities are passing tough new measures aimed at ending euthanasia in animal shelters. Owners are even being forced to clean up after their dog in their own backyard By NANCY HARBERT/ALBUQUERQUE SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Posted Tuesday, Jan. 02, 2007 For the past two years, Martin Chavez, mayor of Albuquerque, has brought his best friend to work every day. His friend doesn't talk, but he's often the first to shake visitors' hands. Dukes, Chavez's two-year-old floppy-eared mutt, is around not just for the company, but as a way to bring attention to the mayor's commitment to reduce the city's exploding unwanted animal population. When he was re-elected to a third term in 2005, Chavez made a promise to end euthanasia at the city's animal shelters. He had already been meeting daily with City Councilor Sally Mayer and regularly with breeders and groomers across the city to come up with an animal ordinance that would improve the way the city treats its dogs and cats and increase the number of adoptions. At the time, the city was euthanizing more than 1,000 pets a month. The law went into effect in October and it follows a nationwide trend of get-tough approaches to pet overpopulation. In Albuquerque, all cats and dogs older than six months must be microchipped and sterilized, unless owners pay an annual fee of $150 to keep their dogs able to reproduce — and another $150 for every new litter. Dogs can be restrained by a chain for only one hour every day, and people who want to have more than four dogs must obtain an additional permit. There is even a provision in the new law that requires dog owners to clean up after their pets in their own yards every week. While authorities won't be checking backyards for hardened poop, Chavez says that additional animal control officers have been hired, to make sure any animals they pick up have been neutered or spayed. Lisa Peterson, a spokesperson for the American Kennel Club, considers the Albuquerque ordinance draconian, but acknowledges it is part of a nationwide trend. Ordinances similar to Albuquerque's have been passed or are being considered by 138 local communities, along with many states. She is concerned that the new laws punish responsible pet owners and breeders, and could even jeopardize the existence of some breeds. In Denver, for example, pitbulls are outlawed completely. This has forced owners to flee the city or go underground, where they keep their dogs behind closed shades and take them out only under the cloak of darkness. In 2006 alone, more than 800 of the dogs known for their ferocity have been rounded up in Denver, most of them destroyed. Often, these laws follow vicious, sometimes deadly, dog attacks and are driven by a concern for public safety. They are also a response to overwhelming numbers of feral cats and puppy litters and reflect a desire to provide them more humane conditions. In Albuquerque, for example, 30,000 animals are brought to the city's two shelters every year. And that doesn't include animals that pass through private shelters and rescue networks. It's a grassroots phenomenon, says David Favre, a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law, who has studied animal rights laws for 20 years. Feral cats, spaying and neutering, local shelters — these are all local problems that don't get the ear of folks at the federal and state levels. "It is not unlike the environmental movement when I was in law school. Animal welfare is a growing social interest." It's too soon to tell how effective these laws will be. "We're in the experimentation phase," Favre says. "We're taking the American approach of trying a hundred different things and then seeing what works best in 10 years." The Denver ordinance has survived court challenge, but earlier this year a Toledo, Ohio, ordinance that allowed only one pitbull per household was struck down by an appellate court, which said the law was unreasonable and discriminatory. To bring even more attention to the issue in Albuquerque, Mayor Chavez now brings a selection of shelter pets to news conferences, department meetings and public appearances. In most cases, the pets find new homes on the spot. The city's euthanasia rate has been cut in half, and Albuquerque is now adopting out more pets than it kills. Chavez's long-term goal: to be able to brag that Albuquerque is a city where all animals that are suited for adoption find homes. "We can't be a complete city as long as we euthanize animals," he says." Answer: I think one very big issue, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is the will-nilly nature of the rescue community. Every animal rescue professional and politician is hot to regulate pet owners, but I see nothing about standardizing requirements for shelters and rescues. This is a huge issue, though, since people who get turned down at a shelter which screens responsibly often just drive down the road to a shelter which doesn't screen at all. And I'm sorry to be the one to say it, but there's also the issue of dogs who should be put down, not adopted out. One major way of cutting down on the overpopulation problem is to stop the revolving door for dogs who are not going to find a forever home in this lifetime. Too many shelters like to screen human applicants with rigor while posting Petfinder ads that read like bad jokes: Kiko is a 130lb Akita/Dane mix who doesn't trust men; she's recovering from a bad case of mange, made more dificult to treat because she's afraid of being touched. She would really be best as an only pet, because she gets jealous easily. Answer: That's actually kind of a neat idea.. the requiring the fee to keep your animal intact. Here in Ottawa, all animals to leave the Ottawa Humane Society are microchipped and fixed. Same in the Gatineau SPCA. Here we have an interesting program where if an animal spends long enough in one shelter it is transferred to a new shelter to try to increase the odds it will be adopted. When I adopted my first dog, I have to fill out a rather lengthy questionaire, provide information about my living conditions and how much I knew about the breed type I was adopting and had to have everybody I live with come in to meet the dog before I was allowed to bring her home. I also think it is an excellent idea. If someone wants to breed an animal, let them show that they have some financial responsibility before they start having litters of potentially unwanted dogs. Answer: Our shelter is required (by law) to sterilize the animal before it leaves the facility. Surprisingly it is a state law. (although the rest of our animal laws are crap) Yes, I do think that show quality dogs should be excluded from the mandatory spay/neuter, but I like to believe most responsible breeders would willingly pay to make sure their breed isnt being bought & bred by BYB and puppy mills. I guess it can get pretty expensive if you have a good sized kennel set up. They euthanize about 50 animals a week here (usually more), something HAS to be done. The bad part is our lawmakers could care less. Our town only has a population of 250,000 people, and they euthanize that many adoptable animals a week. It is sick. I wish our mayor cared enough to do this: "To bring even more attention to the issue in Albuquerque, Mayor Chavez now brings a selection of shelter pets to news conferences, department meetings and public appearances. In most cases, the pets find new homes on the spot." I dont know what HEART is?? I understand why good breeders wouldnt like the proposal, but what do you do when so many animals are killed every week? You have to do something to stop it. Mandatory spay/neuter for non show quality pets is all I can think of. I wonder if it is $150 per unsterilized pet or $150 to have unsterilized animals. They have already upped the liscense fee here. It is $10 if you have a sterilized pet and $40 if it is unsterilized. You would think that would cut back on breeding but if you think about it an irresponsible person isnt going to get their dog liscensed anyway. Answer: Here we have an interesting program where if an animal spends long enough in one shelter it is transferred to a new shelter to try to increase the odds it will be adopted. . That is awesome. I wish we could do that. |
|