|
Post by Aussienot on Feb 6, 2004 19:35:20 GMT -5
I thought it would be good to start a discussion on a topic raised in the "Shelter Dogs" thread:
How to stop so many unwanted dogs going into shelters. If we work at the top end of the funnel and reduce the number of unwated dogs going into the system, maybe the heartbreaking choices on how to deal with the problem will be easier.
In New South Wales (the state I live in) we have been operating under the NSW Companion Animals Act for almost 4 years now. The RSPCA developed with it and pushed it through with the support of a lot of rescue organisations.
Essentially, there are three main parts to it - the chip, the register and the fee.
1) Your dog or cat must be microchiped by 12 weeks of age.
2) The microchip details must be recorded with ownership details on the state Lifetime Register by 6 months of age.
3) The Lifetime fee that you pay when you join the register depends on whether or not your dog is desexed. (Currently it's $40 for desexed animals and $100 for entire).
To register an entire dog you also pay $40 per year for membership in the NSW Canine Council and agree to abide by their breeding regulations. (Cat owners don't have to pay an on-going yearly fee.)
You must maintain current contact details with the Lifetime Register if you move, if you sell the dog, or if it dies. You can update your details for no charge with any RSPCA, at most vets and pet shops, or directly with the register. If you later desex your dog, you don't have to maintain the Canine Council membership but you don't get a refund on the lifetime fee.
There are fines in place for non-compliance - $500 if your dog is not chipped, $70 if he's not on the Register or your details are not current; and $500 for not maintaining the Canine Council membership if your dog is not desexed.
There are exceptions made for police dogs, working stock dogs, racing greyhounds, seeing eye and service dogs, that sort of thing.
Unchiped dogs that are picked up can be held for as little as 7 days before being put down, but chipped dogs must be held for a minimum of 14 days while they try to contact you.
Of course it was hugely unpopular when it was introduced and I can see some problems with it - "facist state", "government interference in private lives", "will put breeders out of business", "unfair to low income" "privacy invasion" among the main arguements.
And I quite honestly don't know how much compliance there is apart from responsible owners and breeders who are not the problem anyway. It's not like there are compliance police running around, and so it really only comes to light if the RSPCA happens to pick up your dog.
But there has been a drop in the number of dogs going into RSPCA shelters - around 70,000 dogs and cats were lost, or abandoned or surrendered last year. That's down about 10,000 from the year before it came into affect. So that's one idea. It kind of a safety net, but it's got some big holes, like the one Finn fell through.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Feb 6, 2004 21:12:16 GMT -5
Boy, I bet he's happy you were there to catch him ;D! It's definetely a start, I think if we start attaching a higher cost to owning these animals, then perhaps people won't be so quick to dispose of them. But I can also see some serious flaws, the first one being who's going to police and enforce all this? I'm starting to think the Germans have it right with the VBG system, regulating breeders within an inch of their lives, overseeing everything from breed knowledge to training, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Feb 7, 2004 8:48:54 GMT -5
I think that's a great start. I especially like the part about agreeing to breeding regulations. But I didn't see a penalty for noncompliance. It should be hefty enough to be a deterrent to irresponsible breeding. I think that is where the main problem lies. That is why these dogs are genetic freaks. And it isn't just the puppy mill. Adding to the problem are the so called responsible breeders who breed and breed and breed until they get that perfect blue poodle. But how would an inspection tell if that is what they are breeding for? I am going off a bit on a tangent but I think that if breeding was heavily regulated we would see a sharper decline in shelter dogs. All dogs chipped should have the name of the breeder if there is one. That way if there is a problem, an inspection would be in order. Ha! I bet that would make them all more careful about what they breed and also who they sell their dogs too. And if you want to make money by using interstate commerce, which breeders do, then you forfeit your right to privacy to the states more compelling interest. I don't know why this is not regulated. The only reason must be that the lawmakers have no idea that this is a problem, there isn't money and Peta has made such an ass of itself that not many people take animal rights seriously enough to do anything meaningful about it.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Feb 7, 2004 10:41:32 GMT -5
I saw this great special on public televison the other day. They were talking about how pure breds are a man made contruct that dates back to victorian times and has its roots in eugenics.
The presenter was arguing that the whole crux of unwanted animals is our facination with pure blood and the quest for the all mighty dollar.
He argued that to truly solve the problem of unwanted pets - we need to breed for temperment and suitabilty for companionship and NOT for looks.
He wasn't really saying that prue breds are bad - but just that focusing on looks is the problem. He gave a family with a siberian huskey for an example. The dog paced and paced and would not relax indoors and had a constant need for escape. The trainer said this dog is not sick or bad....this dog is in the wrong situation - but the people got him cause they liked the way he looked.
Just food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Feb 7, 2004 15:14:07 GMT -5
He argued that to truly solve the problem of unwanted pets - we need to breed for temperment and suitabilty for companionship and NOT for looks. He wasn't really saying that prue breds are bad - but just that focusing on looks is the problem. He gave a family with a siberian huskey for an example. The dog paced and paced and would not relax indoors and had a constant need for escape. The trainer said this dog is not sick or bad....this dog is in the wrong situation - but the people got him cause they liked the way he looked. Just food for thought. Thats actually a really great thought Amyjo. I agree with it whole heartedly. And also like you said before how do you make it easy and fair enough for shelters and rescuers to continue their work? That was a good point as well. I'd hate to see that become a problem. I'm still thinking on this one. I still think the puppymills will put a big dent in the problem. Compared to a breeder the ratio is a lot higher. If we got rid of the puppymills and somehow regulated the breeders...hmmm
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Feb 7, 2004 15:15:12 GMT -5
The problem I see with the Gov't starting to *regulate* anything, is that the law abiding people are the ones who always end up paying, and paying and paying, while the dishonest get away w/out having to do it, or else as I think Nicki mentioned, the fine for not complying isn't stiff enough if enforced at all, so there isn't enough incentive to stop it.
Case in point. The state of Mt. has all sorts of fees and regulations on Licensed Outfitters that they have to pay each year in order to keep their business going. It all takes a big chunk out of the profits.
The problem is, that there are *bootlegger* Outfitter's who take *friends and relatives* on these hunting trips and, by law, they don't have to pay these fees or abide by the regulations, because they are not licensed outfitter's. When we were in the business everyone knew who these bootlegger outfitter's were, but nothing was ever done about them.
As Outfitter's we had to build corrals for our stock, and maintain them, but in the fall when we would come in to our *camp site*, that we paid a huge fee for, the corrals would be in disrepair etc. from John Q public coming in during the *off season* (summer) and using our corrals and camp area. Most of the time trees had been cut for firewood and the area would be strewn with garbage, yet they did not have to pay any kind of *fee* to use our campsites/corrals.
What could us Licensed Outfitter's do about it? Absolutely nothing, except get out of the business if we didn't like it.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 7, 2004 15:50:16 GMT -5
This is such a tough issue. I agree with Loey about government regulated anything. Laws of course when drawn up are with the intention of solving and preventing a problem but like she said the ones that do abide are usually the ones that pay the biggest price. I think stronger fines because the majority of people who are in the puppy mill biz do it for the cash and that would hit them right in the wallet. Then maybe have like a 3 strikes rule. If you get fined 3 times for a violation you are not allowed to have breeding stock again. I think that it should be mandatory that all dogs be altered unless you have a permit for breeding. These breeders can then be monitered by the Ag Dept just like dairy farms. Yes there can be somethings that are missed but I grew up on a Grade A Dairy Farm, these guys left no stone unturned. There is so much that needs to be done but exactly where to start and with whom is a big question. I agree PETA is not helping they think they are but they are not. Most people think all groups that sympathize with animals are nutso's When you have some groups show boating to get an opinion across the whole intention of why the group was started falls to the wayside.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 7, 2004 15:59:59 GMT -5
I just thought of another thing to. When I watch these dog shows I see everything about perfection. It's like with women who want that perfect body some will do anything to get it even if it hurts them somewhere down the line. Society has placed such pressure on perfection that the same thing is true with breeders. Sure that dog might look "Perfect" for the breed but the judges dont live with these dogs. A perfect specimine can also be a total FREAK out of the ring. When I showed my horses I never went into confirmation classes I always went into the ones that showed off what the horse could do not what the horse looked like. Now I am not condeming dog shows but it just seems like so much to live up to for the dogs. I know most of those breeders are reputable but still it does leave room for comment.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Feb 7, 2004 16:02:45 GMT -5
I saw that Nova special as well, thought it was interesting. But when Serpell made that crack about breeding for temperment only, it gave me chills. That statement was very reminiscent of Sternberg's quote of importing dogs from the South and breeding them to other mixed breeds just for temperment . Dog breeders should be covered under the USDA Livestock Act, there is no reason for those animals to be treated worse than the cattle and poultry ranches in this country, which means licensing, inspections, proper sanitary procedures, so many heads per capita acreage, etc. And as for that Husky, those people lived in Philly proper I bet, nice yuppies who probably didn't have a clue to the breed traits when they bought him (like the need for escape, haven't met one yet that wants to stay put ), and probably not enough time to take him to Fairmont Park for enough excercise. So I also suggest that all breeders inform people of breed traits BEFORE allowing them to purchase a pup
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Feb 7, 2004 16:05:32 GMT -5
And PETA can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned . I'm all for animal rights, but when you start to put them above human rights (like the right to LIVE ), then I have a real problem, and I consider them to be no better than terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 7, 2004 16:13:32 GMT -5
Laura you have it all summed up in a nutshell. I remember the regular inspections we went through on the dariy farm, and also the ones that other farmers who raised chickens, goats, pigs all had to go through. We also had to supply breeding records. I don't understand why it is not that way with dogs. I think there are some really good breeders out there but their numbers are down compared with the bad ones. I agree with you on PETA also they are nuts along with a few other groups I have dealt with in the past. When human life is less important and takes a back seat to animal rights there is something very wrong with that picture.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Feb 7, 2004 18:35:04 GMT -5
Why does Sternberg want to bring dogs in from the south?
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Feb 7, 2004 22:12:58 GMT -5
She claims that the South has a larger population of hound breeds that are better suited for pets as they have better temperments . She has also been heard to say that she would like to breed dogs from a mix of different breeds to achieve the perfect temperment. I have never heard of such outrageous nonsense in my life if this is anywhere near true .
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Feb 8, 2004 14:14:43 GMT -5
Hmmmmmm.....Hounds make good pets? We've had hounds. Beagle's and Foxhounds (Black & Tan). Loved the Black and Tan, very gentle, but not the brightest bulb in the pack as far as obedience goes. None of the hound breeds are known for their ability to excel at ob work. Then there is the Afghan *hound* too, of course. My niece had two of those. Holy cow! The family was afraid to go there to visit, because they wanted to rip you apart!
Yes, I know...you can have this in any breed, but I disagree with SS that hounds make good pets...unless you just want a dog that will lie on the couch all day, because it's tired from running off on you and has been gone all night...or two days or a week!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 8, 2004 16:11:57 GMT -5
We had several hounds come in and yes they are very sweet, in fact my favorite was a Walker Hound. She was so gentle, but not much in the brains department. Maybe what this woman is trying to do is breed sweet good natured DUMB dogs. Those Afgans are another subject. Very pretty dogs but one of the worst tempermants even with the family. I have to say I would take a Pit over an Afgan anyday.
|
|