Irresponsible Ownership - the biggest problem!

[RealPitBull]

Let's get to brainstormin', folks! What can we do about irresponsible ownership? And with the breed as popular as it is, is there anything we CAN do at this point (barn door-horse already gone syndrome)?

[trent]

I like the idea of a combination with an ownership license with a background check and trainng for the owners and dogs.

[bullymommy25]

i am SOOOO against background checks. That's like saying if you've ever made a mistake, the whole world has a right to know and label you a scumbag forever. the fact is, LOTS of ex-offenders own dogs and treat them very well. And also, a whole lot of our laws are biased against the poor or certain races, or based on nonsense (such as marijuana prohibition while alcohol is legal-but this is not the forum for THAT debate!). Basically, the cards are stacked against anyone who has ever gotten in trouble for things that have NOTHING to do with animal care, and it's going WAY too far.
I think education is a great way to go, because many people are simply ignorant and don't mean to do harm. I am always wary of any government registry for dogs because of BSL.
Breeder accountability is a big deal-home checks are the best way to go, as well as contractually obligated things like no rehoming the dog to anyone but the breeder, etc...
Puppy mills should be shut down.

[trent]

I agree, i have a felony on my record, it was geared towards if the person had ever comitted a crime against an animal. I guess kinda like an animal offender data base. Or do they have something like that?

[bullymommy25]

i don't think so but that is a really good idea! you know, a lot of crimes are really petty but if they're against property you can get YEARS, but crimes against animals go nearly unpunished!! I think it tells a lot more about a person if they hurt an animal or a child than if they made a mistake that hurt only themselves or cost someone a little money!
I wonder if our politicians would ever get that much compassion to make an animal offender site!
I know there is a site where people list Do Not Adopt references about bad people who have hurt an animal in the past!

[boneyardbullies]

These are my feelings when it comes to APBT ownership....

Everyone has the right to own one. It's not my place to judge who decides to buy/adopt one, but it is my duty as a responsible APBT to hold them accountable for their actions.

1.)If your dog is not registered with a notable registry and actively participates in a 'showing' or competition, then you should spay/neuter your 'pet.' Also, making breeding kennels apply for breeder permits and making it required that animals advertised in local media outlets require the breeding permit numbers required to be in ads. The effects of this are to limit the actual number of incoming dogs that are being produced, therefore not every backyard breeder can keep adding to the problem.

2.)Alot of people do not take animal ownership serious. In Kern County, we have less than a 40% county registration rate. Our annual euthanasia is over 17,000 animals! MICROCHIPPING People!!!!! Your animal gets out? Cite the owner! That would help so much getting to the root of the problem, then you can target the neglectful owners rather than just dealing with the dogs. A big problem I see is fines do not necessarily do much, I have spoken with numerous Kern County Sheriff Officiers and only one had ever hauled a person in for a bench warrant for not paying dog fines......I am sure there are more people not paying them.

Enforce some jail time to REPEAT offenders! Make people think twice before they dump their animals in the streets, fight their dogs, not have proper housing for them.

3.)Public Education of the responsibilities of ownership. Public services and workshops that explain the details pros and cons of owning these dogs. Too many people do I hear get dogs to "teach their children" responsibilty. Children have a short attention span and quickly forget about caring for the animal and then the parents find it overwhelming and end up dumping off the animals. It's sad!


Counties and Cities around the country could benefit from implementing these programs. Containment, Accountability, and Education are the three keys to getting overpopulation and irresponsible ownership under control because they go hand and hand.


I would love to hear other people's thoughts on the subject.

[bullymommy25]

As for number 1, my dog is registered with the ADBA but I am currently in a high risk pregnancy and have put my dog's showing on a backburner. So technically, we are not "active" right now but plan to continue once things settle down. And what about seeing eye programs, or people who have working dogs (such as on ranches or farms) who are extremely talented, but are not registered? While I agree that SOMETHING must be done, compulsive sterilization does not sit well with me.
Some sort of breeder certification program would work, but the qualifications cannot just be limited to show dogs, because it assumes that conformation is the only quality worth breeding for. While I have a purebred, I think that many mixed breed dogs excel in many areas.
Also, something needs to be done about the fact that microchips are from different companies and operate on different frequencies. If a police station is reading for certain frequencies, it might miss others. There have been microchipped dogs that have been euthanized, which should be ILLEGAL. I found a lost husky the other day, and everyone told me to just take him to the shelter. If I had done that, he would have had 7 days for his family to look for him, and who knows. Instead I put out the effort to contact vets and drive around with him, and we found his owner. He could be dead now.
Something SHOULD be done about dogs getting loose. But I am very wary of government registrations, especially those that ask breed, because those are the exact tools that were used in Denver to track down and SLAUGHTER thousands of pit bulls in 2005. I think this is why 40% don't want to register. Many people do not register with the government, but their dogs are chipped and rabies vaccines can be proven.
Whatever is done needs to start with education, and control should be in the hands of dog-friendly people who can't seize the records for BSL purposes or to demand you kill or surgically alter your animal. That's just my opinion.
I know I'll hear it for this one, put there is evidence that altering animals, in the way we do it now, causes just as many health issues as it supposedly prevents. We have the technology to alter animals in a way that won't deprive them of God-given hormones, such as tubal ligation and vasectomy, or medication, but vets and owners still only consider the route of total removal of important organs and hormones produced by them. An owner should have the right to choose against this if it is against her beliefs. I think we're missing an important discussion on what ELSE can be done to prevent pet overpopulation. I have to think that with a 70% rehome/abandonment rate, it isn't just new litters, it's many pets being dumped off. What can be done to get through to people?

I believe the BIGGEST problem is, at the end of the day, many humans simply do not consider animals to be anything more than property or entertainment, and totally disposable once the animal becomes to difficult, expensive, or "annoying" to deal with. Many people are even against spending modest amounts of money on vet care or even quality food. I have no idea how these people can be reached, but I KNOW that our society is entirely too litigious and that innocent people and animals suffer behind this (again, Denver pit bulls, who died because their owners did the "responsible" thing and registered them).
I think this is the main problem.
My dog is not spayed, but she is cared for very well, protected from dangers, always supervized, lives in the home with us, and we have no plans to breed her unless she achieves top titles and is has genetic tests with good results, and even THEN there is no need, because she doesn't need to DO anything or BE anything (or earn anything) other than be herself to be loved. So I would DEEPLY resent someone coming in and telling me to open her up and take her organs out, because I feel that that is not an indicator of who is responsible to their pet.
It all boils down to who loves their animals as much as they love themselves, and who doesn't care at all.
Sorry to be so long winded!

[pitbullcowgirl1988]

The way i see it if you crack down on the group of people breeding pits for fighting and illegal purposes you would have less injured and non-placeable dogs in shelters, also educating the owners before they get the dogs would be a great idea, punish the bad owners, and not the responsible ones!

[RealPitBull]

I personally don't believe the people breeding for 'fighting and illegal activities' are the biggest problems. Backyard breeding, breeding fad-dogs on a large scale for $$$, and 'show' breeders who pump out tons of pups without concern are the biggest culprits. In the eyes of the law, these are all law-abiding citizens.

[RealPitBull]

Bump

[emilys]

hmmm.. if "ownership" is the problem, why focus on the breeders?

[RealPitBull]

Breeders own their dogs, don't they?? Letting your pups go to just anyone is as irresponsible as you can get with the breed.......it's gotta come together - owners have to be educated and responsible, as do breeders. I figure its best to hit the problem from both ends of the spectrum.

[hammer4]

Jun 16, 2008 10:45:25 GMT -5 RealPitBull said:

Breeders own their dogs, don't they?? Letting your pups go to just anyone is as irresponsible as you can get with the breed.......it's gotta come together - owners have to be educated and responsible, as do breeders. I figure its best to hit the problem from both ends of the spectrum.

I agree. I believe lack of knowledge is, and being responsible has alot to do with it. I for one researched APBT's for about 3 weeks before I decided to select the breed, but I have to admit, I wish I did a little more research re: rescued shelters for aquireing a pet.

[valliesong]

I haven't voted/responded because honestly I'm not sure what would solve the problem. I do like background checks in cases involving potential owners with a history of animal cruelty or repeated animal control violations. (Dog at large, harboring a dangerous dog, dog bites, etc.) The problem is, how would this system work, and how would it be funded?

I think I would be in favor of training of dogs/owners if it was provided low cost or free. But how would you determine what methods should be used, what should be taught, etc.? If you just teach owners, would it be a class on the dog laws existing in the state, or would you include some pet care? What would be done to encourage S/N of pets or at least to discourage breeding? Would this be infringing on "freedoms"?

Obviously if education would be required, it would be easy to put a test at the end and issue a license.

It's just such a complicated situation with so many legal ramifications that I honestly wouldn't know where to start. My inclination is always to focus on existing laws, and enforce/strengthen those. Strong leash laws with high penalties for infractions. High licensing fees for intact dogs. High fees for repeat citations of dog at large, with only one or no warnings. If your intact dog roams 3 times, third strike the dog is out and gets altered.

As mentioned in the other thread, which I believe is about breeding, the increased licensing fees for intact dogs and increased animal control penalties can be used to fund free/low cost S/N (particularly for low income individuals) and enforcement for the laws.

I also believe that owners should be charged with criminal offenses when their dog hurts or kills a human or other domestic animal, depending on the circumstances. Of course if your neighbor's cat wanders into your yard or a home invader comes into your house, you should not be held responsible. But if your dog is wandering loose and attacks someone's leashed dog, YOU should be held accountable.

[RealPitBull]

Enforcing existing laws has always been my 'answer' as well, although some laws might need to be strengthened or maybe updated. Programs at the government level, regarding basic dog care/behavior stuff (nothing controversial) might be something - mandatory, in that you couldn't get a dog license unless you passed the exam. Would that cause more people to avoid licensing their dogs? Maybe. You're right though, this is a super tough problem with no easy answers.

Just gonna keep chuggin' along with the education stuff.

[RealPitBull]

Bump.

[maryc]

I agree with much of what has already been said here. I'm not a huge fan of mandatory anything, but clearly something has to be done...duh, wasn't that a profound statement. Having said that I read this yesterday and it gave me hope.
Huntsville Alabama recently increased their minimum standards for care of animals. This is a start for making people responsible.
tinyurl.com/5wukee
Monday, November 10, 2008
By YVONNE BETOWT, Times Staff Writer,
yvonne.betowt@...

Huntsville dog owners who are negligent in their responsibilities
may find themselves in the doghouse with Animal Services.
The Huntsville City Council voted unanimously Thursday night to
amend the animal-cruelty laws on record to make them more-clear to
dog-owners, and easier for Animal Services to get a conviction.

'We are very happy', said Animal Service director Dr. Karen Sheppard.
'We have been discussing it for about three years with our staff,
officers and supervisors. We decided we wanted to raise the
minimum-standard of care for dogs in the community. Huntsville
has a good animal cruelty law, but we felt it wasn't enough,
and this will make our minimal-standards very specific'.

The newly-amended ordinance requires owners to provide pets with
a secure water-bowl or container than cannot be tipped over, and
must have appropriate food to maintain the dog's ideal weight.
Cheap food (costing less than 20 cents per pound) does not
provide good nutrition for animals.

It also requires large-enough shelter for a dog to get inside
and turn around; have a floor, doorway, four sides, a roof;
and be clean and dry.
Awnings over a porch are not considered adequate shelter.
Anyone not providing proper shelter for a dog will have
24 hours to do so.

Any dog on a chain must have at least 10 feet of movement that
allows the dog to stay free of being tangled or wrapped around
items in the dog's area. Runners, which can be purchased at pet
stores or places such as Home Depot and Lowe's, are encouraged
for use instead of chains, said Sheppard.

A dog's collar cannot be chain or metal.
'We advise using a strong nylon, plastic or leather collar',
said Sheppard.
The ordinance now requires dogs be free of intestinal parasites,
skin parasites (fleas and mites) and heartworms. 'If we find
an animal has parasites, we will inquire about what type of
treatment they are getting', said Sheppard. 'If they don't
have any proof, we will ask them to get a fecal sample from a
veterinarian'.

Sheppard said the updated law is 'not to create a hardship'
on owners, but to 'improve the quality of a dog's life'.

Animal Services Center Supervisor Mike Taylor has a warning for dog
owners who do not comply with the new law, that took effect
immediately:
'We will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law',
said Taylor. 'We're coming after you.'
Sheppard is grateful to the City Council members for supporting
animal welfare. 'The council has been so supportive', she said.
'They all care about animals and their welfare.'
Sheppard said the way a society cares about it's animals is
indicative of how it treats its citizens. 'When animals are
treated well, people will be treated well, too', she said.

© 2008 The Huntsville Times

Recently I see more of a problem with people who have gone the complete opposite of they're all killers to believing that dog aggression is a myth and don't take it seriously at all. I also think early education is a must. When I was going with Marthina and Leo to the school for kids who are at risk, it really occurred to me that although it was important to have the boys in the class see the dogs as a living breathing caring being who didn't need to defend their machismo by fighting, it was the girls in the class who seemed completely oblivious to anything we were saying and refused to interact at all. How often do we hear that the wife/gf/mother won't let the dog in the house, they're dirty, they smell, they'll destroy the house.

OK, well, I've written a small novel here and like everyone else, I'm at a loss as to what is the best solution.

Mary C

[RealPitBull]

Mary,

That info on the new legistlation in Huntsville was really good; how uplifting to read something like that. I think that is a good example of reasonable, sound law (at least, based on the article). If I was going to change anything, I would have liked the law to exclude slip collars from the disallowed list. The standards required for dogs in so many areas are pitiful.
This sounds like a really good (big) step in the right direction.

I also wish cops would be allowed to ticket people on the spot who have their dogs running off leash.

Interesting about the girls at the school.....hmmm........