|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 30, 2008 12:28:01 GMT -5
No one can deny that there are TOO MANY PIT BULLS. No one can deny that something needs to be done to stop indescriminate breeding. But what can be done? What SHOULD be done?
Let's discuss!
|
|
|
|
Post by windowdog on Apr 30, 2008 13:40:21 GMT -5
Mandatory breeder licensing seems a no brainer to me. Charge a fee to dog breeders that the state then devotes to shelter/fix/destruction purposes. At the very least the breeders should have to bear the financial burden of their over-production.
If you give away dogs you don't need a license but if you charge $1 or more you need to pay a hefty sum to the state to cover the costs of your activities. Breeders with gross revenue over $2k or more get bumped to a higher bracket with even higher fees.
There would need to be an accompanying large fine for non compliance. I know a lot of people would evade the law but it would at least discourage medium sized back yard breeders.
We tax cigarettes under the rational that smoking related cancer patients are a burden to the public health system. It seems that rational fits perfectly here.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 30, 2008 14:13:31 GMT -5
I am basically opposed to mandatory s/n as well as breeder licensing. I admit to being swayed at this point in time towards some kind of regulation but not really knowing WHAT the answer would be. I am hoping this thread will prove to be useful in coming up with some workable plans for helping our breed. Perhaps motivating some of us on a grassroots level in our own towns.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullymommy25 on Apr 30, 2008 21:28:12 GMT -5
I am DEFINATELY opposed to mandatory spay/neuter. Some of us have no set goal to breed a particular dog AND are willing to do everything possible to prevent pregnancy, but wish to get into showing, or just don't want to alter their dog. I have never owned an altered dog and I must admit that while I encourage everyone else to do it, I don't know if I would be able to have an ovariohysterectomy done without a health reason. At the same time, I know that I view my dog as my responsibility and my best friend, NOT an asset (well an emotional asset, not a financial one), but many people do. Many people also don't care about letting their dogs roam. Still, I would be very set against someone telling me that I must surgically alter my dog.
Also, it would be VERY bad for breeding. The thing is, at 14 months old and especially at 6 months old, NO ONE can tell if a dog should be bred! We can't tell this until after age 2, so how exactly would these laws work?
I am totally in favor of a breeder registration program RUN BY DOG PEOPLE... the state really has no care for us and will bungle any breeder program up the way it does everything else. There would have to be some enforcement, though. Breeders would do what's recommened, mentoring somehow for a few years while learning about the breed, show proof that all dogs are health certified with CERF and OFA or PennHip, etc... But NO type of breed rules or quotas on how many or how few dogs can be created. Just something to show that a breeder is complying with ethical rules as put forth by a committee of knowledgable folks, and severe penalties for BYB. Accidental litters cannot be sold for anything more than an adoption fee to help recover costs (this would discourage people who would refuse to care for pups if they didn't make up for it financially). And I think breeders should be required as part of the lisence to volunteer money or time to shelters. I think it's all about making sure that breeders do the right thing by the dogs and forcing the bad ones out of business.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy4pits on May 1, 2008 14:38:43 GMT -5
I OPPOSE the Mandatory Spay and Neuter.. In the city of Dallas they have a proposed dog ordinance that is a joke.
They want to Mandatory Spay/Neuter, Breeders Permit, limit the number of animals in your household and some other ones.
City of Dallas doesn't enforce the laws they have now and they want to add more..
The Breeders Permit they want to charge 500.00 for each dog and Breeders Permit will be given only in certain areas..
If you don't want your dog fix he/she has to be associated in a club. Well there is only one Canine club out there that they are letting it be acceptable and it the AKC.
So if you have your do already registered with ADBA, UKC or any other as an American Pit Bull Terrier- well guess what AKC doesn't recognize that. Now what do you do?????
This all sounds like Breed Specific if you ask me!!
Its my choice if I want my dogs fix, I live in a free country but its starting to sound like a communist country everything lately is being mandatory..
Now also on the Spay & Neuter- they say that they have promotions and low cost, well if you do a search on the internet you will find them, but what about the people who don't have access to the internet?
They want to mandate but don't want to help so there can be a control of over populated animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 1, 2008 15:19:28 GMT -5
A lot of people don't realize that with mandatory s/n or breeder licensing: 1) Puppymillers will have a field day because they will easily be able to afford the licensing fees 2) Lots of responsible breeders will most likely cease breeding because the burdon the fees impose will be too great 3) Enforcement would be difficult I wish the dog world would police its own and the major breed clubs and registries for this breed could be doing a LOT more (withholding papers on pups coming from un-health tested parents, for instance), but if the orgs all enforced new policies meant to be quality control, guess what? Certain factions would just create their own new clubs without the rules and regulations. Perhaps its possible to write a bill that would somehow target the irresponsible without infringing upon the rights of everyone else. There's this bill - perhaps a step in the right direction? : www.cahealthypets.com/ca-healthy-pets-ab-1634-home.phpThoughts? I admit to being squimish about early s/n........ |
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on May 8, 2008 16:41:25 GMT -5
Does anyone know if enforcement through business laws has been tried anywhere? Like required tracking of litters sold, etc.? I wonder if exploring some of these aspects would be helpful.
I am not in favor of mandatory S/N, but I am in favor of high licensing fees for intact dogs, using the additional funding to actually ENFORCE licensing, animal control, and cruelty laws, in addition to funding low cost S/N and education. Here in PA, dog licenses run $6 for an altered dog and $8 for an intact dog. Commercial kennels (puppymills) are exempt. How does that encourage anyone to alter their pets, especially since it is so easy to get away with not licensing at all?
I don't think puppymills will have a field day with increased licensing fees and breeder permits if they are no longer exempt from the payments. These people spend so little on care for the dogs that a $50-100 license per dog would be at least a small burden, considering many facilities house hundreds of dogs. In PA if you have over 25 dogs on your property in a year's time, you need a kennel license. I think the fees for these licenses should also be increased, with non-profits exempt.
As for responsible breeders - does $50-100 really amount to all that much compared to show and event fees, x-rays, blood tests, vaccines, etc.?
I do agree with Mary that major registries should be doing a lot more. Don't many of the European breed clubs withhold registration of the puppies unless the parents have been evaluated?
I am not the least bit squeamish about pediatric S/N, however, you cannot evaluate a show dog or potential breeding stock at that young of an age. There needs to be some way for a registered dog to remain intact to be shown/worked/etc. and be evaluated prior to being altered.
|
|
|
|
Post by kayers76 on May 8, 2008 21:59:43 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me why a S/N dog cannot compete in UKC, etc events. I don't understand what difference it makes. My dog is a rescued non-papered neutered male so I am out of luck all around but I am curious about the rationale for this.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 9, 2008 13:26:56 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me why a S/N dog cannot compete in UKC, etc events. I don't understand what difference it makes. My dog is a rescued non-papered neutered male so I am out of luck all around but I am curious about the rationale for this. Thanks! Neutered dogs cannot compete in conformation because in theory conformation is meant to be judging breeding stock. It's kind of 'pointless' to show dogs that cannot be bred. Neutered dogs can compete in obedience, etc, tho. And if you have a purebred dog that is a rescue, you can apply for a special registration (ILP in the AKC, or LPR with UKC) and can then participate in various events with your dog. |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 9, 2008 13:39:15 GMT -5
Upping the fees for intact animals is not a bad idea, but think of the poor hobbyist who has 3 or 4 or 6 dogs that they show and rarely if ever breed. $600 a year to license your dogs? Ouch! Again it goes back to punishing people who aren't the problem.
I'm thinking the way to go is to focus on the sale (business) side of things, and not so much fees but requirements that protect the buyer (and ultimately the pups). Even the most basic of requirements could put a lot of people out of business. Imagine if there were laws that stated there have to be health guarentees on pups sold, spay/neuter contracts, microchipping in the breeders' names', etc? Violators could be fined, and the fines could go towards enforcing the laws. Responsible breeders do this anyway, so no biggy there. All these dogs ending up in shelters could be scanned and traced back to the breeder.
This stuff could apply to people who sell dogs to the public, period (i.e. place ads, have websites advertising pups for sale, etc).
In the mean time, maybe at least slightly raise the fees for intact dogs, put the extra money towards enforcement and s/n education. Also bring awareness to the fact that breeding dogs isn't something you 'just do', there are rules and regulations governing the practice.
I'm really sick of seeing all these idiots pumping out pups - I'm not yet convinced that more laws are the way to go, but it can't be ignored that these people are making money by producing and selling living, breathing creatures; someone's gotta do some sort of regulating, here.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 9, 2008 13:45:59 GMT -5
Licensing scares me because just because something is licensed doesn't mean it is being handled/done the right way. Licensing in and of itself won't do much to stop the puppymillers and commerical-breeder types. Anyone with the $$ could get a license and breed dogs. Meanwhile, if you are one of those breeders breeding 2, 5 or more litters a year and selling dogs for $1000+ a pop, paying a few hundred or even a grand a year to stay in business won't mean much. This sort of monetary-based regulation puts real burdon on people who aren't a problem.
But if being 'licensed' means you are doing certain things like guarenteeing health, microchipping, and in general being responsible and ethical, etc., we might have something here. This could also help dissuade the casual, backyard breeder, who breeds a little here and there. As soon as you enter the world of 'selling your dogs to the public', you are required by law to do certain things, and simply forking over money won't be good enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on May 14, 2008 13:14:57 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me why a S/N dog cannot compete in UKC, etc events. I don't understand what difference it makes. My dog is a rescued non-papered neutered male so I am out of luck all around but I am curious about the rationale for this. Thanks! Neutered dogs cannot compete in conformation because in theory conformation is meant to be judging breeding stock. It's kind of 'pointless' to show dogs that cannot be bred. Neutered dogs can compete in obedience, etc, tho. And if you have a purebred dog that is a rescue, you can apply for a special registration (ILP in the AKC, or LPR with UKC) and can then participate in various events with your dog. The CFA and other cat show organizations have actually gotten with the times and have separate conformation classes for altered cats. In this day and age, there are a lot of people who just show for fun, not because they want to breed. I think the registries are making a big mistake by not allowing altered dogs to compete. They could get a ton more participation and I think it would improve public relations. Many dog people, especially shelter and rescue people, believe that the registries are only in it for the money they get from puppy registrations. They see the registries as promoting puppymills and volume breeding in general vs. quality breeding and the actual welfare of the dogs. I can't say that they are entirely wrong in this aspect. |
|
|
|
Post by windowdog on May 14, 2008 15:47:35 GMT -5
1) Puppymillers will have a field day because they will easily be able to afford the licensing fees 2) Lots of responsible breeders will most likely cease breeding because the burdon the fees impose will be too great That is a really good point I hadn't thought of. Even if the registries somehow banned all puppy mills from being certified pure breeds, that wouldn't effect the pet trade really. If a puppy looks like a dalmatian and has the spots then people are usually willing to believe a shop owner or breeder that it is a purebred. I mean look at things like Labradoodles, no papers, and most you see aren't even a true new breed, they're just a first generation cross. But people think they're cute (my parent's neighbor has one and honestly they are adorable.) so they sell like crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on May 14, 2008 15:55:39 GMT -5
I don't remember where the information was listed, but I remember a statistic that backyard breeders accounted for the vast majority of surplus dogs, NOT puppymills. Each puppymill produces a lot more dogs, but there are so many more backyard breeders that it adds up to a much bigger problem.
People will buy a dog without papers, but they aren't willing to pay as much. As for the "designer dogs" craze, it's all advertising. I believe the ACA and other puppymill registries also register these so-called breeds.
PS - Labradoodles shed. A LOT. And are being surrendered to shelters in large numbers because puppy buyers with allergies were told by breeders that they were "hypoallergenic."
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 15, 2008 7:19:15 GMT -5
I believe breeders like this: muglestonspitbullfarm.com/breedings.html are a huge part of the problem, not 'puppy mills' (i.e. the commericial breedesr that sell to pet shops) per se. But breeders like this surely won't go out of business because they have to pay a few hundred bux for a license. Do you see what they are charging for these puppies????? $4000+? People are paying hundreds if not thousands for designer mutts, too. So "AKC" papers don't mean as much as they used to. |
|
|
|
Post by AmyJo27 on May 15, 2008 10:41:29 GMT -5
Ok this is kinda off the topic but it has to do with the overpopulation: Is it or would it be wrong for shelters to stop putting Pit Bull mix and just Terrier mix or some other mix instead of the "intimidating" word Pit Bull. Wouldnt that help them to get adopted?
|
|
|
|
Post by AmyJo27 on May 15, 2008 10:49:21 GMT -5
BTW: I believe that people should Spay and Neuter there dogs REGARDLESS of how careful they are going to be! Leave the breeding up to those who have experience! If they are not a licensed breeder, they should be required to spay/neuter there dogs and cats before 1 year of age! Also, I think it is ridiculous that people are now breeding mixed breeds (Labradoodles, Puggles, Cockapoos ECT) and selling them as if they were papered purebreeds! Designer Dogs are filling into shelters too! Why purposely breed a mutt when there are plenty at any shelter! I dont understand it! Also, I dont have anything to do with mutts/mixes. I own 2. I just have problems with the people who breed them!  |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 15, 2008 12:20:08 GMT -5
Ok this is kinda off the topic but it has to do with the overpopulation: Is it or would it be wrong for shelters to stop putting Pit Bull mix and just Terrier mix or some other mix instead of the "intimidating" word Pit Bull. Wouldnt that help them to get adopted? I think shelters and rescues need to be extremely open and honest with their adopters. It is the only RIGHT way to be. Hiding a dog's breed will only end in problems. Think about a family adopting a dog that they thought was just a 'Lab mix', and then having that dog attack another animal because they were ill-informed as to that dog's true nature and breed. The dog will always be a 'pit bull mix' as far as the media and BSL is concerned. It does injustice to the dog and the adopting family to mislabel or hide information. NO rescue/shelter should be adopting out Pit Bulls or PB mixes without providing at least the very BASIC of breed info to the adoptive family. JMO. |
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on May 15, 2008 13:47:05 GMT -5
I agree with Mary here. I have seen those issues occur, and at the very least the dog often gets returned to the shelter when the adopters find out. It is wonderful for shelters to introduce potential adopters to the positive side of pit bulls, but not at the risk of lying or hiding the negative side.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmyJo27 on May 16, 2008 10:56:05 GMT -5
Thats what I thought but there is a shelter in my community that is labeling APBT's that look to be purebreds as boxer-mixes, terriers cross ect. There was this red-nose APBT that looks to be a purebred and they labeled it as a chocolate lab mix, I asked them why they called it that. And the woman said it was because if they say Pit Bull people dont even give the dog a chance! I didnt really know what to say!
|
|
I look forward to learning much here